• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

West Point Officer - Iraq Veteran....faces discharge

It's discrimination based on sexual orientation, I thought that was illegal?
OH Yeah, The military is different.
 
Eric, there's a petition on FB you can sign. I don't know if it would day any good, but it can't hurt. Dale posted it a while back, maybe look under his "links" on his page.

I wouldn't expect help from Obushma.
 
I thought they had given up on that old policy!

I hadn't heard about it in the regular news. Maybe this will be the case that brings it to the forefront - somebody heroic enough to do what he did might cause a public outcry against stupid policies. Although I feel sorry that the guy has to go through this in addition to what he has already done, maybe that is exactly why he came out publicly - to try to bring about a real change. I wish him luck - he deserves it!
 
Thanks Lori.

And for the record, my intention in starting this thread was not necessarily to bash Obama. I think the "big picture" is far more important.
Specifically, the neanderthal philosophies involved in the management of the military, in general. There have been gays in the military.....as long as there have been armies.
We're always laying down palm leaves as liberals enter the city...but they rarely keep the utopian promises that get them elected.
So the big picture, politically, continues to be : that the GLBT voting populace generally has to weigh a candidate...and eventually vote realistically for who will do us the least amount of harm. At least, this has been my rationale since I started voting 28 years ago.

Incidentally, Bill & Hillary tried too early to make too great of strides (too much too soon for the 'establishment')....and were stonewalled by Colin Powell and others, who were intent to shove the victorian DADT policy down the national throat. (Pardon the pun.) :D
 
I can tell you in 100% truth that the policy is alive and well, as I just had to sign a paper saying that if at any point I "participated in a homosexual act, said anything that would lead most people to believe I'm homosexual, attempted to engage in a homosexual act, or attempted to participate/participate in a homosexual wedding" it would be grounds for immediate discharge from the armed forces...have the paper here somewhere, can post the entire thing if I can find it.
 
In all objectivity, this rule was put into place in 1993, far before Obama's presidency, and no other president or politician has changed this rule since. That being said, do I think it needs changing; heck ya!. Either all relationships are prohibited (hetero-sexual, or homo-sexual), or none are. The most bothersome quote, for me anyways, was this: "The law says what the law says," Fanning said. "The military has no choice but to follow it. We don't pick and chose what regulations to enforce.". If this ideal rang true for every policy then their would be zero change, and no evolution in society regarding any rights for a persons freedom. Still, "Obushma" is a stretch and I would at least wait and see if he does in fact keep to his word.

The fact is, Bush did nothing for gay rights in 8 years in office and Obama still has 4, maybe even 8 more years in office to create change. I think it's evident that he is far more understanding and committed than any president we've had in the past 20 years, and he's putting the right people in the right places to initiate change. Everyone's going to want him to focus on their cause, and rightly so, but he is only human and change, inevitably, takes time!.
 
But as long as we have the opportunity to bash Obama, let's not pass it up. We've never missed a chance to bash Bush.
 
I know why he's doing nothing on this issue, but it doesn't make it any better. I can almost guarantee you that if his medical plans get through that don't ask don't tell will go away. It only takes an order from him, no votes.
Not that it's right because it isn't, but I'd probably do the same thing.

Wade's right, getting bashed is just his 'job' in this instance. And rightly so! This one's served on a platter, lol.
 
Forget Obama for a moment. This is a societal problem, and I think it would undermine the actual demonetization of homosexuals if we blame this circumstance on Obama. Take for example the issue with Miss America stating her views, she became the symbol of ignorance, yet more than 50% of Californians voted to have the same opinion as she did. Let's blame the larger population that creates these injustices, not the most publicized figure.
Same as Bush. He became the symbol of what's wrong with America, which is stupid in my opinion. I have no problem with George Bush being a fool, so long as it's limited to his own house, on his own couch. The problem is society as a whole, we knew he was a fool, yet we reelected him. I can't blame Bush for accepting the presidency, and I didn't expect him to decline the opportunity. I did expect people to be smart enough to realize another four years was a bad idea. Same with Miss America. I can't blame her for having a blind opinion, so long as it's isolated, and kept to herself. We empower these people, mostly because we share their views, they just get more attention.
Let's even put gay rights aside for this debate. This isn't just a matter of someone wanting the right to have equal partnership (which I think everyone should have equal rights), this is somebody willing to die for his country, yet he might not even be able to do that based on his homosexuality, a personal preference that has nothing to do with his desire to help fight for my freedom and yours.
It bothers me that people will be sitting on their couch, in the safety of their own home, armchair quarterbacking whether homosexuals should be allowed to fight in the military. This should have died with Hitler, how can we pretend we're a progressive country when things like this still go on.
 
