Spokane7
50°
November 12, 2010 in Nation/World
High court allows gay military ban for now
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today allowed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military to remain in place while a federal appeals court considers the issue.
The court did not comment in denying a request from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to step into the ongoing federal court review of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The Obama administration urged the high court not to get involved at this point.
Last month, a federal judge ruled that the policy violates the civil rights of gay Americans and she issued an injunction barring the Pentagon from applying it. But the San Francisco-based appeals court said the policy could remain in effect while it considers the administration’s appeal.
President Barack Obama has pledged to push lawmakers to repeal the law in the lame-duck session before a new Congress is sworn in. But administration lawyers have in the meantime defended “don’t ask, don’t tell” in court.
The policy, which prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, was lifted for eight days in October after U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that it is unconstitutional. The Obama administration asked the appeals court to reinstate the ban until it could hear arguments on the broader constitutional issues next year.
Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the court’s consideration of the issue. Kagan served as the administration’s chief Supreme Court lawyer before she became a justice in August.
© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
WillyPeter on November 12 at 10:59 a.m.
Good !
effrepublicans on November 12 at 11:13 a.m.
Good for what? Ahh yes, you must mean its good for the continual denial of rights of American citizens who want nothing more than to serve their country. Ahh yes, thats very good indeed.
jddavis on November 12 at 11:15 a.m.
No one has “the right” to serve in the military…
effrepublicans on November 12 at 11:20 a.m.
Ya, as it currently stands thats the way it is until DADT is repealed.
SpokaneLiberal on November 12 at 11:21 a.m.
jjdavis - but people do have a right to equal protection under the law and to be free from discrimination in their profession.
Don’t ask don’t tell discriminates based upon something not relevant to performance of duties as assigned.
jddavis on November 12 at 11:27 a.m.
@SpokaneLiberal…Being homosexual in the military is relevant to performance of duties; that of the the homosexual and straight members. Tell me, in your experience while in the military, did an openly homosexual member disrupt the “good order and discipline” of your unit?
greenlibertarian on November 12 at 11:34 a.m.
It is far past time to quit damaging our military readiness, and wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, by kicking out our brave fellow gay men and lesbian women, our sisters and brothers, out of the military.
If you support DADT, YOU are undermining the mission of our armed forces.
A pox on you. Shame on you.
effrepublicans on November 12 at 11:43 a.m.
@jddavis; Wasn’t the same thing said about women, and blacks serving in the military? You’re argument is a joke. Seriously, wake up to the world and stop discriminating against people who are different from you. If you can’t accept a person’s differences then why should that person be at fault when you are the one who has issue with them? Oh ya, since when was the US military held to any different standard than any other employer in the US?
BTW, I am guessing you haven’t read the news about the report that is being compiled about the military review of DADT. Here’s a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12military.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=don’t%20ask%20don’t%20tell&st=cse
I will highlight a key part of the article: “the report showed that a majority of active-duty service members and their families did not care if gay men and lesbians served openly.”
Looks like your argument failed…
oneanddone on November 12 at 11:46 a.m.
Unless you’ve “served” and left with an honorable discharge, you have no right to an opinion on this issue. Additionally, no one has the “right” to ANY job. The military should take, or not take whomever they choose. However, I also have little doubt someone who’s gay could fight along side the next grunt, with equal bravery. The problem comes with all the misc day to day stuff. If/when women get on subs they will sleep in a different area and take showers in privacy. Why? Because anything else would make them uncomfortable. I would have felt the same sleeping in a rack 18” from someone I knew was not straight. Will they have 5 different sleeping quarters? Straight men, women, gay men, lesbians, and “other”? The only practical way would be if all men and women, regardless or orientation, shared living arrangements. Something like Starship Troupers maybe.
effrepublicans on November 12 at 11:55 a.m.
@oneandone… Again, I will state wasn’t the same debate had about women and blacks serving in the military? Really, come up with a better argument than one that only attempts to hide your bigot and homophobic views. If you can’t sleep in the same quarters as someone else who is willing to their risk their life for not yours but also any other citizen of this country than I don’t want you to be a person who serves our country and protects the rights and freedoms we hold dear. Growup and realize your homophobic views are outdated such as the same views of women and blacks shouldn’t have equal rights and the ability to serve in the military have gone the way of the Dodo.
effrepublicans on November 12 at 12:07 p.m.
@oneanddone… Oh ya, I have very much a right to my opinion on this issue because:
1) I am a citizen of the United States and therefore my opinion is protected under the 1st Ammendment (thought you would have realized that by serving to see that is held true)
2) my tax dollars pay for the US military therefore I am essentially a stockholder in the US military and very much entitled to voice how my money is spent
To deny someone their right to their opinion whether you agree with it or not is the denial of one of the fundamental principles of which this country was founded upon.
