Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ends
So everyone is emailing us to let us know that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will end this week since the Senate voted to repeal the policy. The Stars & Stripes sent us this;
In a stunning turnaround, the Senate voted 65-31 Saturday to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law as soon as the White House and the Pentagon certify a plan to minimize any disruption to the armed services that may result from the abolition of the controversial law.
Too late, it’s already an unnecessary disruption – anything that has taken this long to resolve which has nothing to do with our national security is a disruption. The President emailed us this;
Jonn —
Moments ago, the Senate voted to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
When that bill reaches my desk, I will sign it, and this discriminatory law will be repealed.
Gay and lesbian service members — brave Americans who enable our freedoms — will no longer have to hide who they are.
The fight for civil rights, a struggle that continues, will no longer include this one.
This victory belongs to you. Without your commitment, the promise I made as a candidate would have remained just that.
Instead, you helped prove again that no one should underestimate this movement. Every phone call to a senator on the fence, every letter to the editor in a local paper, and every message in a congressional inbox makes it clear to those who would stand in the way of justice: We will not quit.
If only the President was this committed to fighting the war in Afghanistan to a successful conclusion. The only real upside to this whole discussion is that now dicksmith’s material has been cut to about a quarter. What will they have to talk about at VetVoice now?
Can we talk about something else now? Something important? Something like killing large numbers of our enemies who won’t tolerate gays either?
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues
People have this vision of the DC/NY/LA homosexual: urbane, nuanced, moneyed and cultured – the exception, not the rule…
“Really? Men bunk/shower/sh!t with women in the military? Next you’ll tell me that women have to meet the same physical standards as men and go through training right along with men and are graded on the same scale as men.”
Ha! Ha! And there are people who really believe that too.
I get so sick of hearing “Gays (sic) will be treated just like straights (sic)”.
Actually, there are lots of rules that govern the behavior of males toward females. In the case of homosexuals, are we going to apply all of the same rules to govern the behavior of males towards males?
And in the end, homosexuals will be an aggrieved minority that will always be assumed to be right just because not taking their side will be “homophobia”.
Alright, here I go:
The days of extra-legal protection for them are around the corner, I just pray that guys like Amos, chaplains and others will not be intimidated, litigated and or censured into endorsing the lifestyle. Although by being a part of the organization, we are in a way.
There is a body of research about men and boys, including interviewing murderers and homosexuals. Upwards of 80% of male homosexuals he interviewed came from abusive homes/situations – is that the population we want to encourage to join our military?
The ratio for drug abuse among homosexuals is higher than for hetero’s, again, how does that dynamic enhance our military?
Mental health, suicide, depression almost every negative characteristic that the Army now throws $ at through “resiliciency” training to correct, homosexuals are likely to bring with them if/when they enlist.
How does this help?
Another thing, resiliency training is just the Christian ethos packaged to not offend others.
Best case scenario–the gays/lesbians currently serving will STFU about their orientation, there is no rush of pickle puffers to sign up, there will be no PC rush in the ranks.
Oh, who the fuck am I kidding? Number 2 might be a possibility, but no way DoD doesn’t start wasting valuable training time telling people who don’t need to be told that they must now be “tolerant”.
DOMA does need to be repealed. It’s absolutely ridiculous that you can get married in one state and cross the border into another and suddenly you’re not married anymore. It’s like the “miscegenation” laws that wouldn’t recognize black/white marriages.
Well, I saw a political cartoon this morning that kinda hit home – a flag-draped coffin, the kind of which we have seen to many. The caption underneath had three checkboxes – straight, gay, and American (the third box was checked).
“It’s absolutely ridiculous that you can get married in one state and cross the border into another and suddenly you’re not married anymore.”
No it’s not. That’s called federalism. Each state can shape its own policy.
Funny, whenever the discussion turns to a federal amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman, pro-“gay” “marriage” types become fervent supporters of states’ rights. But then you also argue that states that don’t recognize such marriages should be compelled to. Sure, each state can decide their own marriage laws, just as long as don’t make the “wrong” decision.
By the way, Army Sergeant–would you feel the same way if one state decided to recognize polygamous marriages? To quote your own words back at you, “It’s absolutely ridiculous that you can get married in one state and cross the border into another and suddenly you’re not married anymore.”
I don’t know what state you live in, but imagine this scenario. A man arrives in your town from out of state. He’s bringing with him his herum of wives–five or six of them. He took advantage of a recent change in marriage law in some other state that now permits polygamy. He demands that your state recognize his marriage.
