The Associated Press is reporting that the Pentagon has issued an order today that the U.S. military must begin accepting openly gay and lesbian recruits. This is in cooperation with last week’s striking down of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which has been a law since 1993.
Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said today that top-level guidance has been given to recruiting commands around the country telling them that DADT has been suspended.
Alas, they reportedly have also been told that the halt on DADT could be “reversed at any point,” according to the DADT. Sigh.
Is this it? Are we here? Can gay and lesbian soldiers finally serve openly?
– J.Harvey
I’m with Obama on this one.
There’s a Commission studying the issue. The repeal is percolating through Congress, however slowly. The Pentagon and the Secretary are telling us that DADT hurts military morale and readiness.
Having a Federal judge overturn DADT only adds fuel and talking points to the far-right conservative campaigns who are energizing an electoral base that believes American values are being adjudicated away. The best move is to let our Legislature handle this one. Obama has promised that DADT is going to go down on his watch, and continues to affirm this position.
The price paid for a Judicial overturn may turn out to be too high if its an issue that gets more socially conservative csndidates elected to Congress.
My god! The courts are wrong on this. Gays should not be allowed in the military. Period!
Gay persons serve in military posts for other countries around the world, including Israel which has one of the most combat ready and combat experienced forces in the world. Nobody in those countries has ever concluded that gay servicemen or women hurts them.
Denying LGBT Americans the opportunity to serve creates two classes of Americans: those that are worthy to serve their country, and those that are not.
Gay Americans should most definitely be allowed in the military.
@Donny
I sincerely hope that was sarcasm.
@scott
While I certainly understand wanting Congress to decide the issue, the fact of the matter is that it is the task of the Judicial branch to interpret and determine the constitutionality of the laws drafted by the legislative branch. That is exactly what has/is happening, and if the far-right can’t handle that the judicial branch is performing it’s function, then they need to take a step back and evaluate their views.
Scott I definitely agree with your second post btw.
Donny – Get a clue my dear, gays are already serving in the military. I have nearly 20 yrs of service and I can tell you, we’ve been fighting right along our straight servicemembers the whole time. DADT is a crock!
In response to Scott B. We have the three branches of government for a reason. The congress and house of representatives votes on a law. The president decides if it is a good or bad law. It then goes back to the congress and house to see if the presidents veto can be superseded. The judiciary tests that the law passed is fair and unbiased. In this case, the law has not been fair or unbiased. The judiciary has simply done its job correctly.
In a sense I feel releaved but on the other hand I believe that me and my fellow gay soldiers are still going to be careful with this. If you havent served the military then you dont how it works. Everything in the military is a question mark. They say one thing then next week its another thing. I believe that we should be able to be ourselves. I know many gay males and lesbians that do just the same amount of training and some times better than heterosexual people. There’s no difference in who we are. We all fuck, we all bleed for this country and shit we all love being an American.
Gay men will be spreading HIV in the military now. It is bad enough that all of Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York has HIV. We must keep it out of the military.
I understand that all should have the same rights….but sometimes wonder anyone would want them. I never served in the military and did all I could to ensure I would never have to.
If you have ever gone through a straight divorce you might question the wisdom of gay marriage.
Donny, again you are showing your ignorance. Heterosexual individuals spread HIV as well. Black/African american individuals were the highest percentage of new HIV diagnoses in 2010, are you suggesting that we go back to a time when they weren’t allowed in the military? The CDC attributes 66% of HIV diagnoses in blacks from 2005-2008 to HETEROSEXUAL contact. that’s right, not homosexual/gay contact but straight. Or how about women, whose overwhelming HIV transmission/infection rate is primarily by straight contact. Let’s go back to when they weren’t allowed in the military, hm?
I agree. Gay men and women should not be allowed to serve.
I wish I could serve in the Military, but being Diabetic prevents that. I ain’t ashamed to be Gay, and am glad that this barrier is been knocked down(even if it temperary). I am still proud to be an American.