And the big question is what if the person who slept 18” from was gay but you didn’t know about? They treat you any different? Didn’t think so. Its your personal issues with that person is what affects the “good order and discipline of your unit”.
jddavis on November 12 at 12:10 p.m.
@effenrepublicans—nice reference for survey results. If you read the paragraph above your quote you would have noticed “The people familiar with the report, who are in favor of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell”…
What is my argument? I stated that people don’t have a right to serve in the military. Provide a credible reference to prove me wrong, such as the US Constitution / Bill of Rights.
You claim I do not accept differences in people and discriminate. You make some heave accusations based on what? You don’t know me from Adam yet you throw out crap to discredit my character. Tell me, who don’t I accept and who did/do I discriminate against?
You want to know when the US military is held to a different standard than any other employer in the US? EVERYDAY.
So exactly where did my “argument” fail?
greenlibertarian on November 12 at 12:10 p.m.
“Because anything else would make them uncomfortable. I would have felt the same sleeping in a rack 18” from someone I knew was not straight.”
-oneanddone
Why?
Are you a closet case that secretly wants to have sex with a guy?
I can see how that would make you feel uncomfortable.
><(((*> on November 12 at 12:24 p.m.
jddavis.
“No one has “the right” to serve in the military…”
I signed a selective service card when I was 18. it’s not a right. it’s actually a demand by the military for me to serve if/when called upon.
Most male U.S. citizens between the ages of 18 to 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthday.
“Being homosexual in the military is relevant to performance of duties;”
No it is not. Performance of duties, is simply that. Performance and non-performance.
You need to open a book someday.
><(((*> on November 12 at 12:25 p.m.
“Because anything else would make them uncomfortable. I would have felt the same sleeping in a rack 18” from someone I knew was not straight.”
the yearning would just be too much for oneanddone
jddavis on November 12 at 12:44 p.m.
Phantomsilence, you signed up with the Selective Service, not the Military. The Selective Service is a separate agency assigned to the Executive Branch of the government. I am certain you didn’t mean it that way, but don’t confuse a law passed by Congress which required you to register with my statement that no one has a right to serve in the military.
As for performance of duties, don’t take me out of context by implying I said a homosexual can’t do the “job” as well as a straight individual. The context of my statement on performance, was qualified by “good order and discipline.” Meaning, that the presence of an open homosexual has a high probability in lowering the performance of a unit, as others would distance themselves from that person and the performance of the “team” may well be degraded. How do I know this? I witnessed this on three separate instances while in the military.
><(((*> on November 12 at 12:52 p.m.
jddavis,
The context of my statement on performance, was qualified by “good order and discipline.” Meaning, that the presence of an open homosexual has a high probability in lowering the performance of a unit, as others would distance themselves from that person and the performance of the “team” may well be degraded.
sooo….
the performance of the unit has been degraded because of the irrational actions of everyone except the gay enlistee.
“don’t confuse a law passed by Congress which required you to register with my statement that no one has a right to serve in the military.”
i did not.
please read. you could start with that book i advised opening.
it’s not a right. it’s actually a demand by the President for me to serve IN the military if/when called upon.
jddavis on November 12 at 1:04 p.m.
phantom, it would do you well to read up on the Selective Service, seeing that you like to recommend reading.
If you go back to my resonse to Spokaneliberal “Being homosexual in the military is relevant to performance of duties; that of the the homosexual and straight members” you should be able to think deep enough to realize I was stating that the straight members’ performance may be degraded, not necessarily the homosexuals’.
Without getting into all of the reasons straight people may or may not shun homosexuals, you know very well the reasons straight people have issues with homosexuality, whether or not you agree or disagree with them. Irrational or rational is neither here nor there…it is what it is
Additionally, the Constitution grants the government the power to conscript, NOT the President.
As for reading materials, may I suggest the Constitution of the United States?
greenlibertarian on November 12 at 1:06 p.m.
“Meaning, that the presence of an open homosexual has a high probability in lowering the performance of a unit, as others would distance themselves from that person and the performance of the “team” may well be degraded. How do I know this? I witnessed this on three separate instances while in the military.”
-jdavis
so, because you witnessed something, so you say, it’s therefore relevant to the entire military?
Idiotic.
Damn near every single study on this issue shows there is NO negative effect on performance or unit cohesion.
Please refute that data, if you can. Otherwise you’re just being fatuous in attempting to defend your bigotry.
I for one am sick of our military readiness being harmed by these bigoted policies. It puts our brave soldier, sailors, airmen, and marines in harm’s way.
jddavis on November 12 at 1:19 p.m.
Greenlibertarian; my experiences and observations are the basis of my statement the same way you use yours as a basis for what you say. I am relaying what I witnessed, whether or not that happens across the military I cannot say—form your own conclusions. By your own statement there are studies that show “negative effect on performance or unit cohesion”; why don’t you refer to those as well as “damn near every” other study? Seems you are familiar with data supporting both sides of the issue.
