DADT Repeal

[Guy]

It's about time. It has been proven over and over again that permitting gays to serve has no negative effect on the military, so why discriminate?

What do you guys think?

[Takaram]

Can't express how happy this makes me.

[Eist]

I'm happy that it has finally gone through, but am disappointed (again) in Obama and others in stalling and tip-toeing around the issue.
This is not that different from when the US abolished segregation, specifically Brown vs. Board of Education, where Eisenhower didn't ask for more time, or avoid the issue, he sent the freaking military in to enforce it. I see some very clear differences between these two presidents.

Next up: same-sex marriage!

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

I'm very happy for this. Anyone willing to serve their country should be able to do so without having to hide their sexual orientation. Honestly, I'd given up hope that this would pass under Obama's leadership and that we'd have to wait for the courts to strike it down.

Gay marriage, I think, is going to be a much harder fight, and one that will only be decided by the courts. (As opposed to Congress.)

[Magthere]

Dec 19, 2010 19:18:59 GMT -5 Eist said:

I'm happy that it has finally gone through, but am disappointed (again) in Obama and others in stalling and tip-toeing around the issue.
This is not that different from when the US abolished segregation, specifically Brown vs. Board of Education, where Eisenhower didn't ask for more time, or avoid the issue, he sent the freaking military in to enforce it. I see some very clear differences between these two presidents.

Next up: same-sex marriage!

Obama wasn't tiptoeing around the issue, he just wanted the change to come via congress that way the changes could come gradually and thus be more stable than a court ordered end to it, he wanted DADT repealed, it was just the method it was done. Anyway I'm happy it's been repealed

[Guy]

The military wants time, the military will get more time.

[Anime Daisuki]

I'm for it. Congrats to them. But call me selfish or whatever you want, there are other issues that are more important to me, like reforming immigration, social security, reducing military obligations abroad, or getting the economy up again.

Granted, he needed to please the liberals after he failed them on the HC public-option and the latest flip-flop on taxes, still, I wished he had picked another fight that would have benefited more people, like fixing immigration.

[Eist]

Dec 20, 2010 0:05:21 GMT -5 Magthere said:

Dec 19, 2010 19:18:59 GMT -5 Eist said:

I'm happy that it has finally gone through, but am disappointed (again) in Obama and others in stalling and tip-toeing around the issue.
This is not that different from when the US abolished segregation, specifically Brown vs. Board of Education, where Eisenhower didn't ask for more time, or avoid the issue, he sent the freaking military in to enforce it. I see some very clear differences between these two presidents.

Next up: same-sex marriage!

Obama wasn't tiptoeing around the issue, he just wanted the change to come via congress that way the changes could come gradually and thus be more stable than a court ordered end to it, he wanted DADT repealed, it was just the method it was done. Anyway I'm happy it's been repealed

I agree to an extent. When the court allowed the Pentagon to continue the ban temporarily, as Obama said the military needed more time, it only added confusion and really put the repeal of DADT in jeopardy. I believe he should've been much more forceful in implementing the repeal. But I too am glad it was a legislative rather than a judicial overturn.

Dec 20, 2010 2:55:54 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

I'm for it. Congrats to them. But call me selfish or whatever you want, there are other issues that are more important to me, like reforming immigration, social security, reducing military obligations abroad, or getting the economy up again.

Definitely, but when a judge rules DADT as unconstitutional.. some battles are easier than others.

(modified to add second quote)

[Enigmatic]

I never saw much of a point to don't ask don't tell. If a person can do the job they should be allowed to do it regardless of other factors. However, this doesn't solve a lot of things. There are still going to be issues with sexuality in the military. I'd like to say that all of our servicemen and women would be mature about this issue, but unfortunate I don't see that being the case. There will still be hazing and abuse and what not. People are and always will be cruel.

Furthermore, I agree with Anime. I think there were and are more important concerns. DADT is unfortunate and downright wrong in many respects, but homosexuals could still serve and serve with distinction. I suppose one could make the argument of taking care of the small things first, but I'd certainly like to see a little more effort put in to immigration reform, the economy, etc.

[Guy]

Ha! It is in the interest of every single Republican to not fix the economy.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

Dec 20, 2010 15:41:25 GMT -5 Guy said:

Ha! It is in the interest of every single Republican to not fix the economy.

At least until 2014.

[Eist]

Dec 20, 2010 15:41:25 GMT -5 Guy said:

Ha! It is in the interest of every single Republican to not fix the economy.

Even I'm not that cynical!

[Woonsocket]

I used to agree, but the partisanship on the Hill right now is way beyond reasonableness. Makes actual governance very difficult if not impossible. And yet we keep voting them in.

[Mike the Progressive]

I'm glad it happened. But I also think the DOD needs to be cautious in how it proceeds with integration.

[Bad Infinitum]

Dec 20, 2010 14:30:26 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

I never saw much of a point to don't ask don't tell. If a person can do the job they should be allowed to do it regardless of other factors.

This.

[Guy]

Devil's advocate:

But repealing it would distract soldiers and reduce unit moral.

[Mike the Progressive]

True. The problem is that though 70% of the military supports the repeal, it boils down to only 49% of the Army and 35% (give or take 5%) of the Marines supporting it. Both of which are the primary fighting force, not the air force and the navy.

[Eist]

Dec 26, 2010 15:22:46 GMT -5 Mike the Progressive said:

True. The problem is that though 70% of the military supports the repeal, it boils down to only 49% of the Army and 35% (give or take 5%) of the Marines supporting it. Both of which are the primary fighting force, not the air force and the navy.