Although I have not been an Obama supporter and didn't vote for him...

at least on this issue, I think he will be much more of a friend than Bush ever was. As far as I remember, Bush was actively AGAINST gay marriages - civilian or otherwise. I would imagine he was an active proponent of the the military policy on gays - he probably would have been happier if there was a way to get them out of the military entirely.

Obama, OTOH, probably would like to do away with the policy, but it probably takes a back seat to the economy, Iraq, and health care. But I suspect he will address it sometime in the next few years. The above mentioned case may push it into the forefront sooner, rather than later.

These ideas are just what I THINK the 2 Presidents think, based on what they have said - I don't claim to be psychic. So, although I think there is plenty to disagree with our new Prez, I don't think it is time to bash him on this subject, at least not YET.
 
Obama...does nothing.
Does that surprise you? He's a politician!! ;) Don't forget, one of his very first moves in office was to delay the change over to digital TV! That was sooooo much more important than anything else.

Forget Obama for a moment.
I'm sorry, but as Commander In Chief (ie. BOSS of the military), this has everything to do with Obama reneging on a campaign promise. So much for change. Politics as usual.

D80

PS. Funny it still turns into a Bush bashing thread when Obama is in the decision making seat!!
But as long as we have the opportunity to bash Obama, let's not pass it up. We've never missed a chance to bash Bush.
 
I agree Kathy. One of the things about politics that upsets me is that even if Obama did agree with doing away with the don’t ask rule, he need to be careful not to make enemies until he gets the votes he needs for other things. It never comes to just what is right and wrong, you always have to put a spin on it.
 
My thoughts exactly Kathy. I think in Obama's heart he would gladly go to any length to fight for equal rights, I don't think that's the case for Bush. It's baby steps for Obama right now, and I haven't given up any hope that change will come during his presidency.
I might not have the same urgency that a gay person might have to have it all happen at once, but I feel if equal gay rights happens at any time during his presidency it's a big success. I can also sympathize with the anger of having such urgency, I just think it's not so cut and dry, though I wish it were.
 
The whole DADT policy is absolutely ridiculous. Tony was dishonorably discharged for "homosexual conduct" several years ago (10 or 11, if I remember correctly). Why is it any different if a gay person is serving as opposed to a straight person?
 
I totally understand the Armies point of view... Homosexuals have webbed fingers, so they can't operate a trigger...
No wait.... Thats crocodiles....
And Homosexuals can die for their country..... No I don't understand the problem either....
Off topic.
I was speaking with Eric recently on my companies new policy....
When you apply for a job, there are certain questions that they don't ask, so as not to taint the application....
Age sexuality etc.
I asked about the sexuality question....
The question is.... Your sexuality.... Heterosexual. Homosexual. Prefer not to answer....
I complained about it and asked the reasons behind a question like that.... The answer.... Because we have group showers..... Hell, does it matter if a homosexual showers next to you..... I went mad and put in a grievance against the company...
I had to ask them if they fancied every woman when they walk in a bar, or are they so vain they think a homosexual wouldn't be able to resist them.....
I think the question is going to be dropped....
 
So the big picture, politically, continues to be : that the GLBT voting populace generally has to weigh a candidate...and eventually vote realistically for who will do us the least amount of harm. At least, this has been my rationale since I started voting 28 years ago.

I agree with you to an extent. I do not single-issue vote. Ever. I always strive to chose the candidate I feel will accomplish the most good in his or her 4 years in office. This past election, I could have gone either way... right up until the point where McCain chose Palin as his running mate. As feeble as he looked on some of the debates, I knew there was a good chance of that crazy woman running the country, and there was no way I could justify that. I remember watching a YouTube video of her speaking to her church congregation and telling them outright that God favored her oil pipeline plans above other contenders. I want NO ONE in the Oval Office who is taking their orders direct from the man upstairs, because as far as I know He doesn't have fax or email. It's perfectly fine to be religious and to pray for guidance for your personal life, but if you are the leader of America, I want you making decisions based on the here and now... not the hereafter.