What have I done or said to make me a bigot? If I witness a house fire does that make me an arsonist too?
><(((*> on November 12 at 1:20 p.m.
jddavis,
you said “Additionally, the Constitution grants the government the power to conscript, NOT the President.” not sure what you mean when you say “government” as opposed to some actual branch…since the president is part of the government…
well here. maybe someone can read it to you.
The Selective Service Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 76) was passed by the 65th United States Congress on May 18, 1917 creating the Selective Service System.[6] The Act gave the President the power to conscript men for military service.
“Irrational or rational is neither here nor there”
Spoken like a true irrational person.
jddavis on November 12 at 1:23 p.m.
phantom…try the War Powers act. Branch? Executive and Legislative.
><(((*> on November 12 at 1:25 p.m.
# 2 Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military
* 2.1 Albania
* 2.2 Argentina
* 2.3 Australia
* 2.4 Austria
* 2.5 Belgium
* 2.6 Canada
* 2.7 Colombia
* 2.8 Czech Republic
* 2.9 Denmark
* 2.10 Estonia
* 2.11 Finland
* 2.12 France
* 2.13 Germany
* 2.14 Ireland
* 2.15 Israel
* 2.16 Italy
* 2.17 Lithuania
* 2.18 Luxembourg
* 2.19 Malta
* 2.20 The Netherlands
* 2.21 New Zealand
* 2.22 Norway
* 2.23 Peru
* 2.24 Philippines
* 2.25 Poland
* 2.26 Romania
* 2.27 Russia
* 2.28 Slovenia
* 2.29 South Africa
* 2.30 Spain
* 2.31 Sweden
* 2.32 Switzerland
* 2.33 Taiwan
* 2.34 United Kingdom
* 2.35 Bermuda
* 2.36 Uruguay
# 3 Countries with other policies
* 3.1 United States
><(((*> on November 12 at 1:26 p.m.
i think that is a good enough “real world study” wouldn’t you agree greenlibertarian
hawken on November 12 at 1:36 p.m.
Here’s another problem with gays in the military, at least according to the FDA…
”
For most people, donating blood is as simple as rolling up a sleeve. But not for gay men. Since 1983, the Food and Drug Administration has barred them from donating.
The F.D.A. has re-examined the ban over the years, but maintains that the restriction is necessary to keep the blood supply safe and untainted by H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.”
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
by Jacqeline Mroz
New York Times
hawken on November 12 at 1:50 p.m.
Senator John Kerry:
Sen. James Exon (D-NE) bluntly asked Kerry how his own Vietnam-era colleagues might have reacted if they were asked to follow the lead of a gay commanding officer.
Kerry answered, “Well, if you just plunked them down one day and said here is your new lieutenant and he is gay, I suspect they might have fragged him like they fragged a lot of other lieutenants back then.”
Source:
May 7, 1993, Sen. Kerry testified on the issue before the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by then-Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA)
SugarShane on November 12 at 1:51 p.m.
I heard far more complaints about women serving than gays while I was in personally. Most people were of the mind, and Im not that old so Im sure its generational, that to each his own. Maybe 20-30 years ago it was different, but it was also a different military. Society and culture is changing, people need to get with the times and realize we are all people. Not blacks and whites, gays and straights, but PEOPLE. If your confused about human sexuality, go see Kinsey and see what his findings were. Homosexuality has been around as long as human beings have.
voice_of_reason on November 12 at 1:54 p.m.
Yes, I served in the military. My short opinion is:
If I lay bleeding on the battlefield, I don’t care who or what saves my life. Man, woman, gay, straight, alien, dog, cat … I really don’t care. My wife wouldn’t care. My children wouldn’t care.
America - get the point, and move on.
effrepublicans on November 12 at 1:55 p.m.
@Hawken… How the heck does that have anything to do with the issue at hand? The FDA also bans me from donating if I had a tattoo in the last 12 months, or visited certain countries depending on certain timeframes. Let me see here… oh wait don’t some of our service members serve overseas and have tattoos??? Guess we better start kicking them out the military too!!!!!
SpokaneLiberal on November 12 at 2:01 p.m.
jdavis and phantom
Both of those acts are defunct. Null. No longer in force.
And then of course there is hawken trying to stick to the believe that is disproven - HIV is not a gay disease
hawken on November 12 at 2:06 p.m.
This string has nothing to do with how long homosexuals have been around.
It has to do with the cohesiveness of our military. DADT was reportedly working fine…. That’s not the problem…
The problem is that homosexuals will settle for nothing less than complete acceptance of their “un-natural,” sexual behavior by the rest of society.
That will never happen, no matter how many statues we pass.
The military is simply another means for homosexuals to accomplish their unrealistic goal….
Namely, “complete acceptance of their “un-natural,” sexual behavior by the rest of society.”
><(((*> on November 12 at 2:09 p.m.
SpokaneLiberal,
regardless to the government branch in charge of selective service.