If you say that you don’t think that this man’s marriages should be recognized, you’re a complete hypocrite.
Joe–yep, and because of this change in policy, expect a lot more of those flag-draped coffins.
But of course, you knew that, and you don’t seem to have a problem with that either, do ya?
The slow bled now begins. Tomorrow the recruiting offices will be packed with gays, lesbians and transgenders eager to sign a contract and take the pledge.
No, there won’t. But by the same token, there will be a lot of folks in DEP looking to get out. Trust me, the number of gays/lesbians looking to join tomorrow won’t be enough to make up for the exodus.
I know it won’t happen but I personally believe anyone who enlisted before the repeal and does not agree with the repeal should have the option of terminating their contract and receive an honorable discharge or honorable discharge and retirement.
…and giving “them” all the rights they deserve would mean that he can wear his pink boa with his ACU’s on Gay Pride day.
Can she wear her strap-on into the shower, for hygienic reasons,,,, um, ‘kay?
>DOMA does need to be repealed
>the “miscegenation” laws that wouldn’t recognize black/white marriages.
Actually gay marriage has more in common with miscegenation laws than DOMA does. Miscegenation laws were a construct of the state. They were new law and not found in the English Common law which is where our marriage laws had come from. The firs miscegenation laws on the books were 1661. The reason they were struck down was that they specifically excluded a group: whites. All other races were free to intermarry.
The marry as a right found in Loving v. Virginia is a fallacy as the court dismissed a case a few years later called Baker v. Nelson. They dismissed it on the merits for want of federal question making it precedent. It was a gay couple who was challenging I think Minnesota for the right to marry. Minnesota said they had a right as a state to restrict marriage licenses to man/women. Obviously the gay couple was not excluded from marriage just to each other. Marriage licenses are not handed out based on preference or love. The state doesn’t care about either.
The reason marriage licenses were even started in English Common Law was that it was understood that men and women naturally would pair up and have children. Obviously gay people may naturally pair up, but the natural conclusion is not children. The English Common Law was only concern about inheritance & next generation of tax payers.
DOMA is logical. When miscegenation laws were found unconstitutional they didn’t change family law, nor did it change marriage laws. Gay marriage is completely new law, and would require a complete overhaul of family law. Homosexuals cannot reproduce and always need a third person. They will always require the state to recognize and sort our parental rights. If Tim and Tom who married in Iowa moved to Tennessee –then want to divorce-Tennessee law may not be able to sort out the mess. Let the states that want to take on the new law, deal with it.
Well, I have made my position on this clear, in the past, so I’m not going to go on about it now. It’s done and there’s nothing we can do about it now.
What people like jfxgillis fail to appreciate is that the Constitution does not provide a citizen the right to serve in the Armed Forces. Military service is, to borrow an analogy, like a professional sports team. “Not all need apply and very few should expect to join. Any shortcoming in performance should threaten a soldier’s place on the team.” (Rethinking the Principles of War)
It is a person’s inability to separate, in this case, their sexuality from their duty to follow orders that is the reason for their denial of admission/dismissal from service. Furthermore, those individuals who enlisted/were commissioned with full knowledge of the rules governing homosexual acts and then violated the orders are most certainly not the sort of people that should serve in the Armed Forces. They should not serve because their loyalties are obviously split between following orders and indulging in sexual activies in violation of DADT. Additionally, they have violated their oath to obey the orders of those appointed over them and are only partially dedicating themselves to the service of their country. They are in essence saying, “I will obey these orders, but not those. Oh, by the way, you have to keep me in your Armed Forces, never knowing which other orders I might fail to follow.”
People are not being dismissed from the military because they are gay, they are being dismissed because they failed to follow orders and that behavior is not in keeping with the level of honor, courage, and committment that is demanded of service members by their countrymen.
This argument applies equally to those who fail to pay bills, commit adultery, assault another person, are disrespectful to a superior, etc….
Andy,
Excellant post and you nailed it.
You know….I just had a thought, with these new idiotic sexual harrasment standards in place right now. Pretty much anything can be considered sexual harrasment if the person hearing it is offended….. might be a huge spike in complaints now…..just sayin….
Andy #68: Wish I’d said that! Well, I did – just not nearly as well. [grin]
Andy,
Great post you nailed it to perfection and cut through all the BS
Minnesota said they had a right as a state to restrict marriage licenses to man/women. Obviously the gay couple was not excluded from marriage just to each other. … Gay marriage is completely new law, and would require a complete overhaul of family law.
