Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

New policy on gays could devastate military

December 7, 2010

Advertisement

People who take polls for a living will tell you that depending on the methodology, the sample, how a question is asked and the understanding of the ones being polled, the outcome can pretty much be predetermined.

If you are dependent on a superior for your job and that superior tells you he wants a certain conclusion reached about a policy he wishes to implement, that, too, can affect the outcome.

Such is the case with President Obama, who has told gay rights groups he intends to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. From the comments by Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, it appears the president’s message has placed their job security above what is best for the military and the country. Many lower-ranking officers do not share their opinion about the effects openly gay service members would have on our military.

The Pentagon poll touted by Gates and Mullen was “rigged,” said a recent editorial in The Washington Times, which noted, “From the outset, the Pentagon had no interest in eliciting honest responses from the troops about whether the law ... should be preserved or repealed. Instead, soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines were addressed in terms of implying that repeal is inevitable.”

Furthermore, said the newspaper, “63 percent of respondents live off-base or in civilian housing and consequently answered that a change in policy might not affect them. Those in combat roles — where unit cohesion and trust are life-and-death concerns — gave a different response.”

Of all the arguments made by the Obama administration for repealing the law, the one mentioned by Secretary Gates is the least defensible. Gates said Congress had better act before the law was “imposed immediately by judicial fiat.” Perhaps Gates should re-read the Constitution, especially the part about the separation of powers. Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to make rules for the government and regulate land and naval forces. A National Review Online editorial labeled Gates’ comment, “... blackmail via judicial imperialism.”

What is more likely to happen if the policy is reversed is that tens of thousands of those currently in service will retire, or quit. During Senate Armed Services Committee hearings last week, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., cited another Pentagon survey, which found that repealing the ban could create an “alarming” troop retention problem at a time when the military is already shorthanded.

McCain said, “If 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned.” McCain wondered if that is a “good idea in a time of war.” The question should answer itself.

Gates and Mullen suggest that the troops can be conditioned into accepting openly gay service members. Would that include chaplains and religious soldiers for whom homosexual behavior is thought to be a sin? Will chaplains be disciplined if they counsel someone who is gay that they can change and be forgiven, just as heterosexuals who engage in sex outside of marriage can also repent and discover a new path? This proposed change in the law has more of a “fundamentalist” tone than fundamentalism. Submit, or else.

Why are we witnessing so many challenges to what used to be considered a shared sense of right and wrong? It is because we no longer regard the Author of what is right. Loosed from that anchor, we drift in a sea of personal “morality,” deciding for ourselves what we want and ought to do and defying anyone who shouts “wrong way” as a fascist imposer of their personal beliefs.

The military is one of our primary national underpinnings. So is marriage. No wonder the gay rights movement seeks to undermine both. There are consequences when foundations are destroyed. The Congress has a duty to save us from the pursuit of our lower nature if we won’t listen to that other voice. If they care.

— Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services. tmseditors@tribune.com

Comments

independant1 3 years, 4 months ago

Whenever confronted with form to fill out, when I come to part where there are two boxes male/female to check I write in 'occasional'.

0

SirReal 3 years, 4 months ago

Newsflash - Cal Thomas cares so much about this story because he is gay and doesn't want to admit it.

0

Armored_One 3 years, 4 months ago

I'm sure it has been asked before, but what does it matter who you have sex with when discussing your ability to follow orders, shoot intelligently, and whatever else your job might entail in the military?

This is a bunch of nonsense.

Do you ask the guy flipping your burger if he is gay?

Do you ask the girl at the jewelry store if she is lesbian?

Do you ask anyone? Honestly? I don't think that I have ever asked anyone in my life if they were gay or not. I don't care. I really don't. It really doesn't have any direct impact on anyone's life, except for those that are involved, pun not intended.

It's all well and good to sit here and toss up opinions as if they were worth the effort it takes to put them in type after thinking about them. And yes, that includes my opinion, before you get jumpy. Get down off your freaking high horses and just admit the basic truth in all of this. If you are willing to slam someone for their opinion, then you had better be willing to get slammed for yours.

As to DADT...

Military policies come and go. Remember when black people weren't allowed to serve on battleships in WWII, because they were believed to have poor night vision?

That is just one policy that has come and gone. But then again, this is just an opinion, so take it for what it's worth to you and press on.

0

HomeSlice 3 years, 4 months ago

You can't be that dim. You know exactly of what I speak, but inflate straw dogs to amuse yourself.

