U.S. Senate votes to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy

[LeCharivari]

I simply asked a question, "BTW - in the militaries in the world that allow openly gays to serve, how many allow them to serve in combat/special forces positions? Or are they mostly in supportive roles?"

It may be a little late now, but to answer your question none of those countries that allow gays to serve in the military place any restrictions on the roles they can serve in.

[LeCharivari]

It's a great day for CIVIL RIGHTS in America.........

Unfortunately that is just the sort of reaction from the Gay Rights lobby that alienates others and obstructs the very progress it claims to be fighting for.

This decision should have had nothing to do with Civil Rights - it should have been solely and exclusively about what was best for the military, what would make them more able to do their job, minimise their own casualties, and improve their morale. If those were the reasons for the decision being made, then it was the correct decision, was long overdue, and it will be to the military's benefit; if it was purely about gays and lesbians forcing themselves unwanted on the military then it was unforgivable, will be resented and divisive, and will be to the detriment of the military. I hope (and believe) that it was the former and hope that that is how it is seen by those in the US military.

[Jingthing]

No, it was about civil rights. Exactly the same reason black people were granted equal civil rights in the military. Gays have been fighting and dying for America since the revolutionary war. Alienates, schmalienates, yes we are demanding equal civil rights and we won't shut up about it until it is achieved. Because that is justice and fairness and unity, the best values of America. Deal with it.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/12/19/gays-see-repeal-as-a-civil-rights-milestone/

Edited December 23, 2010 by Jingthing

[endure]

What's with all the different pens Jing?

[Jingthing]

What's with all the different pens Jing?

The signing of this bill is among the most important events in the history of the long struggle for equal gay civil rights in America. Obviously, the pens become historical keepsakes for various people and institutions. It is a long tradition. However, I would doubt this is done for mundane signings.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

What's with all the different pens Jing?

The signing of this bill is among the most important events in the history of the long struggle for equal gay civil rights in America. Obviously, the pens become historical keepsakes for various people and institutions. It is a long tradition. However, I would doubt this is done for mundane signings.

So the poor, uneducated gays with no other choice in life can now join the military. Isn't that who most on the Left believes joins up?

[Jingthing]

More evidence that indeed the DADT repeal is about gay civil rights, and that it is a landmark change that will lead to greater things. Some here seem to think "civil rights" is a bad thing or something for "liberals" only. Au contraire.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/24/AR2010122401242.html

Edited December 24, 2010 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

No, it was about civil rights. Exactly the same reason black people were granted equal civil rights in the military. ..........

Hopefully JT is as wrong about the reason for the change as he is about it being "Exactly the same reason black people were granted equal civil rights in the military".

The American military was not desegregated racially due to civil rights, with the decision being forced on the military. It was desegregated at the request of the military.

In September 1945 a board of three Generals was appointed by the then Secretary of War, R P Patterson, to prepare a new policy on the employment of African-Americans in the Army that would make for their best use for the Army. The board was headed by General Alvan C. Gillem, Jr, and it was called the Gillem Board.

In April 1946 the board issued its report entitled "Utilization of Negro Manpower in the Postwar Army Policy," which concluded that the Army's future policy should be to "eliminate, at the earliest practicable moment, any special consideration based on race." Two years later the Presidential order was issued for the military to be desegregated.

The issues of black/coloured Civil Rights and Gay Rights are radically different, even though the gay lobby do their best to re-write history to suit their own agenda.

[Jingthing]

Again, NO! This is about civil rights. EXACTLY the same principles as racial civil rights, except for the differences that black people didn't have issues with don't ask, don't tell, as race can't usually be concealed. The idea that the military should have continued with racist policies because that may have been the "best strategy" for the military is an ODIOUS concept to Americans.

More evidence from a very famous RIGHT WING US commentator --

The symbolism of the don't ask, don't tell repeal cannot be underestimated. It's not just that for the civil rights community, it represents a long-awaited extension of the historic arc - first blacks, then women, now gays. It was also Obama decisively transcending the triangulated trimming of Bill Clinton, who instituted don't ask, don't tell in the first place. Even more subtly and understatedly, the repeal represents the taming of the most conservative of the nation's institutions, the military, by a movement historically among the most avant-garde. Whatever your views, that is a cultural landmark.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/23/AR2010122303877.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[chuckd]

The idea that the military should have continued with racist policies because that may have been the "best strategy" for the military is an ODIOUS concept to Americans.

Why do you consider DADT a "racist policy"? What does racism have to do with sexual orientation?

I am confused why you would claim DADT was a racist policy when sexual orientation has nothing to do with race.

[Jingthing]

Why do you consider DADT a "racist policy"? What does racism have to do with sexual orientation?

I am confused why you would claim DADT was a racist policy when sexual orientation has nothing to do with race.

