No change soon on `don't ask, don't tell'

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090329/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gays_military

Don't expect any change soon to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says both he and President Barack Obama have "a lot on our plates right now." As Gates puts it, "let's push that one down the road a little bit."

The White House has said Obama has begun consulting with Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on how to lift the ban. Gates says that dialogue has not really progressed very far at this point in the administration.

The Pentagon policy was put in place after President Bill Clinton tried to lift the ban on gay service members in 1993.

The policy refers to the military practice of not asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members are banned from saying they are gay or bisexual, engaging in homosexual activity or trying to marry a member of the same sex.

[jimmy olsen]

Not surprising, with Gates ramping up the war in Afghanistan and winding down the war in Iraq he doesn't have time for controversy. Nor does Obama who has the economy and health care reform to take care of.

[Martinus]

It's pretty shameful that gay people who want to work for their country are being turned back because of their personal lives and who they love.

And Tim, you should check the statistics of a number of high level army specialists (including Middle East experts, as well as Arabic language translators and interpreters etc.) who were discharged under the policy. If anything, the military needs these people now because it has so much on its plate.

[Siege]

If they really want to serve their country, they can begin by stopping being gay.

[Neil]

If they really want to serve their country, they can begin by stopping being gay.

This is the best thing you've ever said.  Even though you're a barbarian, you sometimes are able to show a crude sort of wisdom.

[Siege]

If they really want to serve their country, they can begin by stopping being gay.

This is the best thing you've ever said.  Even though you're a barbarian, you sometimes are able to show a crude sort of wisdom.

Thank you, Master.
Good things from you are getting rubbed into me.

[PDH]

Thank you, Master.
Good things from you are getting rubbed into me.

That was totally gay.

[Siege]

Thank you, Master.
Good things from you are getting rubbed into me.

That was totally gay.

Did it turn you on?

[Martinus]

If they really want to serve their country, they can begin by stopping being gay.

This is the best thing you've ever said.  Even though you're a barbarian, you sometimes are able to show a crude sort of wisdom.

Thank you, Master.
Good things from you are getting rubbed into me.

Dude, if you want to say these BDSM gay porn lines, start a new thread and mark it NSFW.

[grumbler]

Not surprising, with Gates ramping up the war in Afghanistan and winding down the war in Iraq he doesn't have time for controversy. Nor does Obama who has the economy and health care reform to take care of.

They don't need to change any laws.  The POTUS just needs to issue an executive order that states that no one will be discharged for being discovered as a homosexual for the duration of the War on Terror, citing national security grounds.

I have always found it endlessly amusing that current US and DoD policy forces people to unwillingly continue to serve in the military under "stop loss" because national security requires this de facto draft, while it simultaneously forces people willing to serve out of the military because there seems to be no national security need for them.

Furthermore, people like Gates seem to lack the intelligence to realize the absurdity of the current mix of policies, or else they are pretending to see the Emperor's New Clothes for political reasons. In either case, they simply lose the respect of people intelligent enough to see that the emperor ihas no clothes.

[Martinus]

Not surprising, with Gates ramping up the war in Afghanistan and winding down the war in Iraq he doesn't have time for controversy. Nor does Obama who has the economy and health care reform to take care of.

They don't need to change any laws.  The POTUS just needs to issue an executive order that states that no one will be discharged for being discovered as a homosexual for the duration of the War on Terror, citing national security grounds.

I have always found it endlessly amusing that current US and DoD policy forces people to unwillingly continue to serve in the military under "stop loss" because national security requires this de facto draft, while it simultaneously forces people willing to serve out of the military because there seems to be no national security need for them.

Furthermore, people like Gates seem to lack the intelligence to realize the absurdity of the current mix of policies, or else they are pretending to see the Emperor's New Clothes for political reasons. In either case, they simply lose the respect of people intelligent enough to see that the emperor ihas no clothes.

Yeah. It's not like the government is facing a mutiny if they allow openly homosexual people to serve in the military, and it's not like this will materially affect the heterosexual military men and women's willingness to serve, considering that according to the opinion polls, the majority of them is for repelling the policy, and it's the old brass's resistance that is really the only issue.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah. It's not like the government is facing a mutiny if they allow openly homosexual people to serve in the military, and it's not like this will materially affect the heterosexual military men and women's willingness to serve, considering that according to the opinion polls, the majority of them is for repelling the policy, and it's the old brass's resistance that is really the only issue.

Really?  I have never heard of any such polls.

[Martinus]

Yeah. It's not like the government is facing a mutiny if they allow openly homosexual people to serve in the military, and it's not like this will materially affect the heterosexual military men and women's willingness to serve, considering that according to the opinion polls, the majority of them is for repelling the policy, and it's the old brass's resistance that is really the only issue.

Really?  I have never heard of any such polls.

Well, I have been interested in this topic so that's what I have been reading. Have you actually been following this and just saw different polls, or simply you have never heard about such polls one way or another, irrespective of the results?

[grumbler]

Really?  I have never heard of any such polls.

They exist, though I have not seen any that come out with the unambiguous results that Marti claims.

This 2006 http://www.zogby.com/CSSMM_Report-Final.pdf Zogby poll, for instance, found that 37% opposed allowing gays/lesbians to serve openly, 25% supported, and 37% were neutral or unsure.  Interestingly, when asked if having gays and lesbians serving openly would affect their own morale, and would affect unit morale, 38% said it would harm their own morale, while 58% said it would hamr the morale of the rest of the unit.  This discrepancy can be explained by the result that 58% of the service members thought they were more tolerant of gays and lesbians than their fellow servicemen, while only 11% thought they were less tolerant.

Also interestingly, while about a quarter of the respondents said that they knew that members of their unit were gay or lesbian, and about half of those stated that the prsence of the gays or lesbians was well-known, only a bit more than a quarter of those who knew about the presence of gays or lesbians also thought that such presence harmed unit morale.

The hypothetical presence of gays and lesbians is thus seen as more potentially harmful than the actual presence was seen as actually hamrful! 

[The Brain]

It's like in the South: people don't mind their presence when they are slaves, but when they are freed they become a problem.