I will admit to one other thing, however, that goes against my attempt to not single issue vote.

I almost always vote Republican for the state of MD gubernatorial election. I really liked our last governor Bob Ehrlich. He was a moderate Republican and I liked what he was doing with regards to schools and the Department of Natural Resources. I would have voted for him again... except... he was adamantly opposed to civil unions or marriage for gays and damn it... I want to be able to be "official" with my girlfriend. We're living together now and it's great... but I still want that moment. I can't explain why and I am pretty sure my family will go through the roof and then not attend, but I want that for us... so for the first time in my life, I chose the candidate least likely to block civil unions/ gay marriages in our state. So far the guy hasn't done much of anything one way or the other, but to my knowlege no one is pushing.

The fact is, Bush did nothing for gay rights in 8 years in office and Obama still has 4, maybe even 8 more years in office to create change. I think it's evident that he is far more understanding and committed than any president we've had in the past 20 years, and he's putting the right people in the right places to initiate change. Everyone's going to want him to focus on their cause, and rightly so, but he is only human and change, inevitably, takes time!.

I am a big fan of "give the man a chance." To be perfectly honest, I think that gay marriage is a lot less important at the moment than our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am still not sure how I feel about health care, but I can tell you that it really pisses me off that Tara will have to work 90 days, three months, in order to get health care from Petsmart, and if she changes to the better job that is opening in August, and goes back to working as a recreational therapist in a nursing home, she'll have to wait ANOTHER 3 months to get benefits. That's BS... if you are working full time you should have benefits for God's sake. You PAY for them! Jesus. When I signed with the county, my benefits started the first day I worked... it is a foreign concept to me for this not to be the case with these other jobs.

Of course we can also come back to the point now that if I were a straight person I could just marry her now and she could have MY benefits. But because I am not straight, I have to demonstrate my level of committment to her by living with her for 12 straight months and jumping through a bunch of other hoops as well. Heck, she can't even change her license over without jumping through these same hoops-- but if we were straight and got married, I could just write a letter saying she lives in Maryland now, deal with it MVA....

Forget Obama for a moment. This is a societal problem, and I think it would undermine the actual demonetization of homosexuals if we blame this circumstance on Obama. Take for example the issue with Miss America stating her views, she became the symbol of ignorance, yet more than 50% of Californians voted to have the same opinion as she did. Let's blame the larger population that creates these injustices, not the most publicized figure.

If you want to go a little further into that, think about the fact that the biggest demographic of voters who voted yes on proposition 8 were Latino voters! For God's sake-- they are the next most discriminated against group in America. It's like the 2nd scrawniest kid beating up the most scrawniest kid on the playground!

But I suspect he will address it sometime in the next few years. The above mentioned case may push it into the forefront sooner, rather than later... So, although I think there is plenty to disagree with our new Prez, I don't think it is time to bash him on this subject, at least not YET.

Well said, Kathy. :)
 
Exactly! I agree, Wade!

I don't think I would make a good politician because I couldn't STAND all of the behind the scenes politics that they HAVE to do to get anything done. It is not only a matter of what is REALLY important to that politician, but also what will "play well" in the media, and thus, with the voters. The "spin" is all important. (That is what the humaniac groups seem to be so good at!) And each politician knows he will have to vote for something he doesn't really like in order to get votes for his pet projects.

But he also has to prioritize, as well. So I can understand that the needs of the many (economy, health care, etc) outweigh the needs of the (relatively) few - for the moment, anyway.

When we get more than halfway into his term, the bashing can begin in earnest, lol!
 
The whole DADT policy is absolutely ridiculous. Tony was dishonorably discharged for "homosexual conduct" several years ago (10 or 11, if I remember correctly). Why is it any different if a gay person is serving as opposed to a straight person?


Well, I personally don't think there should be any difference. I think the big thing is that there are plenty of guys in the military who don't want to share berthing where they're getting naked and what not with openly gay guys.

My husband and I have talked about this before and he seems to think that berthing would be the biggest issue. There are still a lot of anti-gay people in the military. And it only seems to bother others if the gay person is open with it.

I find it amusing because there are gays in the military, berthing with you, taking showers with you, etc, but I guess for some people, ignorance is key.
 
Back
Top