This is what many people just do not understand. The LGBT movement claims that homosexuals are denied the “right” to marry. That is 100% incorrect. For an example, just look to former NJ Governor Jim McGreevey. He was a homosexual and he got married and had a family. So there is no discrimination against homosexuals who want to marry.
But what the LGBT movement wants is either (1) the creation of a government institution that recognizes same-sex couplings that would be akin to the government institution of marriage that recognizes man-woman couplings or (2) the repeal of DOMA and the complete redefinition of the institution of marriage. In other words, they either want a new institution created for them or they want to destroy the institution of marriage as is and redefine it to include their couplings.
But no where in any of this are homosexuals being denied any “rights”. They have the same as anyone else. What they want are new, special “rights” and the creation of a new institution of “gay ‘marriage'”.
If the LGBT movement could actually be honest about that little concept, I might at least respect their goals a little bit more, even though I’d still disagree with them. Instead, the majority of the movement completely misrepresents the issue, claiming that homosexuals are denied “rights” and then we get tools like “jfxgillis” who refuse to address logical concerns in changes in policy and just label everyone as “bigots” and “H8ters” and “homophobes”. And the LGBT movement wonders why most of us continue to reject their agenda, when they (1) refuse to be honest about the issues and (2) continue to label anyone who presents honest concerns about changes in policy as “bigots/H8ters/homophobes”.
Pretty much anything can be considered sexual harrasment if the person hearing it is offended… might be a huge spike in complaints now… just sayin…
==========
Yep, Rob D, that’s pretty much how it is in the corporate world, if I remember correctly. I remember our ‘sexual harassment’ training we received on the job at Ford. What it boiled down to was what you said… the harassment was based on whether the person hearing it was offended. And their word was taken as golden.
As far as I remember, if you were brought in on the charge, you were not told who was accusing you and sometimes were not even told what it was that you said. You were either given a warning and forced into more training or you were fired based on the accusation.
And the comment could be anything as innocuous as saying “Hey, you look nice today” or something similar. Sounds innocent enough, right? But if the person was offended by it and had something up a certain orifice about sexual harassment, then they go to the proper people to make the accusation and your career is now in jeopardy.
I remember after I was first informed about this when I first started on the job, I went out of my way to not only not talk to any female coworkers I did not know, but I also went out of my way to not LOOK at any female coworkers I did not know. Whether walking past them in the hall, if they were walking past my desk, etc. I was so paranoid, since I had no idea who might just be waiting for an opportunity to accuse someone of harassment.
Thankfully, the more comfortable I became in my office with everyone and the more I got to know others and they got to know me and my personality, I was able to just be myself and not worry about anything I said being taken the wrong way.
So this means male Soldiers will be able to shower and use the same locker rooms as female Soldiers, right?
Does this mean I have to put up with sexual harassment under the Army EO program and the suspension of DADT by undressing or showering in view of someone who, as a homosexual, MAY find me sexually desirable or attractive.
Will my Commanding Officer follow the advice of the JCS Chairman ADM Mullen and tell me to “just get out if I can’t handle it”? Would they tell a female Soldier complaining of sexual harassment ot “Just get out” because she obviously “can’t handle it”?
I can’t wait till they start having to answer these questions because they REALLY did not think this through, as usual…
[…] others reacting to the repeal of DADT. The one that concerns me the most comes from a commenter at This Ain’t Hell. “I will be tendering my resignation this summer after 27 years of […]
Via the trackback by “The Lonely Conservative”:
==========
A special Defense Department working group appointed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended that the military should “expressly prohibit” heterosexuals from using separate showers, bathrooms and bunking facilities from homosexuals when the repeal of the law banning homosexuals from the military goes into effect.
The working group has also recommended that commanding officers be left with the authority to exempt individuals from using the same showers, bathrooms and living facilities as homosexuals, but only on a “case-by-case” basis.
==========
Just like most predicted. The homosexuals are now getting special “rights”. Men and women cannot bunk/shower/sh!t together, but now they are “expressly prohibiting” the same situation for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Brilliant.
But noooooooooo, there won’t be special “rights” and privileges for homosexuals after they repeal DADT. Not at all. Here we are just a DAY after it has passed and they already have special privileges.
So let’s see, maybe some heterosexual men should chain themselves to the White House fence and demand that they be able to bunk/shower/sh!t with heterosexual females… you know, have the same “rights” as homosexuals have in the military now. And, then demand that females be “expressly prohibited” from bunking/showering/sh!tt!ng separately from men. And then, if people express that they don’t like that, they will then be told that they should leave the military for the betterment of their troops.