I don't consider DADT a racist policy and I never said anything of the kind. I consider it a homophobic policy. Racism and homophobia share the characteristics of UNJUST DISCRIMINATION. Black people and gay people in America share the characteristics of having historic CIVIL RIGHTS movements to reverse the parts of the discrimination that are codified in unfair laws. Black people are further along with their struggle evidenced by President Obama and that decades ago they were granted equal military rights and also equal marriage rights (interracial marriages used to be illegal in many US states). Gay people now have won equal military rights and are still working on equal marriage rights. Gay people of course will achieve this next step, it's a matter of when, not if. If some black people are offended by the comparison and no doubt some are, that's too bad, maybe they should have more regard for their black gay brothers.

Interestingly, I recently read there is an organized group of THAI gay activists who have now petitioned the THAI government for equal marriage rights in THAILAND. Bravo!

Edited December 25, 2010 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Why do you consider DADT a "racist policy"? What does racism have to do with sexual orientation?

I am confused why you would claim DADT was a racist policy when sexual orientation has nothing to do with race.

I don't consider DADT a racist policy and I never said anything of the kind. I consider it a homophobic policy. Racism and homophobia share the characteristics of UNJUST DISCRIMINATION. Black people and gay people in America share the characteristics of having historic CIVIL RIGHTS movements to reverse the parts of the discrimination that are codified in unfair laws. Black people are further along with their struggle evidenced by President Obama and that decades ago they were granted equal military rights and also equal marriage rights (interracial marriages used to be illegal in many US states). Gay people now have won equal military rights and are still working on equal marriage rights. Gay people of course will achieve this next step, it's a matter of when, not if. If some black people are offended by the comparison and no doubt some are, that's too bad, maybe they should have more regard for their black gay brothers.

Interestingly, I recently read there is an organized group of THAI gay activists who have now petitioned the THAI government for equal marriage rights in THAILAND. Bravo!

Years ago when they were voting on some gay right referendum in Florida, they were interviewing people on the street about it and one old black guy made a good point when the reporter brought up the similarity between racism and homophobia. He said something about how the two aren't the same because people can't tell your sexual orientation from 50 yards away but they sure can make out the color of your skin.

[Jingthing]

Years ago when they were voting on some gay right referendum in Florida, they were interviewing people on the street about it and one old black guy made a good point when the reporter brought up the similarity between racism and homophobia. He said something about how the two aren't the same because people can't tell your sexual orientation from 50 yards away but they sure can make out the color of your skin.

So what's your point? Clearly you personally have no experience of the pain involved in living a lie, having to conceal who you really are for fear of being beat up, losing friends who wouldn't be your friends if they knew what you were, losing parental love and support, killed, denied a job unfairly, denied housing, denied continued service in the military, etc. etc. Some gays yes you can spot a mile a way, but for those who you can't easily tell, staying in the closet means not living full lives, to one degree or another.

Agreed, black is a race thing, and gay is a sexual orientation thing, but civil rights for human beings are civil rights for human beings. This isn't a contest for which group is more oppressed!

To show how absurd your point of view is, suppose black people COULD hide their race, would you be in favor of banning blacks from the military (as gays used to be) or later would you be in favor of blacks being under a don't ask, don't tell (you are black) policy? Of course you wouldn't. Only a BIGOT would.

Same difference.

Edited December 25, 2010 by Jingthing

[powderpuff]

Any leftist policy Obama is going to be for. That is who he is.

[Jingthing]

Any leftist policy Obama is going to be for. That is who he is.

Let me check. Was Barry Goldwater a leftist?

You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.

Barry Goldwater, Right Wing Republican

Edited December 25, 2010 by Jingthing

[endure]

Any leftist policy Obama is going to be for. That is who he is.

The next thing you know he'll be wanting to pop round and inspect your fridge

[endure]

.

Edited December 25, 2010 by endure

[powderpuff]

Let's review all the civil rights you lose when you join the military.

You lose the right to a speedy trial.

You lose the right to a trail by a jury.

I am sure smart people can think of 100,000's of things you lose when you join the military.

Really this looks like men want to serve with pink bows in their hair.

DADT was the correct policy.

I don't give a dam_n what "CIVIL" rights you forfeit when you join the military.

If you don't like it - don't join.

A certain famous poster on here has coined a new phrase "Gay civil rights" Hillary would be so proud.

Let divide evereyone into little groups.

It's the democrat way.

[Jingthing]

Let's review all the civil rights you lose when you join the military.

You lose the right to a speedy trial.

You lose the right to a trail by a jury.

I am sure smart people can think of 100,000's of things you lose when you join the military.

Really this looks like men want to serve with pink bows in their hair.

DADT was the correct policy.

I don't give a dam_n what "CIVIL" rights you forfeit when you join the military.

If you don't like it - don't join.

A certain famous poster on here has coined a new phrase "Gay civil rights" Hillary would be so proud.

