OT: Gay Marriage

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
As to Brian’s point…it’s not about fearing that the one gay man is attracted to you. It’s about the potential for sexual harassment. It’s a fact that living together in close quarters changes the nature of relationships, and the opportunity for problems increases.
[/quote]

There are already rules against fraternization in the military.

I might agree with you if we were the first country in the world to integrate gays into the military.

But other countries have done so successfully. Israel, a conservative religious society, allows gays to serve openly.

We used to lead the world in social progress. We now lag.[/quote]

This was from the 1993 senate hearing on the topic. There is a paragraph that addresses the question of comparing the U.S. military policy to that of other countries. I think it is shallow, there is probably more to it from broader social engineering political warfare concerns …but it least it shows an actual influential person’s perspective. I doubt the “logic” has changed much.

http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/HomosexualityDebate.html

[briansd1]

Russell, you must be referring to this passage.

If you attempt to mold your military force behind a second-rate military operation, then you will get a second-rate military operation. You have the best military in the world today, and you want to be like somebody who cannot do one-third of the things we can do.

Madam President, in conclusion, in a long process, we have had thousands of pages of testimony and we have heard from hundreds of witnesses. The staff has talked to thousands of troops, visited 21 bases, and we have talked to those in the field in our field hearings. We have built what I believe to be a sure foundation to uphold the policy that bans homosexuals in the military. We have seen the unique requirements of a very unique life.

Cohesion is the single most important factor in military success. Open homosexuality destroys it. In units with such problems, a breakdown in morale and effectiveness is sure to follow. A commander is faced with practical problems of dissent and resentment that can undermine everything he has carefully built.

The question is not if men and women in the military will obey orders. They will always obey because their honor is not in question. The question is this: Will they have that edge of readiness that can mean the difference between victory and defeat, and I think it is fair to say between life and death for many? This quality requires a belief on the part of soldiers that their Commander in Chief understands their life and their needs. Armed with that knowledge, they perform prodigies of courage and endurance. Without it, effectiveness is dissolved in resentment.

We hear a lot of rumors about compromise on this policy–rumors that test the political wind. But a political compromise should not be our object. There is no political cover on a battlefield. What we require is a conclusion on the substance of this debate, and I believe that conclusion, from our hearings, is clear: Homosexuality is inconsistent with military life.

I have talked about the burden of proof, and now we have heard the evidence. We have a right to make our own judgment, and I have made mine. Against the President and his supporters we must conclude this: Their case was not made. This standard was not reached. And a policy that is currently in place, and was in place before the President sought to change it, is the policy that ought to remain.

I think that was politics of obstruction against Clinton’s fulfilling his campaign promise by executive order.

Here’s an interesting interview with Bill Clinton on DADT as he looks back.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017186-503544.html

And for some history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

My take on DADT, is that it was part of social progress and, for its time, it was better than the previous total ban.

A Federal judge already found DADT unconstitutional, so Congress may not even have to act.

Russell, 10 years from now, your kids will likely think that gays in the military is no big deal at all.

[briansd1]

Russell, you must be referring to this passage.

If you attempt to mold your military force behind a second-rate military operation, then you will get a second-rate military operation. You have the best military in the world today, and you want to be like somebody who cannot do one-third of the things we can do.

Madam President, in conclusion, in a long process, we have had thousands of pages of testimony and we have heard from hundreds of witnesses. The staff has talked to thousands of troops, visited 21 bases, and we have talked to those in the field in our field hearings. We have built what I believe to be a sure foundation to uphold the policy that bans homosexuals in the military. We have seen the unique requirements of a very unique life.

Cohesion is the single most important factor in military success. Open homosexuality destroys it. In units with such problems, a breakdown in morale and effectiveness is sure to follow. A commander is faced with practical problems of dissent and resentment that can undermine everything he has carefully built.

The question is not if men and women in the military will obey orders. They will always obey because their honor is not in question. The question is this: Will they have that edge of readiness that can mean the difference between victory and defeat, and I think it is fair to say between life and death for many? This quality requires a belief on the part of soldiers that their Commander in Chief understands their life and their needs. Armed with that knowledge, they perform prodigies of courage and endurance. Without it, effectiveness is dissolved in resentment.

We hear a lot of rumors about compromise on this policy–rumors that test the political wind. But a political compromise should not be our object. There is no political cover on a battlefield. What we require is a conclusion on the substance of this debate, and I believe that conclusion, from our hearings, is clear: Homosexuality is inconsistent with military life.