Donny knows how I feel. HIV is on the rise and I agree that gays in the military is a bad idea. I am a young nurse and Canada and I know everything about AIDS. Stay away from the large cities where HIV infection is rampant. And I am not a troll.
Donny-
That wasn’t my question, my question was whether you felt we should return to an era where blacks and women are not allowed to serve?
Donny, as a proud member of the military, fuck you. I could say a lot more, but I’ll keep it sweet and simple.
Hi guys,
This is the first time I post on here, so be gentle….
The DADT policy is, in my eyes, a policy which blocks not only the USA, but the rest of the world from proper military protection.
A guy is employed to do a job – that of protecting his country from potential enemies of the state.
Should it be a decision of government that decides that because he is GAY that he does not have the required qualifications to serve his country correctly?
In my eyes, his sexual preferences, or even, to rock the boat further, HER sexual preferences, SHOULD NOT BE a deciding factor as to whether he (or she) gets the job.
Imagine a 9/11 scenario for one moment. The people who died will always be remembered. But if the one guy who could save you, by holding your hand and pulling you to safety had just had a night of gay sex with a mate called Randy, would you care? That guy has just saved your life, and for that, you should be grateful, whatever your sexual tendancies are.
The question of homosexuality within the US military should not be looked on as a Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask Policy, but more, in my eyes, as a “These People Are Here To Protect and Serve, and Help”, whoever they curl up with in bed at night.
At the end of the day, guys who sleep with guys, dudes with dudes, or girls with girls, chicks with chicks, is a personal sexual preference.
Does that mean that they are physically incapable of doing a job for which they have benn chosen to do – that of protecting the citizens of the United States, the United Kingdom, or other countries around the world?
To Donny…Gay Guys have always existed in the military. HIV is something that has been recognized since the late 80’s/early 90’s
If, in a life or death situation, a gay guy took your hand and said, I can save you, what would you do?
Ok guys – up to you now to discuss, but thanks for hearing me out.
Donny – lighten up a bit and open up
Think about it for a moment!!!
Thanks guys!!!
First of all this whole policy was conceived and developed in the political womb, and was an inexperienced Clinton Administration move in 1993 to try to bridge the political gap and appease both sides who were calling for outright dismissal versus allowance of gay men and women to serve in the military, and the cost for those wanting to serve was to not acknowledge their orientation. In reading some of these posts I’m disgusted by the blatant ignorance of a few who have no knowledge of the scope of the HIV worldwide epidemic, nor the long held American belief that the best and the brightest should be able to apply themselves to whatever they choose to do for the betterment of the country and themselves. On that last point even the Pentagon has admitted that a chunk of their translators of Arabic who are very much needed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been dismissed from the military as a result of DADT even though they had impeccable service records.
What has always been lacking in DADT, and most policies holding back the equality of gay men and women with heterosexual America has been common sense, and usually when it comes to politics its left to the judiciary to make that call. The forefathers of this country were well aware of the treachery of human nature, which is why they entrusted the judiciary with that task in order to keep the majority from usurping the rights of the minority. To assume anything less when it comes to this matter tells me that the writer has no breadth of knowledge of American history, politics pre-dating the War for independence, and as some have shown, outright idiocy when to comes to HIV and the ability of men and women to serve their country. I need not mention names here when it comes to the last part, lets just leave it that some posting here have their heads so far up their asses that the only way they can see is if they open their mouths. Enough said.
Donny, are you sure that you are gay?? several other contries have gays serving in them and HIV has NOT increased, where do you get your FLAWED facts and opinions? The military may NOT be for you, BUT others want to serve and get the benefits for doing so, so do us all a big favor, ZIP IT
Bobby, go crawl back under your rock, NOT all HIV infections are soley GAY men, if as you say you are a nurse, I suggest you read some FACTS before you further STEP in it
Thank you for the support on this apothos.
@Donny,
Will you answer my original question. Do you feel we should return to an era where blacks and women are not allowed to serve? From the CDC, from 2005-2008 over 80% of HIV diagnoses in women were from straight/heterosexual contact. From 2005-2008 over 60% of HIV diagnoses in blacks/african americans were from straight/heterosexual contact.