The only group that makes sexual orientation an issue is the group in question. . The mission is the mission - all else is distraction. Yet, they insist on spraying it all over everything they can. Why?

The question about housing is germane, and speaks to the 'unspoken' issue we are dealing with. Why does that make you squirm?

Just be honest, you hate the military and what they have been instructed to do. Don't like where they are and what they are doing? Speak to the person in charge, the one that can effect 'change'. Until then, continue to benefit from the disipline and purpose they provide - based on proven principles and standards that don't need PC nonsense to be sucessful.

0

HomeSlice 3 years, 4 months ago

Why doesn't the military start housing men with women? Probably could collaspe a lot of the infrastructure that is built to keep them separate, saving on costs, duplicate training, etc. etc.

Is dual allegiance a factor? Would it distract from the mission, the need to focus on the group, not the individual?

Why would this not work?

0

CorkyHundley 3 years, 4 months ago

DADT doesn't matter. BUT homosexuals want everyone to know they are. BUT it doesn't matter because they are great soldiers. BUT it doesn't matter. BUT they want eveyone to know.

Newbie. Just check the box asking you who you copulate with. BUT it doesn't matter. The Military just wants to know.

Now give me 20 push-ups.

0

75x55 3 years, 4 months ago

Troops will do what they're told, they always have.

Some will leave, most will stay.

The number of gays signing up won't be significant. Some will make mistakes and get 'corrected'.

Time will tell what the real problems are.

0

bobberboy 3 years, 4 months ago

they should have openly gay regiments that they can send to Afganistan.

0

Alceste 3 years, 4 months ago

"McCain said, “If 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned.” McCain wondered if that is a “good idea in a time of war.” The question should answer itself."

Hmm....maybe that might make the Nation think a little bit longer before it gets bogged down in a land war in Southeast Asia....oh wait.....I guess it's SouthWest Asia at this point and this time around. We are a Nation of sheep; cows to slaughter; and we get just what we deserve.

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 4 months ago

And what's the reason it's that way Dena? Because 93% of the rest of us are bigots? I'm referring to the uncomfortableness of miliatry gays and their partners kissing and hugging dockside or on the tarmack. I welcomed my dad home when his sub docked several times as a kid and I can guarantee you if two sailors started kissing on the dock, gasps would've broken out then dead silence would've swept over the entire crowd.

0

denak 3 years, 4 months ago

Saying that DADT is ok because it simply asks an individual not to tell denies the thousands of ways gay service men and women have to deny who they are. Something as simple as a homecoming, which should be a joyous occasion, is denied them.

When I came home from Saudi Arabia, there were a good 50-60 family members (mainly spouses and girlfriends) who were waiting for the other Marines who came home with me. Lots of hugging, kissing. etc. Normally, one isn't allowed to kiss and hug in uniform but in this instance it is allowed because the military knows that it is good for the psychological health and the overall morale of the troops, to have their significant others there welcoming them home.

But just think what it must feel like the the homosexual service member. Here he or she is, surrounded by his or her fellow soldiers, and not be able to hug or kiss their significant other. Or even acknowledge the relationship because, to do so, would mean the end of his or her career.

What an incredibly lonely existence that must be. To not be able to introduce your spouse to your CO during homecoming. Or when you are promoted. Or when you run into him or her in the PX.

How does that help morale???

Dena

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 4 months ago

a ban on gays in the military is nothing more than a special right for bigots to punish or hide those they are bigoted against.

Every major ally and most of the western world has already dealt with this issue and found no problem. US troupes serving in NATO forces already serve alongside openly gay military without problem.

Military clergy already serves cross religion and already deals with conflicts of belief, this changes nothing.

It is time to stop allowing bigots special privileges. It is time to respect our troupes to be strong, flexible and sane enough to handle this and it is time for the party of individual freedom to stop trying to legislate my life.

0

booyalab 3 years, 4 months ago

A strong military discourages self indulgence. That is all.

0

AirForce12 3 years, 4 months ago

Some people in this argument are so blind. There are plenty of gays serving in "combat" not "flying a desk" that are doing their job and doing it well. I did not bother to read all of the comments... to much time

Maybe you should educate yourselves. I am a Vet, have worked alongside gays/lesbians, and they did not effect unit cohesion, effectiveness, morale, or anything. Guess what, gays live w/ the troops now and shower w/ them and all that BS that guys come up w/. With a new policy they would no longer be living in the same close quarters... so how is that worse for the homophobes?

Do a little research... many of you sound like fools.