I have talked about the burden of proof, and now we have heard the evidence. We have a right to make our own judgment, and I have made mine. Against the President and his supporters we must conclude this: Their case was not made. This standard was not reached. And a policy that is currently in place, and was in place before the President sought to change it, is the policy that ought to remain.

I think that was politics of obstruction against Clinton’s fulfilling his campaign promise by executive order.

Here’s an interesting interview with Bill Clinton on DADT as he looks back.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017186-503544.html

And for some history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

My take on DADT, is that it was part of social progress and, for its time, it was better than the previous total ban.

A Federal judge already found DADT unconstitutional, so Congress may not even have to act.

Russell, 10 years from now, your kids will likely think that gays in the military is no big deal at all.

[briansd1]

Russell, you must be referring to this passage.

If you attempt to mold your military force behind a second-rate military operation, then you will get a second-rate military operation. You have the best military in the world today, and you want to be like somebody who cannot do one-third of the things we can do.

Madam President, in conclusion, in a long process, we have had thousands of pages of testimony and we have heard from hundreds of witnesses. The staff has talked to thousands of troops, visited 21 bases, and we have talked to those in the field in our field hearings. We have built what I believe to be a sure foundation to uphold the policy that bans homosexuals in the military. We have seen the unique requirements of a very unique life.

Cohesion is the single most important factor in military success. Open homosexuality destroys it. In units with such problems, a breakdown in morale and effectiveness is sure to follow. A commander is faced with practical problems of dissent and resentment that can undermine everything he has carefully built.

The question is not if men and women in the military will obey orders. They will always obey because their honor is not in question. The question is this: Will they have that edge of readiness that can mean the difference between victory and defeat, and I think it is fair to say between life and death for many? This quality requires a belief on the part of soldiers that their Commander in Chief understands their life and their needs. Armed with that knowledge, they perform prodigies of courage and endurance. Without it, effectiveness is dissolved in resentment.

We hear a lot of rumors about compromise on this policy–rumors that test the political wind. But a political compromise should not be our object. There is no political cover on a battlefield. What we require is a conclusion on the substance of this debate, and I believe that conclusion, from our hearings, is clear: Homosexuality is inconsistent with military life.

I have talked about the burden of proof, and now we have heard the evidence. We have a right to make our own judgment, and I have made mine. Against the President and his supporters we must conclude this: Their case was not made. This standard was not reached. And a policy that is currently in place, and was in place before the President sought to change it, is the policy that ought to remain.

I think that was politics of obstruction against Clinton’s fulfilling his campaign promise by executive order.

Here’s an interesting interview with Bill Clinton on DADT as he looks back.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017186-503544.html

And for some history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

My take on DADT, is that it was part of social progress and, for its time, it was better than the previous total ban.

A Federal judge already found DADT unconstitutional, so Congress may not even have to act.

Russell, 10 years from now, your kids will likely think that gays in the military is no big deal at all.

[briansd1]

Russell, you must be referring to this passage.

If you attempt to mold your military force behind a second-rate military operation, then you will get a second-rate military operation. You have the best military in the world today, and you want to be like somebody who cannot do one-third of the things we can do.

Madam President, in conclusion, in a long process, we have had thousands of pages of testimony and we have heard from hundreds of witnesses. The staff has talked to thousands of troops, visited 21 bases, and we have talked to those in the field in our field hearings. We have built what I believe to be a sure foundation to uphold the policy that bans homosexuals in the military. We have seen the unique requirements of a very unique life.

Cohesion is the single most important factor in military success. Open homosexuality destroys it. In units with such problems, a breakdown in morale and effectiveness is sure to follow. A commander is faced with practical problems of dissent and resentment that can undermine everything he has carefully built.

The question is not if men and women in the military will obey orders. They will always obey because their honor is not in question. The question is this: Will they have that edge of readiness that can mean the difference between victory and defeat, and I think it is fair to say between life and death for many? This quality requires a belief on the part of soldiers that their Commander in Chief understands their life and their needs. Armed with that knowledge, they perform prodigies of courage and endurance. Without it, effectiveness is dissolved in resentment.

We hear a lot of rumors about compromise on this policy–rumors that test the political wind. But a political compromise should not be our object. There is no political cover on a battlefield. What we require is a conclusion on the substance of this debate, and I believe that conclusion, from our hearings, is clear: Homosexuality is inconsistent with military life.