Look at the facts before you speak about these types of things. The facts do NOT support your opinion that allowing gays to serve openly will correspond to a jump in HIV diagnoses in the military.
You guys are so dense.
Obama should sign an executive order right now! If he thinks it’s a bad law and all the military leaders agree with him then he should do this.
The fact is that both the congress and the senate might look very different in two weeks time with a lot more republicans and with them possibly taking control of both. This means that DADT would pretty much never be repealed if that happens. Also, people are still being kicked out of the military. So no, this cannot wait much longer!
Guys, I’d just stop responding to anything Donny says from here on out. It’s pretty obvious that he’s trolling, imo.
Don’t feed the trolls!
HAHAAHAAHAHAHAAH
stupid Americans, gay military is for Canadians
GO CANADA GO :p
p.s could we maybe borrow your military sometime…our canoe has a hole in it
1.) If someone is willing to die for their country they should be allowed to serve.
2.) Being gay is not a sexual preference. Not liking red heads (and red heads are hott just saying) is a sexual preference.
3.) No one pisses glitter or shits rainbows everyone should be aloud to join the military!
As I commented elsewhere on this blog: If the issue had not been brought to court by a group with “Replubican” in its name there would be cheering in the streets of Washington, D.C. The back-slapping would have made an S&m film look tame, with people tripping over each other to claim their support.
However a small group of commendable gays has taken away something President Obama was hoping to use for his re-election campaign, a way to show his support for our community and garner our votes. They are so upset at losing this political coin that the President is having his administration fight this ruling. Notice how different the reaction was to the new immigration law in Arazona? Do gays deserve less protection than illigal aliens? If we were talking any other group’s civil rights would we expect them to sit on their hands until “an official report” can be filed? Hell No!
It does not matter if this foul law is repealed via the courts or the legislature, It needs to be redacted and the sooner the better, without its repeal becoming a political selling point.
Maybe we should start looking for “Log-Cabin Republicans” to elect in the near future, as they alone had the courage to force the issue.
I for real don’t think that being gay should have anything to do with your ability to serve.
and also I don’t see how allowing gays into the military would spread HIV around. like really, it’s not like everyone just sleeps with everyone there. Because really if the guys are straight, I doubt they would be hooking up with the gay guy, especially if they knew he had HIV.
As an active duty servicemember in the US Navy, there are many of my fellow sailors (and airmen, soldiers and Marines) who remain in the service and are HIV+. Some gay, some straight. They are treated no differently in terms of their limited duty status (loss of deployment readiness status), as with any member who has a medical profile.
So to those who engage in fear-mongering about the transmission of HIV in the service, or its possible increase as the result of allowing gays to serve, consider the deployment opportunities and the risks straight, bi and gay men and women take when they hit a foreign port where HIV infection rates are high. Then having to explain to your spouse why or how he or she contracted a communicable or opportunistic infection.
I don’t see how sexuality can determine whether your suitable to be a part of a country’s military. I’m from South Africa and over here shit like DADT doesn’t exist but then again gay marriages are also legal. I suppose America just doesn’t give freedom easily to it’s citizens.
@ koolwat3r
This is not the end of the law. The 9th District Court of Appeals will probably overturn the lower courts ruling, meaning the Log Cabin Republicans will have to decide whether to take it to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, all of these servicemembers who are going to be encouraged to come out will suddenly be in violation of the law again, and will be discharged.
The fact is that the movement to repeal the law had a supportive exec branch and a DOD that was clearing the red tape in the way of suggesting the law’s death. If Gates tells the Legislature that DOD wants the law overturned, Congress will do it, whether the two sides are controlled by the DNC or GOP this fall, because that’s what congress has said they’d do.
The natural way for this to happen is for military command to say “Okay, we had a look at this, and we think that we can kill DADT w/o hurting morale.” Then the rest of things are set in motion and it goes away.