Guess who was the first injury during OIF? A gay man... a man who says he peers knew he was gay, and it did not change the way they felt about him, or how much they trusted him. His name is Eric Alva, a medically retired US Marine. He had his leg blown off by a land mine in Iraq the first day of ground invasion.

How about in WWII when an openly gay man named William Pahlmann became a Lt. Col, and director of the camouflage school and designed uniforms? Do you understand how his skills allowed the protection of high value assets from being bombed?

How about the fact that we serve alongside more than 10 countries that allow their service men/women to serve openly gay. Do a little research before you spout off. Guess what, when you serve, you swear to obey the orders of officer appointed over you... FOREIGN or Domestic. That's right, US military members take orders from openly gay service members w/out the blink of an eye.

DADT causes more problems than good most likely... but of course that is opinionated and not fact.

To say that being openly gay would prevent these things is simply ignorant. The military claims to be an Equal Opportunity Employer... but they discriminate based on sexual preference...hypocrite much?

You also seem to forget that DADT has only been around since 1993... it's not like it has been around forever... policies need adjusted over time, and now is a good time to make a change. Tell me something great that came from the early 90's anyhow (joke)

The original Author is trying to play off opinions as fact, and has shown that his personal opinions have gotten in the way of his journalism. Creating fallacies throughout the article. Not all "religious soldiers" or chaplains believe homosexuality is a sin. That is his OPINION! Also the opinion of McCain saying there will be an early exit of troops because of this... that is another fallacy. Troops are predominately leaving early because they are treated poorly, underpaid, under appreciated, and the knuckleheads are being promoted at the same rate as the good soldiers.

It's fine for everyone to have their opinion, and they should all be heard, but at least try and base it on facts.

0

HomeSlice 3 years, 4 months ago

Don't ask, don't tell works just fine.

The military is a fighting machine, intended to kill if the situation warrants. Dual allegiance does not serve this model - which comes into play. The military is not subject to 'diversity'. Many are excluded for any number of reasons, and rightly so. The objective is a cohesive fighting machine, where the sense of 'individual' is forsaken for the collective, where all are one. An individual’s orientation is not part of the equation, yet those that would force this issue would make it so.

Everyone seems to forget that the military fights for everyone's rights, even the right to be gay. Keeping this elite group focused is not wrong, it is essential.

0

ksrush 3 years, 4 months ago

If gays are the scum of the earth and have no business walking the same ground as everyone else, I believe it only fitting to send Fred Phelps over Iraq / Afganistan, wrap him in a huge American flag and let him heckle all he wants. Just imagine the psychological impact on the enemy, either true " shock and awe" or they will feel so sorry for us a couple well place shots by the Taliban will take care of the Phelps factor. Its a win win scenario

0

RobertMarble 3 years, 4 months ago

The best way to settle this would be to let the Military personnel decide- and I'm not talking about the high ranking brass in the pentagon. Enlisted personnel (E1 - E9) should be the ones to decide this issue. Civillians shouldn't even be commenting on this.

0

catfishturkeyhunter 3 years, 4 months ago

I wonder just how many people who have comented on this article have actually had the honor of serving their country? Its easy for someone who has never been there to say yeah, let the gay people serve. But the reality is they know very little if anything about what its like to be in the military. The gays rights activists cried and cried to be allowed to serve in the military durring the late 80's. So they let them serve on the condition that they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. Now thats not good enough. Now they gota broadcast their sexual orientation, and that in itself is creating a distraction. If it wasn't we wouldn't be having this discussion. Gay people got a right to be gay, theres no denying that. But everyone else also has a right to not have to hear about it.. Having served in the U.S. Army, one of the first thing that they let you know is that while you might defend the Constitution, you are no longer protected by it. Military personel are subject the the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and I think that gay people better start getting used to that idea and if they don't like it, dont sign up for it.

0

JayCat_67 3 years, 4 months ago

Funny, most of the people I know who are getting out are doing so because they've had enough deployments and they're ready to actually be with their families. And it seems the recruiters are having no problem making their mission lately. In at least one instance of which I'm aware, earlier this year the Navy actually closed down their station for a long weekend because they simply couldn't put more people in at that time. In some cases, recruits are actually put on a waiting list until a position comes open for them. Yes, the tanking economy has a lot to do with that, but the idea that the military is so terribly undermanned is crap.

0

Grammaton 3 years, 4 months ago

Drawing from my own experience I can't say I understand how or why such a change would be devastating. In my boot camp division at Great Lakes, we had one fellow in our division who was obviously homosexual. None of the other recruits had a problem with it. In fact, he was well liked -- even the evening portside (of which I was a part, as well as this man) group shower was a non-issue.