I have talked about the burden of proof, and now we have heard the evidence. We have a right to make our own judgment, and I have made mine. Against the President and his supporters we must conclude this: Their case was not made. This standard was not reached. And a policy that is currently in place, and was in place before the President sought to change it, is the policy that ought to remain.

I think that was politics of obstruction against Clinton’s fulfilling his campaign promise by executive order.

Here’s an interesting interview with Bill Clinton on DADT as he looks back.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017186-503544.html

And for some history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

My take on DADT, is that it was part of social progress and, for its time, it was better than the previous total ban.

A Federal judge already found DADT unconstitutional, so Congress may not even have to act.

Russell, 10 years from now, your kids will likely think that gays in the military is no big deal at all.

[briansd1]

Russell, you must be referring to this passage.

If you attempt to mold your military force behind a second-rate military operation, then you will get a second-rate military operation. You have the best military in the world today, and you want to be like somebody who cannot do one-third of the things we can do.

Madam President, in conclusion, in a long process, we have had thousands of pages of testimony and we have heard from hundreds of witnesses. The staff has talked to thousands of troops, visited 21 bases, and we have talked to those in the field in our field hearings. We have built what I believe to be a sure foundation to uphold the policy that bans homosexuals in the military. We have seen the unique requirements of a very unique life.

Cohesion is the single most important factor in military success. Open homosexuality destroys it. In units with such problems, a breakdown in morale and effectiveness is sure to follow. A commander is faced with practical problems of dissent and resentment that can undermine everything he has carefully built.

The question is not if men and women in the military will obey orders. They will always obey because their honor is not in question. The question is this: Will they have that edge of readiness that can mean the difference between victory and defeat, and I think it is fair to say between life and death for many? This quality requires a belief on the part of soldiers that their Commander in Chief understands their life and their needs. Armed with that knowledge, they perform prodigies of courage and endurance. Without it, effectiveness is dissolved in resentment.

We hear a lot of rumors about compromise on this policy–rumors that test the political wind. But a political compromise should not be our object. There is no political cover on a battlefield. What we require is a conclusion on the substance of this debate, and I believe that conclusion, from our hearings, is clear: Homosexuality is inconsistent with military life.

I have talked about the burden of proof, and now we have heard the evidence. We have a right to make our own judgment, and I have made mine. Against the President and his supporters we must conclude this: Their case was not made. This standard was not reached. And a policy that is currently in place, and was in place before the President sought to change it, is the policy that ought to remain.

I think that was politics of obstruction against Clinton’s fulfilling his campaign promise by executive order.

Here’s an interesting interview with Bill Clinton on DADT as he looks back.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017186-503544.html

And for some history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

My take on DADT, is that it was part of social progress and, for its time, it was better than the previous total ban.

A Federal judge already found DADT unconstitutional, so Congress may not even have to act.

Russell, 10 years from now, your kids will likely think that gays in the military is no big deal at all.

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1]Russell, you must be referring to this passage.

If you attempt to mold your military force behind a second-rate military operation, then you will get a second-rate military operation. You have the best military in the world today, and you want to be like somebody who cannot do one-third of the things we can do.

Madam President, in conclusion, in a long process, we have had thousands of pages of testimony and we have heard from hundreds of witnesses. The staff has talked to thousands of troops, visited 21 bases, and we have talked to those in the field in our field hearings. We have built what I believe to be a sure foundation to uphold the policy that bans homosexuals in the military. We have seen the unique requirements of a very unique life.

Cohesion is the single most important factor in military success. Open homosexuality destroys it. In units with such problems, a breakdown in morale and effectiveness is sure to follow. A commander is faced with practical problems of dissent and resentment that can undermine everything he has carefully built.

The question is not if men and women in the military will obey orders. They will always obey because their honor is not in question. The question is this: Will they have that edge of readiness that can mean the difference between victory and defeat, and I think it is fair to say between life and death for many? This quality requires a belief on the part of soldiers that their Commander in Chief understands their life and their needs. Armed with that knowledge, they perform prodigies of courage and endurance. Without it, effectiveness is dissolved in resentment.

We hear a lot of rumors about compromise on this policy–rumors that test the political wind. But a political compromise should not be our object. There is no political cover on a battlefield. What we require is a conclusion on the substance of this debate, and I believe that conclusion, from our hearings, is clear: Homosexuality is inconsistent with military life.

