With gay ban debate over, military impact in doubt

Dec 19, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: KETK-TV Tyler

WASHINGTON The debate over gays in the military has been settled with a historic decision to allow them to serve openly, but big questions lie ahead about how and when the change will take place, how troops will accept it and whether it will hamper the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 9 of9

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 20, 2010
 
What was that VERY EXPENSIVE Pentagon study all about?

What a STUPID author !!!

Since: Jun 08

Bangkok, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 20, 2010
 
snyper wrote:
What was that VERY EXPENSIVE Pentagon study all about?
What a STUPID author !!!
The purpose of the study was to indefinitely delay repeal of DADT. Keep in mind that the study began in early February and was slated to be issued in December. That's 10 months and, not coincidentally, after the 2010 elections.

The military leaders thought up this stupid study; nobody in congress asked for it. The hope was that the Democrats would placidly acquiesce until the Republicans had a congress more hostile to gay people. However, that didn't happen. The House early on (in May I think) voted for DADT repeal and the Senate would have done the same except for unanimous Republican opposition. Keep in mind it takes 60% majority to pass the Senate no matter what the Constitution says.

Keep in mind that the "moderate" Republican Senators are in favor of gay rights until it's time to vote. Then, they are identical with the conservatives. I'm thinking of "moderate" Susan Collins who voted to keep the ban in September with the lame falsehood that more "debate" should be allowed. I guess there was some hidden deal to allow DADT to escape the latest filibuster.
hoodathunkit

Mount Gilead, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 20, 2010
 
Stanley Engel wrote:
<quoted text>
The purpose of the study was to indefinitely delay repeal of DADT. Keep in mind that the study began in early February and was slated to be issued in December. That's 10 months and, not coincidentally, after the 2010 elections.
The military leaders thought up this stupid study; nobody in congress asked for it. The hope was that the Democrats would placidly acquiesce until the Republicans had a congress more hostile to gay people. However, that didn't happen. The House early on (in May I think) voted for DADT repeal and the Senate would have done the same except for unanimous Republican opposition. Keep in mind it takes 60% majority to pass the Senate no matter what the Constitution says.
Keep in mind that the "moderate" Republican Senators are in favor of gay rights until it's time to vote. Then, they are identical with the conservatives. I'm thinking of "moderate" Susan Collins who voted to keep the ban in September with the lame falsehood that more "debate" should be allowed. I guess there was some hidden deal to allow DADT to escape the latest filibuster.
It takes a simple majority (51 votes) to pass an ordinary bill in the Senate. There is only 1 reason that a bill needs a 60% vote in order to pass. The 60% vote is needed to break a filibuster. The President has the power to veto ALMOST any bill that comes to his desk. If the President vetos or intends to veto a bill, then a 60% vote is needed to overide the presidential veto power. I can understand where somebody might come to the conclusion that a 60% vote is needed to pass a bill. However, despite the publicity around bills that do need a 60% vote to overide a filibuster or presidential veto, it still takes just a simple majority to pass a bill.
Wait and See

Valdosta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 20, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

There will be little impact in rear eschelon units such as hospitals, etc.. but the front line units are a different story. If we think that these units will embrace a soldier who comes out and has to shower, work and co-esist with them, you have another thing coming. Unfortunately, there will be a lot of discrimination in the future. Especially when a gay does not get what they want and cry discrimination. This will definitely turn the troops against the gay community.

Since: Feb 10

Woodstock, Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 20, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

From the article:

"Donnelly also believes that passage and implementation of the repeal legislation will lead to a wave of lawsuits by gay troops seeking, for example, more military benefits for same-sex partners"

By "more military benefits", does she mean that they will seek EQUAL military benefits as opposite sex couples? It amazes me that these narrow minded bigots feel that freedom from being fired for who you love is an unequal benefit for gay people. How do they justify that in their tiny little minds?

Since: Feb 10

Woodstock, Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 20, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Wait and See wrote:
There will be little impact in rear eschelon units such as hospitals, etc.. but the front line units are a different story. If we think that these units will embrace a soldier who comes out and has to shower, work and co-esist with them, you have another thing coming. Unfortunately, there will be a lot of discrimination in the future. Especially when a gay does not get what they want and cry discrimination. This will definitely turn the troops against the gay community.
Insert the word "negro" or "colored" where you have said "gay" and you might see just how bigoted you are. The same arguments were used to explain why integration of black people would not work in the 50's.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 20, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wait and See wrote:
There will be little impact in rear eschelon units such as hospitals, etc.. but the front line units are a different story. If we think that these units will embrace a soldier who comes out and has to shower, work and co-esist with them, you have another thing coming. Unfortunately, there will be a lot of discrimination in the future. Especially when a gay does not get what they want and cry discrimination. This will definitely turn the troops against the gay community.
I can't really express forcefully enough just how tired I am of yammerheads (elected and otherwise) denigrating the professionalism and discipline of our servicepersons. Seemingly neutral comments such as the above are in reality a slap in the faces of our troops.

Further, the baseless accusation that gay servicepersons will attempt to inappropriately play the discrimination card is yet another insult to citizens who have demonstrated their patriotism and dedication by placing their own bodies between home and the horrors of war.

Gey servicepersons aren't some crackers trying to get out of the ruts of unemployment, poverty or lives lacking focus.

Check yourself.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 20, 2010
 
Elaine Donnelly is the armed forces' equivalent of NOM's Maggie Gallagher. They have much in common, including an absolute loathing for gays.

In fact, the one thing they have most in common, they are both in profound need of a good boinking.

I wonder if there's anyone able to "man up" for the job?

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 20, 2010
 
I wouldn't tap that with Tony Perkins' dink!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 9 of9
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••