Then, one day after reveille he was simply gone. Rumor was he was discharged, but I never heard it confirmed.

After being attached to BLT 1/6 as an FMF Corpsman I rarely heard talk of homosexuals in the military, save to say a few indicating that they didn't have a problem with it. I seem to recall our operations officer, Maj. Christmas, saying something about the whole "don't ask..." thing being ridiculous, but it's been a while and my memory may be sketchy on that.

I really don't see the problem with ending the policy.

0

nekansan 3 years, 4 months ago

It is funny that people think someone who must follow an order to run to their death for freedom is incapable of obeying an order to get along and work with another human being. The order & discipline in the military must really be suffering. As others have mentioned these are the identical arguments against the integration of blacks and women in the armed forces, and once again only serve to confirm the bigotry and pure stupidity of those making such arguments.

0

pizzapete 3 years, 4 months ago

Cal is right on with this one. This could devastate our military, just look at all the damage that happened when they started accepting blacks and women in the military. What's next, are they going to start accepting short people, too.

0

parrothead8 3 years, 4 months ago

It's hilarious that Thomas says "People who take polls for a living will tell you that depending on the methodology, the sample, how a question is asked and the understanding of the ones being polled, the outcome can pretty much be predetermined."

And then says that repealing DADT could devastate the military by citing "another Pentagon survey, which found that repealing the ban could create an “alarming” troop retention problem at a time when the military is already shorthanded."

To suggest that 12.6% of the military would leave if DADT is repealed is ludicrous. Would 12.6% of the people who read this comment leave their jobs if they found out the person they worked next to was gay?

0

Keith 3 years, 4 months ago

Better headline: New policy on gays could devastate Cal Thomas.

0

Fatty_McButterpants 3 years, 4 months ago

I can see it now ... LT: "Incoming! Hit the deck! Open up that SAW on 'em, corporal!" Cpl: "No sir, I'm not doing anything until Smith tells me if he was staring at my arse."

Give me a break. This whole thing is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, I believe the same arguments were made when the services started integrating the races, and, obviously (sarcasm), that didn't turn out too well.

0

Kontum1972 3 years, 4 months ago

yeah shewmon your a real patriot..where did u serve? soldiers are soldiers no matter what their sexuality...they swear an oath to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic they are doing the job they will die while we all sit here at home typing blogs. The Band of Brothers and Sisters.

0

gogoplata 3 years, 4 months ago

Do we really need a large federal army?

0

voevoda 3 years, 4 months ago

Cal Thomas does our servicemembers a disservice by assuming that they can't deal in an appropriate manner with gays and lesbians in their midst. Our military is made up of an extraordinarily diverse group of people. Yes, some enter with prejudices of one kind or another. Some enter with personal values that their fellow soldiers violate--for example, against drinking or cursing. But servicemembers learn to interact with their fellows in a professional manner, so they can do their jobs and serve their country successfully.
As for the chaplains, they, too, are in uniform, and part of their job is to counsel servicemembers so that they (the servicemembers) can fulfill their duties. If they can't do this with gays and lesbians because they are "sinners," chances are they can't counsel effectively other types of "sinners," such as non-Christians, either. If that's the case, they don't belong in the military. Cal Thomas assumes that somehow homosexuality by its very nature undermines society and the military. That wasn't the experiences of the ancient Greeks, the ancient Romans, or the ancient Persians, who all created successul empires.

0

tbaker 3 years, 4 months ago

Aside from combat units, the polling shows the majority of service members don't really care about someone's sexuality. Being gay in the military is not nearly the big deal it once was. The current generation in uniform could really care less. DADT is pure politics and symbolism. It has nothing to do with whats "best" for the military.

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 4 months ago

Evil gays and their evil agenda, they want to destroy America! How dumb can you really be?

0

parrotuya 3 years, 4 months ago

It is pretty easy to tell that CT never served in the military. How typical of a chicken-hawk. When I was in the military, we followed orders. Today's military is following the orders of its commander-in-chief and high ranking generals and admirals because that is how it works. When a superior officer orders you to end hateful discrimination against gays, you stand smartly and salute as you say "yes, sir" and get back to work. OOO-RAH!

0

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 4 months ago

Arguing that changing this policy will "destroy" our professional military is insulting to those within the military. These people are professionals and I believe if they can handle Afghanistan, they can handle policy changes.