I have talked about the burden of proof, and now we have heard the evidence. We have a right to make our own judgment, and I have made mine. Against the President and his supporters we must conclude this: Their case was not made. This standard was not reached. And a policy that is currently in place, and was in place before the President sought to change it, is the policy that ought to remain.

I think that was politics of obstruction against Clinton’s fulfilling his campaign promise by executive order.

Here’s an interesting interview with Bill Clinton on DADT as he looks back.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017186-503544.html

And for some history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

My take on DADT, is that it was part of social progress and, for its time, it was better than the previous total ban.

A Federal judge already found DADT unconstitutional, so Congress may not even have to act.

Russell, 10 years from now, your kids will likely think that gays in the military is no big deal at all.[/quote]

Like I said,Brian, we pretty much had complete integration when I was in the military in the 80’s and it was obvious that it had been there for a while. We mostly did not think it was a big deal. When I showed up to my first ship,practically a kid, I was warned that gays would be after me. Maybe my sons won’t have to be told that and we won’t need DADT to stop vigilantes either.Actually The most difficult thing I saw up close and personal was the suicidal homosexual bible thumpers, aids was worse of course and I never witnessed and blanket parties or retaliatory abuse. Some gays did get away with sexual harassment and this will probably continue.

Civilizations go through changes. It really is hard to know what is progress what is convenience, desperation or some other or thing or combination.

“Open service” will come out as a bipartisan success.That’s probably fair in many ways and will be more useful in social engineering.

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1]Russell, you must be referring to this passage.

If you attempt to mold your military force behind a second-rate military operation, then you will get a second-rate military operation. You have the best military in the world today, and you want to be like somebody who cannot do one-third of the things we can do.

Madam President, in conclusion, in a long process, we have had thousands of pages of testimony and we have heard from hundreds of witnesses. The staff has talked to thousands of troops, visited 21 bases, and we have talked to those in the field in our field hearings. We have built what I believe to be a sure foundation to uphold the policy that bans homosexuals in the military. We have seen the unique requirements of a very unique life.

Cohesion is the single most important factor in military success. Open homosexuality destroys it. In units with such problems, a breakdown in morale and effectiveness is sure to follow. A commander is faced with practical problems of dissent and resentment that can undermine everything he has carefully built.

The question is not if men and women in the military will obey orders. They will always obey because their honor is not in question. The question is this: Will they have that edge of readiness that can mean the difference between victory and defeat, and I think it is fair to say between life and death for many? This quality requires a belief on the part of soldiers that their Commander in Chief understands their life and their needs. Armed with that knowledge, they perform prodigies of courage and endurance. Without it, effectiveness is dissolved in resentment.

We hear a lot of rumors about compromise on this policy–rumors that test the political wind. But a political compromise should not be our object. There is no political cover on a battlefield. What we require is a conclusion on the substance of this debate, and I believe that conclusion, from our hearings, is clear: Homosexuality is inconsistent with military life.

I have talked about the burden of proof, and now we have heard the evidence. We have a right to make our own judgment, and I have made mine. Against the President and his supporters we must conclude this: Their case was not made. This standard was not reached. And a policy that is currently in place, and was in place before the President sought to change it, is the policy that ought to remain.

I think that was politics of obstruction against Clinton’s fulfilling his campaign promise by executive order.

Here’s an interesting interview with Bill Clinton on DADT as he looks back.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017186-503544.html

And for some history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

My take on DADT, is that it was part of social progress and, for its time, it was better than the previous total ban.

A Federal judge already found DADT unconstitutional, so Congress may not even have to act.

Russell, 10 years from now, your kids will likely think that gays in the military is no big deal at all.[/quote]

Like I said,Brian, we pretty much had complete integration when I was in the military in the 80’s and it was obvious that it had been there for a while. We mostly did not think it was a big deal. When I showed up to my first ship,practically a kid, I was warned that gays would be after me. Maybe my sons won’t have to be told that and we won’t need DADT to stop vigilantes either.Actually The most difficult thing I saw up close and personal was the suicidal homosexual bible thumpers, aids was worse of course and I never witnessed and blanket parties or retaliatory abuse. Some gays did get away with sexual harassment and this will probably continue.

Civilizations go through changes. It really is hard to know what is progress what is convenience, desperation or some other or thing or combination.

“Open service” will come out as a bipartisan success.That’s probably fair in many ways and will be more useful in social engineering.

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1]Russell, you must be referring to this passage.