It is still enforced and technically available to whomever makes the decision to initiate a draft lottery.
http://www.sss.gov/
><(((*> on November 12 at 2:10 p.m.
The military is simply another means for homosexuals to accomplish their unrealistic goal….
Namely, “complete acceptance of their “un-natural,” sexual behavior by the rest of society.”
oh no! he’s seen the gay agenda. we should alert the elders!
effrepublicans on November 12 at 2:37 p.m.
Ahh yes… “Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” only if you fit to Hawken’s views. Anyone want to sign-up for his utopic society? Didn’t someone say similar things about Jews oh 75 years ago?
greenlibertarian on November 12 at 2:53 p.m.
“Senator EXON. …Let me ask this question of you, Senator Kerry, to try to get down to the nitty-gritty of this. You served, I believe, with great valor under combat situations in Vietnam. Let me ask you very bluntly, how the troops that you served with would have served had they known or suspected that their commanding lieutenant in a platoon that they were going in behind enemy lines with was a gay? Would you think that might likely have caused some difficulties in the cohesiveness of the unit?
Senator KERRY. Well, if you just plunked them down one day and said here is your new lieutenant and he is gay, I suspect they might have fragged him like they fragged a lot of other lieutenants back then. BUT THE FACT IS THAT IS NOT THE WAY YOU CONTEMPLATE THIS HAPPENING. (EMPHASIS ADDED)
-Senate Committee on Armed Services, Hearing 103-845, May 7, 1993
Kerry was making the point that the policy would obviously have to be phased in over time. The bulk of his argument was about supporting having gays serve openly in the military.
“Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable
By Barry M. Goldwater
The following is a transcript of Barry Goldwater’s commentary on the military gay ban that appeared this week in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.
After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn’t exactly nothing, but it’s pretty damned close
Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They’ll still be serving long after we’re all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.
But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country’s economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.
It’s no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there’s no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn’t true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn’t so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan’s man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it “a bit of an old chestnut”
When the facts lead to one conclusion, I say it’s time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable. “(continues)
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html
Dazzeetrader11 on November 12 at 2:54 p.m.
Me? Doesn’t matter but for those who do care…many just HATE gays…likely it would be worse if they were allowed in. It’s not like balcks in the 30s and 40s…they were straight and major league soldiers as far as we know.
Seriously ..think of the lawsuit for gillions of issues not faced now.
Who needs the trouble?….if they wanna go fight or get on a ship, drive boats, etc fine by me but I’m not a commander and I/m not in the military anymore. I don’t have to deal with any of the grief. They do though…eg the gal in Seattle who defied ( and yes she defied cause millions of dollars in lawsuit) the comman for her gay liberal cause.
If the guys on top ( men and women BTW) dont want gas in…I gues I can respect that…..afterall they run the show. We just pay for the show.l Being Jew, Catholic , Muslim…clouds the issue…and it’s not the same. Might add more fuel but their faith is irrelevant. This is a cultural interjection in a stable working situation. Sounds like big pain and bigger distraction.
Gays or no gays…just that. Nothing more. Might be that we let the military leaders decide. They have their reasons…and they don’t blame George Bush like most do for everything…<rolls eyes=”“>,,,,,this one’s on your lib friend Clinton…..remember him? the defender of our borders? remember…the one who let the mortgage fiasco go unfettered for votes? Remember…et etc.
greenlibertarian on November 12 at 3:03 p.m.
” Don’t Ask, Who Cares
by Bob Barr
special to The Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 9:00 AM
Last week’s forum of 10 Republican presidential hopefuls offered the country some troubling insight into the thinking of leading GOP candidates. In particular, the five who responded to questions about the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy governing military service by gays and lesbians showed a disturbing move away from conservative principles, in favor of what smells strongly of political expediency or timidity.
As a conservative Republican member of Congress from 1995 to 2003, I was hardly a card-carrying member of the gay-rights lobby. I opposed then, and continue to oppose, same-sex marriage, or the designation of gays as a constitutionally protected minority class. Service in the armed forces is another matter. The bottom line here is that, with nearly a decade and a half of the hybrid “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to guide us, I have become deeply impressed with the growing weight of credible military opinion which concludes that allowing gays to serve openly in the military does not pose insurmountable problems for the good order and discipline of the services.
Asked about reconsideration of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy in favor of a more open and honest approach, the simplistic responses by several Republican presidential candidates left me — and I suspect many others — questioning whether those candidates really even understood the issue, or were simply pandering to the perceived “conservative base.” The fact is, equal treatment of gay and lesbian service members is about as conservative a position as one cares to articulate.
Why? First, true conservative political philosophy respects the principles of individual freedom and personal privacy, particularly when it comes to what people do in private. The invasive investigations required to discharge a service member are an unconscionable intrusion into the private lives of American citizens. Worse, while supporters of don’t ask, don’t tell claim the policy only regulates behavior and not identity, the distinction is disingenuous. A service member could be discharged for being overheard remarking that, “I can stay later today since my partner will be taking the dog for a walk.”