0

geekin_topekan 3 years, 4 months ago

"What is more likely to happen if the policy is reversed is that tens of thousands of those currently in service will retire, or quit." ++++ Pure speculation.


"The Congress has a duty to save us " ++++ Ummm...yeah.


Fear and speculation. Such is the repub's way.

0

Kris_H 3 years, 4 months ago

There are gay and lesbian cops, gay and lesbian firefighters, etc. etc. etc. They are not forbidden from being "out," though I would imagine there are hassles associated with that. Why should the military be any different? It's the same kind of atmosphere, basically. As long as you know somebody's there when you need them to be and they are doing their job, what else really matters?

This stuff is a load of horse manure.

0

Liberty_One 3 years, 4 months ago

Devastate the military? Really? Dinosaur.....

0

Fatty_McButterpants 3 years, 4 months ago

Perhaps Cal should take another look at the Constitution himself. Yes, Art. I, Sec. 8 does provide that Congress can control the Army and the Navy, but the Judiciary is empowered to ensure that the fundamental rights of individuals are not violated by government action. In other words, the separation of powers is the tool by which the Framers ensured that one branch couldn't do whatever the hell it wanted.

0

1029 3 years, 4 months ago

I think Cal Thomas is really a homosexual. My prediction for 2011 is that Cal gets busted with a male prostitute.

0

geekin_topekan 3 years, 4 months ago

Cal needs to go visit the troops and let them know how utterly fragile they are in his opinion.

Gays could bring down our armed forces according to Cal. If gays have such power, why don't the terrorist types turn queer?

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 4 months ago

The Anointed One has lost all or much of practically every voting bloc. He just upset the far-left by compromising with Republicans now coming into power and extending the Bush-era tax cuts. He does what Axelrod, Jarrett and probably even what Rahm tells him via a text him from Chicago. The Anointed One cares not one iota about the military, but he for sure does not want to see his far-left base entirely vanish like flatulence in a stiff wind. He needs to manuever and manipulate to have a prayer in hell of winning the nomination in 2012. He can not afford to lose more voters. It's too bad America's security suffers for this but then again, The Anointed One, much like Willy Clinton only much, much worse, could give a flying fig about the military. Willy was the Loather in Chief, Obama doubles down---again. The Anointed One and Eric Holder either don't care about national security or are so clueless, they do what they do. And that is giving them a fair shake. Now, we see their racism shows regarding things like the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. They have power to dismiss what has now been concluded by a special civil rights panel in a 150 page report was a real problem----Holder and The Anointed One were not clueless on that---they knew exactly what they were doing. They are a joke.

0

consumer1 3 years, 4 months ago

Pink cammos for everyone and patton leather combat boot. Mmmmmm We are in sad shape if this ever happens.

0

slvrntrt 3 years, 4 months ago

Summary of article:

THE GAY IS CONTAGIOUS, WE DON'T WANT ALL OF OUR SOLDIERS TO GET THE GAY AND LET THE TERRORIST WIN.

Also quoting an editorial to debunk a scientific study? wtf

0

Kris_H 3 years, 4 months ago

I'll always go with what my friend T. said about being gay and serving in the Army Infantry in Vietnam (not "in the Vietnam era" and not off in the Phillipines or something, in country): "Nobody was worried about who was looking at whose ass, everyone was just worried about their ass getting shot off."

'Nuff said.

0

autie 3 years, 4 months ago

Bull butter. No one cares anymore.

0

SpeedRacer 3 years, 4 months ago

If I never thought Cal Thomas was a complete idiot before, this confirms it.

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

So.

The military conducts a study, which concludes that there wouldn't be significant ill effects from repealing DADT, which the president waited for before pushing for said repeal.

Then a lot of people get upset and claim that there would be such.

What's the point of conducting studies and waiting for the results then?

0

Kontum1972 3 years, 4 months ago

you know that when gays are shot they bleed out like the rest of the troopers....why should u care what their personal policy is they have sworn alligiance to the flag and the country, they are in "Harms way " everyday and your butts are here. War is War! I am a Nam vet and really dont care about the sexual preference and i do have alot of gay friends, and they are good people.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 4 months ago

Gay and Lesbian humans have been serving in the military for decades upon decades which just goes to show they are not detriment. No way jose'!

For at least 40 years or more gays and lesbians have been serving uncle sam apparently with a good deal of credibility. Perhaps the greater majority did not realize they were gay and others simply did not care.