How that be?
One day into this and it’s already a Flustercuck. Great job.
>If the LGBT movement could actually be honest about that little concept, I
They are not honest about any concept in their agenda, so why would they be about that. Gosh, if I had heard one more time that gays would not be attracted to any heterosexuals in the shower, I was going to puke. Like homosexuals were so much more angelic than their 18-25 year old heterosexual counterparts would have been if they had showered with someone of the opposite sex.
Incidentally, the judge in California that ruled on prop 8 completely ignored Baker v. Nelson in his ruling. Why? Because based on Baker v. Nelson, prop 8 is entirely constitutional under the federal Constitution.
They also claimed gender discrimination in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (Mass). This was the case that legalized marriage in Massachusetts. A dissenting judge stated that this was ridiculous as both male and female are treated the same in the law. So what did the gay lobby do? They changed the argument. They are now stating the fundamentally they are “different” genders than their heterosexual counterparts.
>A special Defense Department working group appointed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended that the military should “expressly prohibit” heterosexuals from using separate showers, bathrooms and bunking facilities from homosexuals
With these little press releases, and the ones that tell those that don’t like the repeal they can just leave- it seems like they want people to leave. They certainly aren’t trying to ease anyone into this change. I honestly think they are trying to make the military smaller.
And what do you know… I open up my Yahoo Messenger and this is the first story promoted on the Yahoo News:
=====
Repeal may have ripple effect on gay rights
The end of “don’t ask, don’t tell” will likely spark challenges to other key policies. Survivor benefits
=====
This is EXACTLY what most of us predicted. This was simply the first step in how the LGBT movement wanted to start their “ripple effect”. That’s why it was crucial to have this vote in the lame-duck session. It was never about DADT, it was about starting the “ripple effect”. DADT was the key to getting that “ripple effect” going.
I honestly think they are trying to make the military smaller.
Yep. They are working to make the prospect of joining the military so unappealing that less people will join. They failed to stop recruiting by keeping ROTC off college campuses. They failed to stop recruiting by protesting recruiting offices. They failed to stop recruiting by smearing the military as a bunch of bigots/H8ters/homophobes, because of the congressional policy of DADT. So, now they’ve gone in a new direction. Get their leaders in key positions within the military and destroy it from within.
And they are succeeding.
Just like that twat from Harvard, Sandra Korn, who admitted her ultimate goal is that we get rid of the military altogether someday, that is the ultimate goal of the rest of the Left as well. They won’t ever admit it, but their actions to undermine the military any way they can speak louder than any words of denial they may spew.
Forgot the link: Repeal may have ripple effect on gay rights
Again, homosexuals have the same “rights” as everyone else. What they want are new, special “rights”. The new, special right to “marry” a member of the same sex. Currently, that “right” exists for no one. Yet the right to marry exists for everyone, homosexuals included. So no “rights” are being denied at all, despite the whining of the LGBT movement.
Andy:
“What people like jfxgillis fail to appreciate is that the Constitution does not provide a citizen the right to serve in the Armed Forces.”
Oh. Wow. I hadn’t realized that. So we can just discharge or refuse admission to homophobic bigots without violating their Constitutional rights?
jfxgillis:
Oh. Wow. I hadn’t realized that. So we can just discharge or refuse admission to homophobic bigots without violating their Constitutional rights?
You are partially correct. A person who espouses bigoted (they do not have to be homophobic) views can and should be removed from the Armed Forces. For example, if the person belongs to/supports a group that believes in the superiority of one race over all others, they are denied entry into the Armed Forces.
However, the discharge process must be in accordance with the UCMJ, the CFR, MFCM, etc. Part of this requirement is providing proof for the elements of the charged offence. If the discharge violates these guidelines, then the discharge is inequitable and the rights of the member have been violated.
.offense.
jfxgillis:
“Oh. Wow. I hadn’t realized that. So we can just discharge or refuse admission to homophobic bigots without violating their Constitutional rights?”
One must be part of the military to discharge or refuse admission to someone which you are not. By the way, does disagreeing with a homosexual lifestyle automatically make one a bigoted homophobe or are you the bigot?
The gay community is going to take this all too far and wind up setting themselves back in the long run.
Under the new rules I’m sure any questions about the repeal of DADT will make you an instant homophobe. Its no different then questioning affirmative action making you a racist. Welcome to the new world order, now shut up and sit down or you will be denounced.