The unnatural, insulting way for this to happen is for an ultralib justice from ultralib California to put her granola bar down so she can call the law unconstitutional and then jump in her Prius, driving off into the sunset.
There is as much “neutrality” in the California district courts for social issues as there is in that one Texas circuit for corporate law.
The biggest crime here is that a few people are making names for themselves at the cost of thousands of servicemembers who are going to come out, then get kicked out, because they think DADT is “over” while it’s really going to get stuck in legal land for years now.
Bobby Said:
“Donny knows how I feel. HIV is on the rise and I agree that gays in the military is a bad idea. I am a young nurse and Canada and I know everything about AIDS. Stay away from the large cities where HIV infection is rampant. And I am not a troll.”
Why the heck is gays in the military a bad idea. If you’re Canadian, you should know that gays are already allowed to serve openly in our Canadian Forces! Have you ever heard of any major problems? I sure haven’t, and I’m an Air Force Officer.
The fact is that the majority of the Canadian Forces couldn’t give two shits about who their co-worker loves, and who they spend their personal time with. They’re there to protect the Canadian population.
In fact, one of the tenants of the Canadian Forces is that it must be representative of the Canadian population both in composition and values. Without allowing openly gay men and women to serve, it would be neither.
Every day when I wake up at ungodly hours to start work, I’m thankful that I live in Canada, where I can express myself without fear of reprisal. I only hope that soon our neighbours to the south will have the same opportunities.
Im in the military, have been for 8 years now no difference. Its just sex, straight men can get it too, and they do it all the time. Herpes, Clap, and others are also prevalent @ Donny
@tpsc85
No need to tell me that this is not the end of the law. As an active duty service member myself, I know exactly how perilous coming out at a time like this would be. I was merely commenting on the role of the judicial branch in terms of how laws are decided upon, enacted, and then interpreted, and the point, which someone else made after me, is that “the judiciary tests that the law passed is fair and unbiased. In this case, the law has not been fair or unbiased. The judiciary has simply done its job correctly.” Obama saying he wants the issue decided in congress is one thing, but the fact is that it is very likely after the November election that congress will be a much more hostile place for democratic/liberal issues, and DADT will likely not make it to the floor. Obama can tell congress to do whatever he wants to tell them to do… that doesn’t mean that they will actually do it. There is a separation of powers for a reason, and with a likely soon to be Repubadub majority, DADT will not get the light of day in congress.
Back to the judiciary, if the ruling is overturned on appeal, so be it. It will likely get appealed to the Supreme Court as neither side will be satisfied until then, so yes I am acutely aware of the fact the ruling may be overturned at any point.
Further, no servicemember is being encouraged to come out at this time, in fact the pentagon as well as groups for gay servicemembers such as OutServe are advising closeted service members to remain in the closet, because of the uncertainty of Justice Phillips’ ruling.
I was in the military and have then worked with them for 20 years after that. Now the problem is not the DADT it will be the UCMJ, Uniform code of Military Justice. A gay can be charged under that now again with out the DADT or an excutive order saying Gays can serve.
And Obama said it will be changed under his watch, but if enough Rep. get into congress this Nov he will not be able to because they will not pass anything on it. Or worse yet they could pass something just saying Gays can not serve at all.
@bill
I’m assuming you mean the article relating to sodomy. The issue with that is that straights are technically punishable under that article as well, provided they engage in oral sex… it’s a double edged sword.
@Bill:
Very informative post. Yeah, the thing about gays serving in the military is the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
@CANastronaut:
I guess gays can serve in the military as long as it won’t be in the way of their work, or will distract their co-members (especially straight men) in the military. The least one can do is to not be the source of distraction or disfunction at work.
And, the intentions of gay men (if any of these stuff happens) going to the military to “convert” straight men, or to want to engage in sexual acts with them in any way (and eventually making it happen), hmm. I’ll start to think that the real intent to join the military is two-ways. What do we really want from the military? Is it just to serve? A conflict of interest, maybe?