Second, and on a more practical level, the ban on gays openly serving in our armed forces is hurting a military that is stretched thin, putting further strain on an institution conservatives claim to love. The U.S. has fired over 11,000 people under the current policy, and in the process has lost over 1,000 service members with “mission-critical skills,” including 58 Arabic linguists. Researchers at the UCLA School of Law have found that lifting the ban could increase the number of active-duty personnel by over 40,000. (continues)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YllCj4ICfMEJ:www.bobbarr.org/default.asp%3Fpt%3Dnewsdescr%26RI%3D860+don%27t+ask+who+cares+barr&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The REAL conservative position on DADT is as Mr. Barr describes.
It is the BIGOT’S position that DADT should be retained. The BIGOTS are demanding our troops, gay or straight, suffer from this failed policy, which also harms the ability of our armed forces to carry out their missions against our enemies. The existing policy is aiding and abetting our enemies, supporting it is tantamount to treason.
eagleproducer on November 12 at 3:17 p.m.
The fastest growing group of individuals in the U.S. contracting HIV and AIDS are straight women who were exposed by their supposedly straight husbands. The F.D.A.’s ban is simply homophobia and does nothing to ensure an untainted blood supply. Gay men could simply lie on the paperwork the same way people who’ve worked in the sex industries or junkies could lie. Or did I miss something and a law was passed forcing homosexuals to wear some type of identifier on their clothing?
I’ve served on active duty with gay men and women. Their presence did not adversely affect morale, they weren’t isolated as some have claimed and their performance was varied, like any cross section of any group of people. From my experience I would say there are more gay women in the military than there are straight women.
cdspokesreader on November 12 at 3:35 p.m.
So someone says that homosexuals practice “un-natural” sexual practices and should be banned from the military???? That sounds like something my uncle would have said after serving in the military in WWII. Black were considered “non-human” and had to do all the grunt work for his unit - much like if they were slaves - unless they were in an all black unit. Even so, it didn’t seem to affect the outcome of that war. Many white soldiers probably had their butts saved by these “lower class” soldiers and many of the black soldiers were probably more heroic than some of their white counterparts. I don’t think being gay affects how well a soldier who is well trained will do their job and if another soldier has a problem sharing a barracks with someone who is gay, they should be banned from the military for their prejudice.
hawken on November 12 at 4:00 p.m.
effrepublicans
Jews are born Jews…. and have the ability to renounce their religion.
Homosexuals are NOT born homosexual…. but likewise have the ability to renounce their homosexuality….
“The homosexual movement has gained immense political power by claiming that homosexuals are “born gay” and that it is harmful to try to change them.
The University of Washington’s homosexual lobbying group Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, Transgender Commission, for example, makes this claim on its web site:
“Homosexuality is not a choice any more than being left-handed or having blue eyes or being heterosexual is a choice. It’s an orientation, part of who you are. The choice is in deciding how to live your life.”
The National Education Association and the American Psychological Association have helped perpetuate the “born gay” myth through its pamphlet, Just The Facts, which was sent to every school superintendent in the country.
Homosexual activists and their allies at the NEA and APA believe that “sexual orientation” is just part of who a person is and that we must not only tolerate but support individuals who have differing sexual desires.
In recent years, however, even homosexual researchers and philosophers are beginning to admit that there is no such thing as a “gay gene” that predisposes homosexuals to engage in sodomy. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has published a series of these admissions by homosexual researchers and philosophers in “The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science.
” Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer has stated: “There is not a single master gene that makes people gay … I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.” Simon LeVay, a homosexual researcher and activist studied the differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. He admits: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”
Lesbian author and activist Camille Paglia has stated: “Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm … Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction … No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous … homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.”
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/seven.php
SpokaneLiberal on November 12 at 4:13 p.m.
Harken can you renounce your heterosexuality please? I think it might be a better world that way.
greenlibertarian on November 12 at 4:13 p.m.
“Report of the General/ Flag Officers’ Study Group
July 28, 2008
General/Flag Officers Study Group
The study group consisted of the following authors: Brigadier General Hugh Aitken, USMC. (Ret.), Lieutenant General Minter Alexander, USAF. (Ret.), Lieutenant General Robert Gard, USA (Ret.), Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN (Ret.) Below is a copy of the text of the report, or you can click here for a pdf version.
Report of the General/Flag Officers’ Study Group
A nonpartisan national study group, comprised of retired General/Flag Officers from different branches of the service, assembled to study the effectiveness of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” to review available evidence, consider arguments from all sides, and issue a public report.