Let divide evereyone into little groups.

It's the democrat way.

You sound like a very sore loser. Well, that damaging policy is repealed and it is NEVER coming back. I hope you can cope.

(BTW, no, this has nothing to do with soldiers being allowed to wear pink bows. That's insulting and yes, homophobic.)

Edited December 25, 2010 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Again, NO! This is about civil rights. EXACTLY the same principles as racial civil rights, except for the differences that black people didn't have issues with don't ask, don't tell, as race can't usually be concealed. The idea that the military should have continued with racist policies because that may have been the "best strategy" for the military is an ODIOUS concept to Americans.

"ODIOUS" it may be now, nevertheless that was one of the options considered by the Gillem Board.

The report has been declassified and is readily available . To save you time reading all 146 pages of the report, page 3 reads: "….the Army insisted military efficiency required that this Negro strength be employed only in racial units. Regarded from a strictly military viewpoint this policy, on paper, was defensible. "

I am not defending the policy of racial segregation in the military any more than I am defending DADT; I am simply pointing out that your claim that the background to and reasons for the reversal of the two policies as "EXACTLY the same" is clearly wrong.

[Jingthing]

Again, NO! This is about civil rights. EXACTLY the same principles as racial civil rights, except for the differences that black people didn't have issues with don't ask, don't tell, as race can't usually be concealed. The idea that the military should have continued with racist policies because that may have been the "best strategy" for the military is an ODIOUS concept to Americans.

"ODIOUS" it may be now, nevertheless that was one of the options considered by the Gillem Board.

The report has been declassified and is readily available . To save you time reading all 146 pages of the report, page 3 reads: "….the Army insisted military efficiency required that this Negro strength be employed only in racial units. Regarded from a strictly military viewpoint this policy, on paper, was defensible. "

I am not defending the policy of racial segregation in the military any more than I am defending DADT; I am simply pointing out that your claim that the background to and reasons for the reversal of the two policies as "EXACTLY the same" is clearly wrong.

I don't get your point at all, and you clearly don't get mine. Now it seems odious to almost everybody, that rationale for racial segregation, just as to most people John McCain's pro DADT angry old man arguments are also odious, now to a clear majority of the public, eventually to nearly everybody in the course of time.

Yes, John McCain will go down in history as an out of touch bigot, and I am glad of that. Turns out the maverick is a crank.

Next ...

Edited December 25, 2010 by Jingthing

[TAWP]

Any leftist policy Obama is going to be for. That is who he is.

Nonsense.

Any person that believe in peoples equal value in-front of the state is for this change.

The government and the state must at all times treat all citizens equal.

The military is the governments monopoly on a foreign aggression force and as such must adhere to the same basic principle.

If the military was a private company - or any PMC's for that matter - then they can have any rules they want and the person not wanting to follow them have the choice to seek employment in another company.

[Jingthing]

If the military was a private company - or any PMC's for that matter - then they can have any rules they want and the person not wanting to follow them have the choice to seek employment in another company.

You sure are a libertarian. No, private companies should also be compelled not to discriminate based on sexual orientation by law. Of course discrimination based on job function is another thing entirely. For example, at a Hooters, they are selling young ladies with big boobies, so of course they need to discriminate that way, but if they rejected a suitable applicant who was a lesbian, that wouldn't be cool, as being a lesbian has nothing to do with performing that job.

[TAWP]

If the military was a private company - or any PMC's for that matter - then they can have any rules they want and the person not wanting to follow them have the choice to seek employment in another company.

You sure are a libertarian. No, private companies should also be compelled not to discriminate based on sexual orientation by law. Of course discrimination based on job function is another thing entirely. For example, at a Hooters, they are selling young ladies with big boobies, so of course they need to discriminate that way, but if they rejected a suitable applicant who was a lesbian, that wouldn't be cool, as being a lesbian has nothing to do with performing that job.

Actually, they SHOULD be allowed to discriminated on exactly whatever grounds they want. Or to put it in other words - they are allowed to choose who to hire and who not to hire.

If you think you are not hired because you are of a specific persuasion or religion, perhaps you was, perhaps you are overly sensitive. And the best case is to try to get hired for another company.

You cannot force anyone to hire anyone that the hirer isn't comfortable with.

Would you really like to work at a place were you forced your way in and the management will dislike you? Good luck with that.

[Jingthing]

If the military was a private company - or any PMC's for that matter - then they can have any rules they want and the person not wanting to follow them have the choice to seek employment in another company.

You sure are a libertarian. No, private companies should also be compelled not to discriminate based on sexual orientation by law. Of course discrimination based on job function is another thing entirely. For example, at a Hooters, they are selling young ladies with big boobies, so of course they need to discriminate that way, but if they rejected a suitable applicant who was a lesbian, that wouldn't be cool, as being a lesbian has nothing to do with performing that job.