If you attempt to mold your military force behind a second-rate military operation, then you will get a second-rate military operation. You have the best military in the world today, and you want to be like somebody who cannot do one-third of the things we can do.

Madam President, in conclusion, in a long process, we have had thousands of pages of testimony and we have heard from hundreds of witnesses. The staff has talked to thousands of troops, visited 21 bases, and we have talked to those in the field in our field hearings. We have built what I believe to be a sure foundation to uphold the policy that bans homosexuals in the military. We have seen the unique requirements of a very unique life.

Cohesion is the single most important factor in military success. Open homosexuality destroys it. In units with such problems, a breakdown in morale and effectiveness is sure to follow. A commander is faced with practical problems of dissent and resentment that can undermine everything he has carefully built.

The question is not if men and women in the military will obey orders. They will always obey because their honor is not in question. The question is this: Will they have that edge of readiness that can mean the difference between victory and defeat, and I think it is fair to say between life and death for many? This quality requires a belief on the part of soldiers that their Commander in Chief understands their life and their needs. Armed with that knowledge, they perform prodigies of courage and endurance. Without it, effectiveness is dissolved in resentment.

We hear a lot of rumors about compromise on this policy–rumors that test the political wind. But a political compromise should not be our object. There is no political cover on a battlefield. What we require is a conclusion on the substance of this debate, and I believe that conclusion, from our hearings, is clear: Homosexuality is inconsistent with military life.

I have talked about the burden of proof, and now we have heard the evidence. We have a right to make our own judgment, and I have made mine. Against the President and his supporters we must conclude this: Their case was not made. This standard was not reached. And a policy that is currently in place, and was in place before the President sought to change it, is the policy that ought to remain.

I think that was politics of obstruction against Clinton’s fulfilling his campaign promise by executive order.

Here’s an interesting interview with Bill Clinton on DADT as he looks back.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017186-503544.html

And for some history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

My take on DADT, is that it was part of social progress and, for its time, it was better than the previous total ban.

A Federal judge already found DADT unconstitutional, so Congress may not even have to act.

Russell, 10 years from now, your kids will likely think that gays in the military is no big deal at all.[/quote]

Like I said,Brian, we pretty much had complete integration when I was in the military in the 80’s and it was obvious that it had been there for a while. We mostly did not think it was a big deal. When I showed up to my first ship,practically a kid, I was warned that gays would be after me. Maybe my sons won’t have to be told that and we won’t need DADT to stop vigilantes either.Actually The most difficult thing I saw up close and personal was the suicidal homosexual bible thumpers, aids was worse of course and I never witnessed and blanket parties or retaliatory abuse. Some gays did get away with sexual harassment and this will probably continue.

Civilizations go through changes. It really is hard to know what is progress what is convenience, desperation or some other or thing or combination.

“Open service” will come out as a bipartisan success.That’s probably fair in many ways and will be more useful in social engineering.

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1]Russell, you must be referring to this passage.

If you attempt to mold your military force behind a second-rate military operation, then you will get a second-rate military operation. You have the best military in the world today, and you want to be like somebody who cannot do one-third of the things we can do.

Madam President, in conclusion, in a long process, we have had thousands of pages of testimony and we have heard from hundreds of witnesses. The staff has talked to thousands of troops, visited 21 bases, and we have talked to those in the field in our field hearings. We have built what I believe to be a sure foundation to uphold the policy that bans homosexuals in the military. We have seen the unique requirements of a very unique life.

Cohesion is the single most important factor in military success. Open homosexuality destroys it. In units with such problems, a breakdown in morale and effectiveness is sure to follow. A commander is faced with practical problems of dissent and resentment that can undermine everything he has carefully built.

The question is not if men and women in the military will obey orders. They will always obey because their honor is not in question. The question is this: Will they have that edge of readiness that can mean the difference between victory and defeat, and I think it is fair to say between life and death for many? This quality requires a belief on the part of soldiers that their Commander in Chief understands their life and their needs. Armed with that knowledge, they perform prodigies of courage and endurance. Without it, effectiveness is dissolved in resentment.

We hear a lot of rumors about compromise on this policy–rumors that test the political wind. But a political compromise should not be our object. There is no political cover on a battlefield. What we require is a conclusion on the substance of this debate, and I believe that conclusion, from our hearings, is clear: Homosexuality is inconsistent with military life.