And let’s not forget one of the top points in the gay agenda… The absolute removal of any religion that doesn’t fawn over their lifestyle. The Chaplains will be told not to mention Christianity because gays will be offended by the anti-homosexual beliefs. Unless they cave in too and we start seeing gay military weddings… But hey, what’s more important? Fire island or Paris Island? The liberal anti-American agenda has moved another step into the void of reason.
No longer will be chanting, “This is my rifle , this is my gun. One is for fighting one is for fun!”
We might offend one of the sexual deviants who can’t tell the difference.
Andy and YatYas:
To be honest, I didn’t bumble onto this blog and thread to “debate” the issue. The issue’s been debated for 18 years now. And now it’s settled. The “debate” is over.
I came here to wish Michael in MI a happy retirement (his comment was widely linked around the blogosphere), paid for by my tax dollars, and the same to anyone else whose committment to a faggot-free army is greater than their commitment to duty and country.
To be even more honest, I supported DADT when it was first passed because “gays in the military” was threatening to engulf Clinton’s first term. But not now. The world has changed, the country has changed, the military has changed.
Everyone on this thread needs to read Senator Burr’s reasoning for voting Yes on passage:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/134381-burr-explains-vote-switch-on-dont-ask-dont-tell
I despise the man, actually, but that’s irrelevant. He’s not speaking to a Yankee liberal Democrat like me, he’s speaking to you. Listen to the man.
I came here to wish Michael in MI a happy retirement (his comment was widely linked around the blogosphere), paid for by my tax dollars, and the same to anyone else whose commitment to a f#ggot-free army is greater than their commitment to duty and country.
You know what, jfxgillis? You really are a bigoted jackass, who assumes way too much. Do you even know who I am? Do you even know whether or not I am in the military and, if I am, whether I am a veteran or National Guard or Active Duty in one of the branches close to retirement? No, you don’t. You take one comment on a blog and make a bigoted assumption about everyone. Newflash, Yankee lib, I have never said anything about retiring from anything.
If you could actually read and comprehend, you would see that no one here (or most anywhere else I have read on milblogs and right-of-center blogs) ever makes an argument for a homosexual-free military. Everyone believes the current policy of DADT works well. The only argument that has been made is for homosexuals — and everyother-sexuals — to not put their sexuality above their duty as a military member.
The only reason you came here was to make an ass of yourself and call everyone else bigots (what a shock, since that seems to be the MO of most of the pro-LGBT crowd) so that you could feel better about what a small-minded, close-minded, feeble, shallow, lowlife attention-whore you are. Well, you have succeeded in making an ass of yourself, so hopefully that makes you feel better about all your personal shortcomings.
Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, sh!tstain.
Burr is an idiot;
“I don’t think this is the right time to make a major policy change like this when we have got troops deployed,” Burr said, decrying the lack of an opportunity to offer amendments.
But he added of the repeal: “This is, I think, a policy that generationally is right.”
In other words, this isn’t the right time, but let’s do it cuz MTV says we should. Brilliant.
jfxgillis:
“To be honest, I didn’t bumble onto this blog and thread to “debate” the issue. The issue’s been debated for 18 years now. And now it’s settled. The “debate” is over.
I came here to wish Michael in MI a happy retirement (his comment was widely linked around the blogosphere), paid for by my tax dollars, and the same to anyone else whose committment to a faggot-free army is greater than their commitment to duty and country.
He’s not speaking to a Yankee liberal Democrat like me, he’s speaking to you. Listen to the man.”
So now the discussion turns personal and the arguments are no longer objective and logical.
My apologies. I did not realize that we were debating. You presented uninformed positions and I was trying to clarify the issue. I specifically tailored the information so that it would be as free of emotional “buzzwords” as possible.
For the record, I don’t care what you think, especially since the proof for something being true does not include “how does jfxgillis feel about it?”
To be fair, I read Senator Burr’s comments. He is wrong as well. The Armed Forces must be discriminatory in their selection process. The Armed Forces must exclude people who wish to retain all of their Constitutional rights and are unwilling to surrender some of their rights during their term of service. If members of the Armed Forces were allowed to retain all of their Constitutional rights, then it would be permissible to speak out against the President, attend political rallies in uniform, join extremist groups, and go to WikiLeaks.
Furthermore your use of derogatory term is unacceptable and inappropriate. I would not tolerate its use among my fellow service members, but I must tolerate it from a civilian. Maybe now you can better understand the difference between the permissible acts of a civilian and those in the military. Thank you for the excellent example.