Actually, they SHOULD be allowed to discriminated on exactly whatever grounds they want. Or to put it in other words - they are allowed to choose who to hire and who not to hire.

If you think you are not hired because you are of a specific persuasion or religion, perhaps you was, perhaps you are overly sensitive. And the best case is to try to get hired for another company.

You cannot force anyone to hire anyone that the hirer isn't comfortable with.

Would you really like to work at a place were you forced your way in and the management will dislike you? Good luck with that.

You are simply mouthing the libertarian ideology which you agree with, and most people in the US do NOT agree with. There are existing anti-discrimination laws for housing, employment, and public accommodation on the books in most US states (and also some federal laws) for various things like sex, race, age, etc. and most people support them. I consider your point of view radical, but you are welcome to it.

Of course I am talking about the US here. I realize Thailand doesn't have these kinds of protective laws on the books and although I think they would do well to add some (especially age discrimination in employment) it's really not my business.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Jingthing

[TAWP]

You are simply mouthing the libertarian ideology which you agree with,

Uh, yes, isn't that how it works?

and most people in the US do NOT agree with.

Yes, so? I cannot say my opinion unless a referendum has proven me to be in the majority in the US? Well, unless it is a minority-cause YOU agree with ofcourse...

There are existing anti-discrimination laws for housing, employment, and public accommodation on the books in most US states (and also some federal laws) for various things like sex, race, age, etc. and most people support them. I consider your point of view radical, but you are welcome to it.

Of course I am talking about the US here. I realize Thailand doesn't have these kinds of protective laws on the books and although I think they would do well to add some (especially age discrimination in employment) it's really not my business.

The only anti-discrimination-rules needed is a strong constitution that guarantees equal treatment of all people from the government.

I think hotels for instance should be allowed to define what kind of customers they want or allow. Be it white, blacks, smokers, non-smokers, pet-owners that bring pets etc - as long as it is clearly stated in their hotel information sheet and they are very efficient in returning any pre-paid money if there is any 'miss-bookings' etc.

This way any other customers can also validate what business they want to support.

And others are welcome to open up hotels that cover other niches of the market.

[Jingthing]

Good luck with your campaign to allow hotels to be racist in the US. Tip -- gay marriage will happen 100 percent within decades, your extremist ideas -- NEVER. But I respect and support your right to lobby for them, but I am comforted to know they don't have a prayer.

BTW, these new "constitutionalists" are good for a laugh. They aren't really constitutionalists. They only like what can be twisted to support their political ideology; otherwise they are happy to ignore and/or propose changes to it.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Jingthing

[TAWP]

Good luck with your campaign to allow hotels to be racist in the US. Tip -- gay marriage will happen 100 percent within decades, your extremist ideas -- NEVER. But I respect and support your right to lobby for them, but I am comforted to know they don't have a prayer.

BTW, these new "constitutionalists" are good for a laugh. They aren't really constitutionalists. They only like what can be twisted to support their political ideology; otherwise they are happy to ignore and/or propose changes to it.

When supporting equal rights, limited government and a strong constitution is considered being an extremist...well, it just shows how warped the world has become.

I am sure your off-topic and distorted views on constitutionalists are very interesting to hear, perhaps you can open a new thread for it...or open a book.

[bonobo]

I served in the US army for aprox 6 yr and I honestly do not think there would have been any problems if any of the guys in our unit were openly gay, as long as they didn't try hitting on any of the non -gay guys, but I really do not think that would be an issue...

And I spent a total of 34 years in the Marines, and I frankly don't see the problem with gay men and women serving. THey have been serving anyway for years without much of a problem.

[LeCharivari]

(edted for brevity)

.........I am not defending the policy of racial segregation in the military any more than I am defending DADT; I am simply pointing out that your claim that the background to and reasons for the reversal of the two policies as "EXACTLY the same" is clearly wrong.

I don't get your point at all, and you clearly don't get mine. .........

Your failure to "get" my point hardly surprises me; I do "get" yours, but I simply disagree with it as the parallels you draw do not exist.

Bonobo, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It has seldom been a problem or an issue for those in the military who put the military first (ie Marines who were gay rather than gays who were Marines), especially in any operational environment.

I support the ending of DADT from a personal and a military perspective, but it seems to be a rather one-sided arrangement for the military to increase its manpower and a political exercise to appease the gay/civil rights lobby - gays in the US military cannot have the same rights as heterosexuals until they have an entitlement to the same married quarters, pensions, family allowances, etc and so far there has been no indication that either of the main US political parties support that. The same, admittedly, was true when gays were allowed to serve in the British military but at the time such proposals were already being formalised and Civil Partnerships were approved 5 years later.

Personally, apart from the lesbians having something to celebrate, I doubt if many in the military will notice very much difference.