I have talked about the burden of proof, and now we have heard the evidence. We have a right to make our own judgment, and I have made mine. Against the President and his supporters we must conclude this: Their case was not made. This standard was not reached. And a policy that is currently in place, and was in place before the President sought to change it, is the policy that ought to remain.

I think that was politics of obstruction against Clinton’s fulfilling his campaign promise by executive order.

Here’s an interesting interview with Bill Clinton on DADT as he looks back.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017186-503544.html

And for some history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

My take on DADT, is that it was part of social progress and, for its time, it was better than the previous total ban.

A Federal judge already found DADT unconstitutional, so Congress may not even have to act.

Russell, 10 years from now, your kids will likely think that gays in the military is no big deal at all.[/quote]

Like I said,Brian, we pretty much had complete integration when I was in the military in the 80’s and it was obvious that it had been there for a while. We mostly did not think it was a big deal. When I showed up to my first ship,practically a kid, I was warned that gays would be after me. Maybe my sons won’t have to be told that and we won’t need DADT to stop vigilantes either.Actually The most difficult thing I saw up close and personal was the suicidal homosexual bible thumpers, aids was worse of course and I never witnessed and blanket parties or retaliatory abuse. Some gays did get away with sexual harassment and this will probably continue.

Civilizations go through changes. It really is hard to know what is progress what is convenience, desperation or some other or thing or combination.

“Open service” will come out as a bipartisan success.That’s probably fair in many ways and will be more useful in social engineering.

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1]Russell, you must be referring to this passage.

If you attempt to mold your military force behind a second-rate military operation, then you will get a second-rate military operation. You have the best military in the world today, and you want to be like somebody who cannot do one-third of the things we can do.

Madam President, in conclusion, in a long process, we have had thousands of pages of testimony and we have heard from hundreds of witnesses. The staff has talked to thousands of troops, visited 21 bases, and we have talked to those in the field in our field hearings. We have built what I believe to be a sure foundation to uphold the policy that bans homosexuals in the military. We have seen the unique requirements of a very unique life.

Cohesion is the single most important factor in military success. Open homosexuality destroys it. In units with such problems, a breakdown in morale and effectiveness is sure to follow. A commander is faced with practical problems of dissent and resentment that can undermine everything he has carefully built.

The question is not if men and women in the military will obey orders. They will always obey because their honor is not in question. The question is this: Will they have that edge of readiness that can mean the difference between victory and defeat, and I think it is fair to say between life and death for many? This quality requires a belief on the part of soldiers that their Commander in Chief understands their life and their needs. Armed with that knowledge, they perform prodigies of courage and endurance. Without it, effectiveness is dissolved in resentment.

We hear a lot of rumors about compromise on this policy–rumors that test the political wind. But a political compromise should not be our object. There is no political cover on a battlefield. What we require is a conclusion on the substance of this debate, and I believe that conclusion, from our hearings, is clear: Homosexuality is inconsistent with military life.

I have talked about the burden of proof, and now we have heard the evidence. We have a right to make our own judgment, and I have made mine. Against the President and his supporters we must conclude this: Their case was not made. This standard was not reached. And a policy that is currently in place, and was in place before the President sought to change it, is the policy that ought to remain.

I think that was politics of obstruction against Clinton’s fulfilling his campaign promise by executive order.

Here’s an interesting interview with Bill Clinton on DADT as he looks back.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017186-503544.html

And for some history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

My take on DADT, is that it was part of social progress and, for its time, it was better than the previous total ban.

A Federal judge already found DADT unconstitutional, so Congress may not even have to act.

Russell, 10 years from now, your kids will likely think that gays in the military is no big deal at all.[/quote]

Like I said,Brian, we pretty much had complete integration when I was in the military in the 80’s and it was obvious that it had been there for a while. We mostly did not think it was a big deal. When I showed up to my first ship,practically a kid, I was warned that gays would be after me. Maybe my sons won’t have to be told that and we won’t need DADT to stop vigilantes either.Actually The most difficult thing I saw up close and personal was the suicidal homosexual bible thumpers, aids was worse of course and I never witnessed and blanket parties or retaliatory abuse. Some gays did get away with sexual harassment and this will probably continue.

Civilizations go through changes. It really is hard to know what is progress what is convenience, desperation or some other or thing or combination.

“Open service” will come out as a bipartisan success.That’s probably fair in many ways and will be more useful in social engineering.

[NotCranky]

Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.

[NotCranky]

Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.

[NotCranky]

Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.

[NotCranky]

Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.

[Author]

Posts