Executive Summary
A bipartisan study group of senior retired military officers, representing different branches of the service, has conducted an in-depth assessment of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy by examining the key academic and social science literature on the subject and interviewing a range of experts on leadership, unit cohesion and military law, including those who are training our nation’s future military leaders at the service academies. The Study Group emphasized that any changes to existing personnel policy must not create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
The Study Group has made ten findings, including:
Finding one: The law locks the military’s position into stasis and does not accord any trust to the Pentagon to adapt policy to changing circumstances
Finding Two: Existing military laws and regulations provide commanders with sufficient means to discipline inappropriate conduct
Finding Three: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has forced some commanders to choose between breaking the law and undermining the cohesion of their units
Finding four: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has prevented some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members from obtaining psychological and medical care as well as religious counseling
Finding five: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has caused the military to lose some talented service members
Finding six: ““Don’t ask, don’t tell” has compelled some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members to lie about their identity
Finding seven: Many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are serving openly
Finding eight: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has made it harder for some gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to perform their duties
Finding nine: Military attitudes towards gays and lesbians are changing
Finding ten: Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion” (continues)
http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/generals-flag-officers-report
hawken on November 12 at 4:13 p.m.
While we’re on the topic of homosexuality…. here’s more….
A scholarly article with all kinds of footnotes and proofs.
Quotes from the paper:
“However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two.
This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males.
While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.
In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:…”
The steadfast denial of the disturbing ties with pedophilia within the homosexual movement is no purely academic matter.
Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the homosexual-pedophile connection is the fact that men who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia.
The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children:
Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse
Issue No.: 247
by: Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.
misjustice on November 12 at 4:15 p.m.
There were gay soldiers serving when I was in; we all knew it, knew who they were, and we didn’t care. As long as they could fulfill the mission, we did not care what their sexual orientation was. Simple.
On the other hand, I served with plenty heterosexuals, mostly males, that were shirkers, malcontents, and otherwise unfit for service. Many which ended up getting tossed out because they couldn’t cut it. To my recollection, none that were tossed out/pushed out from my unit were homosexual.
hawken on November 12 at 4:22 p.m.
SpokaneLiberal
You and I both were born, naturally, to be heterosexual….
I continue to this day to be heterosexual…
For reasons unknown to me, and maybe to you as well,,,, you have chosen to become a homosexual, or at least,,,, chosen to remain a homosexual.
Please believe me when I say… I am truly sorry for you… truly.
Maybe, I was just more fortunate than you in my early childhood, parental up-bringing… my mother,,, or who knows for sure?
But the point is homosexuals were not born homosexual… It is a choice, not withstanding the many, complex reasons that might have led them to that choice.
Homosexuality is not,,, and should not be considered to be a “protected class” …. in the same way that being born black is and should be a protected class.
hawken on November 12 at 4:27 p.m.
Misjudgment….
Right….
We all believe that you speak for the whole military…. especially combat soldiers….
Were you ever in actual combat? Or, were you just a supply clerk stationed stateside for your 4 yrs or so?
You bring up your military service all of the time….
So tell us…. what exactly was your military service?
Any front line, combat experience?
greenlibertarian on November 12 at 4:44 p.m.
“On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: “I believe that the military needs to rethink the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. It does not serve this country to discriminate against people who want to serve in our armed forces. I would ask the military to craft and implement a policy that ensures that everyone who wants to serve their country is permitted to do so with honor and dignity.”“
-Wesley Clark, 4-star General, US Army, retired.
“(Captain) Clark (also an Army Ranger) was then given command of A Company, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry of the 1st Infantry Division in January 1970. In February, only one month into his command, he was shot four times by a Viet Cong soldier with an AK-47. The wounded Clark shouted orders to his men, who counterattacked and defeated the Viet Cong force. Clark had injuries to his right shoulder, right hand, right hip, and right leg, and was sent to Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania to recuperate. He was awarded the Silver Star for his actions during the encounter.”
-Wiki
hawken on November 12 at 4:48 p.m.
Greenliberal: Your write…
“I believe that the military needs to rethink the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. It does not serve this country to discriminate against people who want to serve in our armed forces.”
So please explain…. where’s the discrimination?
hawken on November 12 at 4:57 p.m.
Concerning Misjudgment…..
If she has actual combat experience…. she will state that, per my legitimate question to her above… and should!
I have no higher regard for anyone than I do for “combat vets.”
Presumably, she will cite her combat unit for all to see, to confirm or discredit…. If in fact she has had combat experience.
If she was merely a supply clerk or such, stationed state side her whole military career… that is light years from being compared to a “combat vet” whose life was on the line.
So…. Misjudgment…. what was the extent of your military service?
greenlibertarian on November 12 at 5:12 p.m.
“Open Letter to President Obama and Every Member of Congress:
I have learned many lessons in the ten years since I first raised my right hand at the United States Military Academy at West Point and committed to fighting for my country. The lessons of courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most important.
At West Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. It taught us to “choose the harder right over the easier wrong” and to “never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won.” The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort.
Following the Honor Code never bowed to comfortable timing or popularity. Honor and integrity are 24-hour values. That is why I refuse to lie about my identity.
