Happy Repeal Day

[Point of Order]

Congrats to all the servicemen and women who can now tell the truth about themselves without fear of being discharged. And thank you for your service. Kudos to all those who worked for 17 years to make it happen.

 

[Bodie_Broadus]

Dan Choi is one of my heroes.

 

[Point of Order]

Stephen Hill, a gay soldier currently serving in Iraq, dared to ask a question at the GOP/YouTube debate via video whether the Republican candidates would reinstitute the recently repealed "don't ask, don't tell" policy of banning openly gay soldiers.

The audience boos him. None of the candidates had the guts to blast anyone who would boo a soldier like that. What a damn shame.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/183475-gay-soldier-booed-at-gop-debate-candidates-stay-mum

 

[Boom_70]

It was not the Republicans who were responsible for putting the bill into law.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

You're right. Before, we could just hunt 'em all out like witches. And then it was Republicans who fought tooth and nail to keep 'em in the closet. What an asshole that Clinton guy was, helping the country make that first step toward progress though.

 

[NightHawk112005]

Clinton was right back in 1993 and I agree with Santorum as well. Sexual orientation doesn't affect how well you can defend the country, but I'm sure there are some soldiers who would be very uncomfortable sharing a barracks with openly gay soldiers. A situation like that doesn't improve the military's ability to do their job, it makes it more difficult.

The audience shouldn't have booed that question. But I think DADT should be reinstated, unless the majority of the United States military officers say there will be no problems if openly gay soldiers are allowed. Gay men should absolutely be allowed to serve their nation if they wish, but I don't see what is accomplished by making sexual orientation an issue.

 

[Bubbler]

Clinton was right back in 1993 and I agree with Santorum as well. Sexual orientation doesn't affect how well you can defend the country, but I'm sure there are some soldiers who would be very uncomfortable sharing a barracks with openly gay soldiers. A situation like that doesn't improve the military's ability to do their job, it makes it more difficult.

The audience shouldn't have booed that question. But I think DADT should be reinstated, unless the majority of the United States military officers say there will be no problems if openly gay soldiers are allowed. Gay men should absolutely be allowed to serve their nation if they wish, but I don't see what is accomplished by making sexual orientation an issue.

Two words for those who get their panties in a wad over teh gay, but worry less about their actual duties: **** 'em.

 

[Shaggy]

Clinton was right back in 1993 and I agree with Santorum as well. Sexual orientation doesn't affect how well you can defend the country, but I'm sure there are some soldiers who would be very uncomfortable sharing a barracks with openly gay soldiers. A situation like that doesn't improve the military's ability to do their job, it makes it more difficult.

The audience shouldn't have booed that question. But I think DADT should be reinstated, unless the majority of the United States military officers say there will be no problems if openly gay soldiers are allowed. Gay men should absolutely be allowed to serve their nation if they wish, but I don't see what is accomplished by making sexual orientation an issue.

If you want DADT back, then we should also be allowed to discharge soldiers for confirming their heterosexuality.

 

[Quakes]

Clinton was right back in 1993 and I agree with Santorum as well. Sexual orientation doesn't affect how well you can defend the country, but I'm sure there are some soldiers who would be very uncomfortable sharing a barracks with openly gay soldiers. A situation like that doesn't improve the military's ability to do their job, it makes it more difficult.

The audience shouldn't have booed that question. But I think DADT should be reinstated, unless the majority of the United States military officers say there will be no problems if openly gay soldiers are allowed. Gay men should absolutely be allowed to serve their nation if they wish, but I don't see what is accomplished by making sexual orientation an issue.

I'm sure there were people back in the day who argued that white soldiers wouldn't be comfortable alongside black soldiers, that the military wasn't the place for social engineering, and that desegregation would hurt the military's performance. In fact, I believe the majority of soldiers were opposed to it. But Truman went ahead and desegregated the military in 1948, even before Brown v. Board of Education, and everything seemed to work out OK. So why are those same arguments any more valid when it comes to allowing gays to serve openly?

 

[TigerVols]

Sexual orientation doesn't affect how well you can defend the country, but I'm sure there are some soldiers who would be very uncomfortable sharing a barracks with openly gay soldiers. A situation like that doesn't improve the military's ability to do their job, it makes it more difficult.

Since when did a soldier's comfort trump all other Americans' civil rights?

 

[forever_town]

Fortunately, the military and its institutions are not above the law.

Anyone who's uncomfortable with the prospect of sharing a barracks with an openly gay man or woman should get the **** out of the military.

 

[imjustagirl]

Heh heh you guys keep saying discharge.

 

[Football_Bat]

The same conversations were being had in 1948 when Truman integrated the armed forces.