Gillis seems to be the penultimate faggot that wants to destroy the military which defends his right to prance and whine…just remember when the military is gone, the fascists come in and the first ones they kill off are faggots
“just remember when the military is gone, the fascists come in and the first ones they kill off are faggots”
Nina: The Night of the Long Knives comes to mind. Ask Ernst Rohm about that…..nevermind, he’s dead as well as all his boyfriends.
Andy: Well said.
Jonn:
“Burr is an idiot;”
Shrug. He’s on your side of the aisle.
“He’s on your side of the aisle.”
That doesn’t make him right.
Jonn: The stupid is strong in that one (referring to gillis).
OT, the stupid is overpowering in that one. And it all started when he dodged the draft.
Jonn:
“That doesn’t make him right.”
No, but it means you should probably weigh his words more carefully than mine.
Look. I won’t pretend I came to this blog for any reason other than to gloat. But pay attention to what I said above: The world has changed, the country has changed, the military has changed.
I’m not surprised that some guy with 27 years in is threatening to resign/retire, or that some poster named “Old Trooper” is posting like, well, an old trooper. But it’s not their world anymore.
It’s almost funny at this point. The people remaining most obstanaintly resistent are the “old troopers” who don’t seem to realize that the “young troopers” don’t give a shit. No matter where they’re from or what values and prejudices they were inculcated with, the “young troopers” have out gays among their family or close connections, they all went to high school or college with out gays, they all lived in a national culture with out gay figures. They all live in this world, here and now. Soon the “old troopers” will be gone and this “debate” will be well and truly over.
It’s obvious you’d never make it in the military, Gillie; you can’t even follow a directive to not remember to breathe.
Carry on.
“…don’t seem to realize that the “young troopers” don’t give a shit.”
Yeah, you’ve followed the debate real well. The “young troopers” who pull triggers do give a shit. But you don’t understand that, probably because you’ve spent your whole life avoiding any involvement in anything military, except sitting back sniping at us from inside the safe little perimeter we’ve provided for you.
When that safe little perimeter collapses, please don’t come running asking for our last full measure of devotion.
The people remaining most obstanaintly resistent are the “old troopers” who don’t seem to realize that the “young troopers” don’t give a shit.
Most in fact do, gfx. The ones that don’t usually don’t hang around long enough to be old troopers. The old troopers who most certainly give a shit do so because they’ve been around long enough to see the headaches coming down the road.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,52872.0.html For all the guests who are lurking, and answer from a white male combat veteran with more than 26 years of active service, having seen Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq, and operations in South America and the Pacific. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a persons sexual preference. Who you fuck doesn’t make you a better soldier. It is your attitude and love of country, a willingness to put country above self, to place your life on the line for someone else. A willingness to suffer for something bigger than yourself, the concept that freedom should be allowed to flourish and every person should be able to live with in it. You spend 24 hours a day living with your buddies. You know more about them than you do your own family. Hell, you spend more time with them than your own family. You watch over each other and protect each other and they become the closest people you have ever had in your life. You help them when they stumble knowing without asking that they would lift you up if you fell. You’d give up your own life for theirs. That is what is is to be a combat soldier. A soldier isn’t white or black or hispanic or asian. They are not gay or straight. They are soldiers. First and last. What pisses most of us off is that you left thinking civilians think that by getting people to openly admit they are gay somehow the Army will be a better place. You want to military to be a pleasent experience where everyone gets along. Guess what, creampuff, war is hell. It is the worst thing you could possiblyput someone through. It destroys people, mentally and physically without ever being wounded by the enemy. Eight out of ten people serving in combat don’t make it through a year without breaking. We strive to make training harder than war so that we give our people a chance of making it out alive. But you don’t care about that. You want guys like Dan Choi to… Read more »
Couldn’t let this one pass….
“And I can’t help but notice that the veterans who favored repeal all came from occupations that have nothing to do with actually fighting and winning wars.”
I’ve participated in both combat arms as a M60A3 crew member (4 yrs), in combat service support as a military fireman for a combat trains ammunition battalion (2yrs), and lastly in transportation as a heavy wheeled vehicle operator/squad leader/ and assistant platoon sgt (15 yrs), and ya know what? That comment above, aside from being incorrect, is so ignorant, arrogant, and offensive that I can hardly believe someone service connected made it. Shooters can not fight and win wars by themselves, nor are they the only ones in uniform that routinely go in harms way. The veiled suggestion that theirs are the only opinions worthy of consideration shows an incredible lack of knowledge and maturity. There ain’t no I in TEAM!
@ Jacobite
There is an I in win….