I have personally served for a decade under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: an immoral law and policy that forces American soldiers to deceive and lie about their sexual orientation. Worse, it forces others to tolerate deception and lying. These values are completely opposed to anything I learned at West Point. Deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force.
***As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate***
with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.
I am committed to applying the leadership lessons I learned at West Point. With 60 other LGBT West Point graduates, I helped form our organization, Knights Out, to fight for the repeal of this discriminatory law and educate cadets and soldiers after the repeal occurs. When I receive emails from deployed soldiers and veterans who feel isolated, alone, and even suicidal because the torment of rejection and discrimination, I remember my leadership training: soldiers cannot feel alone, especially in combat. Leaders must reach out. They can never diminish the fighting spirit of a soldier by tolerating discrimination and isolation. Leaders respect the honor of service. Respecting each soldier’s service is my personal promise.”
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/11/gay-soldier-dont-fire-me/
hawken on November 12 at 5:31 p.m.
Greenliberal…. you had me going for a brief moment there…
until I actually read your post…. How dare you imply that you were a graduate of West Point!
You are dishonest. Implying something that you are not!
hawken on November 12 at 5:40 p.m.
My head is spinning from all of the liberal left, misrepresentation of facts, on virtually every string in this forum tonight!
Fortunately, the American electorate is not so gullible and stupid!
cdspokesreader on November 12 at 6:01 p.m.
hawken, you sound so much like my brother in law it’s scary. He is a staunch Republican and has a lot of the same views you do. He also hasn’t had a real job in about 25 years because he’s taking advantage of the “government disability programs” to feed his prescription pain killer addiction even though Democrats and their social programs are all evil. He has also been diagnosed as bipolar, narcissistic and has illusions of grandeur. Been to a doctor lately? You might want to get that checked out.
hawken on November 12 at 6:09 p.m.
cdspokesreader
What on earth do I have to do with your brother? You don’t even know me!
I am 59 yrs old…. very healthy and active… highly, highly, educated… and quite successful in my life… although not wealthy.
I am self sufficient and semi-retired… but for things I really want to do.
Even though your brother might be sick….. He is not as sick as your post… which insults both your brother and me…
Is this all you’ve got in a failed attempt to discredit me?
eagleproducer on November 12 at 6:41 p.m.
hawken: Thanks for finally posting part of your Ph.D. dissertation.
You are no one to question any veterans service. When and where did you serve, Mr. Uber Patriot? We all know the answer.
hawken on November 12 at 6:45 p.m.
Misjudgment is pretty busy tonight…. fluttery all over this forum….
Let’s give her some time to tell us if she was actually a combat vet.
If we don’t have confirmation, at some point…. I will conclude that she was a supply clerk of some kind, probably stationed state side, her 4 or more years.
She cites her veteran status again and again…. So, some of us would like to know exactly what her veteran experience was….
I have the highest of regard for combat vets!
eagleproducer on November 12 at 6:46 p.m.
Semi-retired means he’s alienated himself from the workforce.
eagleproducer on November 12 at 6:47 p.m.
Post your dissertation Doc and I’m sure she’ll provide her DD-214.
Deal?
eagleproducer on November 12 at 6:50 p.m.
Hawk is your new conservative folks.
One day removed from Veterans Day the degradation of one of our nation’s veterans erupts from a hypocrite who never served a day in uniform.
The Doc’s “scholarship” was in gay bashing. Big shocker, eh?
hawken on November 12 at 6:55 p.m.
No homosexual bashing…. I simply quoted your homosexual researchers, scientists and leaders.
Your issue is with them, not me.
misjustice on November 12 at 6:58 p.m.
Sqawk = sore whiner
Geez, sqawk has so much regard for Vets; as long as you are a Republican’t that hates homosexuals. In other words, as long as you agree with him.
Yeah, I gave years of service to this nation so that I could ensure, someday, that some Neocon chickenhawk could denigrate that service. And it’s not just my service, it’s Chef Gus, and Mr. Natural, and Spoketucky…despite our service we are not ‘real’ Americans, according to the sqawk box.
jddavis on November 12 at 7:28 p.m.
Not cool to question a Veterans’ service, no matter political beliefs. I may disagree or agree with some on here, but anyone who is a fellow Vet has my respect…I know your sacrafice whether or not you were in combat.
cdspokesreader on November 12 at 7:38 p.m.
All veterans should be commended for their service whether they were in combat or not. The combat troops wouldn’t get very far without the efforts of those servicemen and women working stateside to ensure their supplies and work on their equipment. Misjustice - Thank you - and I’m assuming that someone guessed you were a supply clerk because you are a woman. Gay Bashing, Women bashing, attacking people who don’t agree with their personal beliefs - sounds like someone has a problem with bigotry.
greenlibertarian on November 12 at 7:58 p.m.