But the fact remains that it is discriminatory and downright bigotry to continue it. I can assure you the people will get over it, and they will be forced to, as the US crawls into the 21st century.

[Mike the Progressive]

Dec 26, 2010 15:51:07 GMT -5 Eist said:

Dec 26, 2010 15:22:46 GMT -5 Mike the Progressive said:

True. The problem is that though 70% of the military supports the repeal, it boils down to only 49% of the Army and 35% (give or take 5%) of the Marines supporting it. Both of which are the primary fighting force, not the air force and the navy.

But the fact remains that it is discriminatory and downright bigotry to continue it. I can assure you the people will get over it, and they will be forced to, as the US crawls into the 21st century.

I do agree that ideals and principles are important, but they should be practical and realistic.

That being said, what I liked about this bill is that it allows the DOD and the executive to implement it on how it sees fit. But I assure you the US is in the 21st century.

[Markanite]

Dec 26, 2010 14:39:00 GMT -5 Bad Infinitum said:

Dec 20, 2010 14:30:26 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

I never saw much of a point to don't ask don't tell. If a person can do the job they should be allowed to do it regardless of other factors.

This.

^^That

[Guy]

I say that if the rest of the world manages it, the American military can too.

[Anime Daisuki]

I wonder why the Marines have stronger opposition to the repeal than say the Air Force, Navy or Army. I'd expect the ratio of support/oppose would be the same but apparently that's not the case.

[Bad Infinitum]

Not at all. Marines hate homosexuality... despite their habit to demonstrate such behavior on one another, if any of it were ever for reals they'd kill the guy.

Probably just their own suppressed feelings, in this soldier's opinion.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

Dec 27, 2010 17:37:17 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

I wonder why the Marines have stronger opposition to the repeal than say the Air Force, Navy or Army. I'd expect the ratio of support/oppose would be the same but apparently that's not the case.

I would say it's probably all about the culture of the different branches. If you've ever been on an Air Force base, it's a relatively relaxed, almost civilian environment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have the Marine Corps. A culture of extreme testosterone, where everyone is a rifleman and your life really does depend on your "brothers".

I have friends and relatives in each and, generally speaking, you can count on Frisbees to be a lot more liberal than Leathernecks across the spectrum.

(From left to right I would go Coast Guard -> Air Force -> Navy -> Army -> Marine Corps.)

[Anime Daisuki]

I think you're right about the culture of the different branches. Looking at your last sentence left me thinking perhaps the location of bases have something to do with it too. Since you said Coast Guards are on the left end of the spectrum and all of their bases are in coastal cities which tend tobe less conservative.

[Enigmatic]

I would agree with that assessment as well. I think in any environment where the stereotypical "manly man" model is encouraged you see a greater degree of discrimination against women and gay men. I don't think it's so much repressed feelings, although I'm sure that could be the case in some cases, so much as mindset that says women and gay men are less than what the should be, no strong enough, not fast enough, not tough enough. I think they see in these individuals something unworthy of being a marine.

[Mike the Progressive]

Well it's like I said. The poll stating that 70% of the military was in favor of repeal is deceptive. The Air force and the Navy are more liberal on the matter, while the Army and the Marines are more conservative. Look I'm favor of repeal, I thought DADT was an utter failure and I have known in the closet soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of your orientation, if you love your country and are willing to sacrifice yourself for it, then you have my respect.

But keep in mind that the army and the marines are the ones who are receiving must of the blunt force, not the navy and the marines. Therefore their opinion is more significant, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are primarily ground operated.

However, I think the Obama Administration and the DOD need to be cautious in how it is implemented. Now is not the time to cause problems and unit dysfunction. All I can say is that the military brass should tread softly and be careful in how it proceeds.

[Bad Infinitum]

Dec 27, 2010 18:52:10 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

I think you're right about the culture of the different branches. Looking at your last sentence left me thinking perhaps the location of bases have something to do with it too. Since you said Coast Guards are on the left end of the spectrum and all of their bases are in coastal cities which tend tobe less conservative.

Not necessarily true, all USMC recruit training takes place on Parris Island, SC (east coast) or San Diego (west coast). I think it mostly has to do with the environment in which the branch does its business, as was mentioned already. The Coast Guard is more casual, laid back, much like the Navy, while the Marine Corps is more rigid and "professional".

Dec 27, 2010 21:28:44 GMT -5 Mike the Progressive said:

But keep in mind that the army and the marines are the ones who are receiving must of the blunt force, not the navy and the marines. Therefore their opinion is more significant, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are primarily ground operated.

Also keep in mind that the Army and Marines make up close to 65% of the total active manpower of the US military (discounting reserve and NG), so they'll weigh in more heavily when a certain percentage of said personnel are for or against something.

[Mike the Progressive]

Dec 27, 2010 22:44:39 GMT -5 Bad Infinitum said:

Dec 27, 2010 18:52:10 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

Dec 27, 2010 21:28:44 GMT -5 Mike the Progressive said:

But keep in mind that the army and the marines are the ones who are receiving must of the blunt force, not the navy and the marines. Therefore their opinion is more significant, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are primarily ground operated.

Also keep in mind that the Army and Marines make up close to 65% of the total active manpower of the US military (discounting reserve and NG), so they'll weigh in more heavily when a certain percentage of said personnel are for or against something.

I realize that, which is why I said their opinions are significant and the army is half-half, while the Marines are by a large majority opposed.

[Guy]

It doesn't matter what soldiers say the effect would be. It matters what it would be.