Hey two of the people I shared a room with while on active duty were gay. Did I know that? NO! Perhaps I would never have known had it not been for military intelligence. Yes one day they requested my presence. The questions being asked about their sex lives I thought a bit peculiar. Finally because I was not getting it I had to ask what in the world is going on. It was then I was advised an investigation was underway. It was also then I realized all of the preconceived notions about gay men I grew up with were completely false and generally wrong across the board. These two people were among the few I considered as my close friends.

Most of the individuals under investigation were people with whom myself and others socialized with frequently. A trait these individuals shared was intelligence. One more trait these individuals shared was work ethic and never being passed over for promotions.

It could be Cal Thomas has no clue what the hell he is talking about. Just making up more nonsense. Ignorance is bliss.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

"What is more likely to happen if the policy is reversed is that tens of thousands of those currently in service will retire, or quit."

Good-- that would be a start to reducing the US military by at least half, as all foreign military bases, and scores of them in the US, are shut down as we scrap the Imperial US Military in favor of a true "Defense" Department.

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 4 months ago

I suppose scratching the enemy's eyes out will be just as effective.

0

BorderRuffian 3 years, 4 months ago

Quoted from the article: "Gates and Mullen suggest that the troops can be conditioned into accepting openly gay service members."

Sure - just like you can condition homosexuals to become hetero. Simply cramming an agenda down anyone's throat won't bring about the utopian world you think eberyone prefers.

0

JJE007 3 years, 4 months ago

Cal Thomas... Wow. What an idiot. No more polls for you, mister Christian.

0

Paul R Getto 3 years, 4 months ago

Some ironies here. Think Alexander the Great, for example. Cal's concerns model the R's gays, guns and gods agenda and the "My skygod can beat up your skygod" wars now on our plate. Things will be ok if we all settle down and grow up a bit. Basing public policy on ancient mythologies will not survive forever, but Cal and his minions, stuck in the Middle Ages, will continue their rants.

0

Bruce Springsteen 3 years, 4 months ago

Incidentally, fire the chaplains. They don't belong on the government payroll in the first place. If anyone is undermining unit cohesion, it's those parasites.

0

grammaddy 3 years, 4 months ago

This is BS! Gays are already serving but you don't know who most of them are. How can we continue to ask these brave men and women to continue risking the ultimate sacrifice but not allow them to be their authentic selves?

0

usnsnp 3 years, 4 months ago

Cal, wake up. I am a 31 year vet of the Navy, retired in 1987, even back then we knew who was gay and we did not care as long as the person did their job. This argument about mass numbers of people leaving the military is the same thing that was said then the military was integrated and when women started to serve on ships and fly military aircraft.

0

CorkyHundley 3 years, 4 months ago

You all have it all wrong.

This telling issue, is to fade the Democrat clan out of position. Take their eye off the ball. The "Look at who I am with" moment to join the military is to distract the Democrat clan away from the Dude's agreement with the Bushy's tax plan.

The Dude loves the rich. He wants them to keep their money so that they can support him and Mich's lavish lifestyles. For the Dude it's pretty simple. Money talks. Everything else walks.

The Dude is a sneaky cat. The "Don't ask. I can tell" issue, is perfect for fading Democrat's attention out of position.

0

libertarianjim 3 years, 4 months ago

Get out there and get shot at by the enemy, unless of course you're gay. If your gay, we want you dead, not just in an honorable way.

John McLame

0

denak 3 years, 4 months ago

Top Jayhawk

Are you a vet?

What did you do in the military?

Are you gay?

Were you a combat troop? Or did you fly a desk?

Wow, that was fun. Of course, none of it has anything to do with the subject at hand so perhaps you should stick to the subject and offer an opinion on DADT.

Dena

0

TopJayhawk 3 years, 4 months ago

denak You are a vet? What did you do in the Military? Are you gay? Were you a combat troop? Or did you fly a desk?

0

denak 3 years, 4 months ago

The gay rights movement does not seek to undermine (destroy in Cal Thomas speak) the military or marriage. The gay rights movement seeks to become part of the military and marriage. They seek only to have the same rights extended to them that are given automatically to others in this country.

If our military has a retention problem, it is not because, all of a sudden, gay people can serve openly it is because we have been embroiled in a "war on terror" for the last 8 years that has deployed service members over and over and over.

As a result, divorce is at an all-time high in the military. If Cal Thomas really was concerned about both the military and marriage, he should welcome an opportunity that allows able bodied men and women to serve without the fear of being discharged over a characteristic that has absolutely no baring on a person's ability to fire a weapon.

Dena

Vet who supports the end of DADT.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.