Let’s see here. I quoted two prominent CONSERVATIVE politicians, the late Goldwater and Bob Barr who think DADT is wrong.
I quoted a (Vietnam war) decorated combat Infantry Captain, who is against DADT.
I quoted an (Iraq War) combat infantry veteran Lt, who was kicked out because of DADT, he’s gay.
Hawken would spit in their faces if he could, and either one of them could break squak’s neck in 3 secords, for doing so.
But they wouldn’t, because they know about honor, duty, esprit de corp, turning the other cheek, and most of all, DECENCY, which squak clearly knows absolutely NOTHING about.
I’m beginning to thiink squawken is actually some semi-clever liberal, out to make conservatives look stupid, which is what he does, day in and day out with his pointless, factless, and rude posts.
hawken on November 12 at 8:24 p.m.
No doubt that all military support personnel are essential to any war effort. Granted.
My point is that the true heroes of our military,,, are those whom have given their lives, their limbs and paid the ultimate price. That is “sacrifice.”
These are the men and women whom have truly “sacrificed” for our nation.
To compare others with such heroes, is to diminish the “ultimate sacrifice” that many have paid throughout our history.
“Sacrifice”, applied generically across the board dishonors those whom have paid the “ultimate sacrifice.”
I understand that those whom are called to “sacrifice” often, is a luck of the draw. Nevertheless… Let’s not lump them all into one, politically correct, group that is defined as those whom “sacrifice.” Cool or not.
hawken on November 12 at 8:41 p.m.
Let me make my point in more detail and possibility with more clarity….
Non-combatant, stateside, support personnel get their pay and their benefits, not unlike any other employee in a civilian job…. And an excellent retirement.
Don’t tell me that this is “sacrifice,” compared to our military personnel on the front lines whom have given life, limb and future for the sake of the nation.
Non-combatant, military service in and of itself, does not automatically equal sacrifice.
hawken on November 12 at 9:38 p.m.
spoketucky… you assert without knowledge….
“One day removed from Veterans Day the degradation of one of our nation’s veterans erupts from a hypocrite who never served a day in uniform.”
If I said responded to you, 101st Airborne, 1969-70,,, Firebase Ripcord…. would you accept my reasoning?
I think not, since you are a liberal, you would only discredit it in some perverse way. Maybe a “baby killer.”
If I said, I ran to Canada to escape the draft…
You would only discredit my reasoning and again attempt assassinate my character..
Which you have already done ad nauseam
Therefore, I will not answer your implied question. Nor will I post my Ph.D. dissertation to be subject to your vile.
Respond to my logic, my reasoning and my sources.
I will give you nothing else to misrepresent or discredit.
eagleproducer on November 12 at 10:54 p.m.
How about your favorite brand of prune juice?
misjustice on November 13 at 7:33 a.m.
Or favorite serial killer?
BTW; thanks to fellow blog mates for your support.
; )
jddavis on November 13 at 9:25 a.m.
Hawken, so the only service members who “sacrafice” are those who are on the front lines during combat? And the only real sacrafice are the ones who die?
Seems you did a lot in your 2 years with the 101st. Thank you. You have an extremely narrow view of military service, perhaps because it is viewed through the experience of 2 years. In my opinion, your egocentric view of your MOS vice the Supply MOS is sophomoric, particularly at your stage of life.
As a maintenance guy, I depended on many career fields to keep the weapon systems I worked on on-alert or mission ready. Succeed as a team or fail as a team…no other way Hawken.
><(((*> on November 13 at 9:31 a.m.
wow hawker. you make me sad for self proclaimed highly highly educated people everywhere.
SpokaneLiberal on November 13 at 9:38 a.m.
Hawken
Someone else’s sexuality (mine from your assumption - which happens to be false) has nothing to do with their opinion on the matter.
I would argue that we are all born asexual rather than heterosexual or homosexual. In fact If a one year old has sexual preference it is usually a sign of abuse.
We do have gender roles (which are of course different from sexual orientation) at a very early age.
At a later age we develop a sexual preference that ranges from Strictly Monogamous Homosexual to Polyamorous Heterosexual and everything in between or around on the spectrum. But what we are on that spectrum is such a part of us that it cannot be changed or given up. Can it be masked? Sure. Can someone on that spectrum choose to be celibate? Sure. But it does not change the intrinsic nature of your sexual orientation.
eagleproducer on November 13 at 12:07 p.m.
Instead of offering polar opposite choices about whether he served or not, Hawken could simply repeat the truth: He’s never served a day in uniform.
He made that statement in a previous post on a previous blog. He’s just using a diversion to try and convince people he didn’t abuse a veteran and their service to our nation. In fact, he abused a whole group of veterans in support roles, roles which comprise the majority of military job classifications.
greenlibertarian on November 13 at 9:53 p.m.
In every instance where you see the troll, squawken, issue insults, as is his practice, please do click on the “Flag as inappropriate” button.
This cancer must be excised.
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!