Obama to end "don't ask, don't tell" policy

[ZenMonkey]

AP story:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says he will end the \"don't ask, don't tell\" military policy.

The \"don't ask, don't tell\" policy allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation or act on it.

Obama said this country cannot afford to cut from the military's ranks people with needed skills for fighting. He made the comments to thousands of gays and lesbians at a fundraising dinner Saturday night for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group.

Since Obama took office in January, some advocates have complained Obama has not followed through on promises to push top gay rights issues.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he knows gay rights activists get impatient but he says this country has made progress and will make more in defending those rights.

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

On the eve of a major gay-rights rally, Obama addressed thousands of gays and lesbians at a fundraising dinner Saturday night for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group.

Since Obama took office in January, some advocates have complained Obama has not followed through on promises to push top gay rights issues. They are looking for firm commitments on such issues as ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military and pushing tough nondiscrimination policies.

 

[AshburnerX]

If he actually does it, good on him. It was a stupid policy to begin with.

 

[phil]

I'm happy for this. I've heard of this causing so much trouble that I'm glad it'll be gone. I kind of understand why it was implemented in the first place, but it seemed to cause more problems than it solved.

 

[Krisken]

The sooner, the better.

 

[Espy]

AP story:

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

Well, all their goals unless they want to get married that is.

This is still a good thing though, even though, as my wife says, most who are homosexual still aren't going to make it known.

 

[Iaculus]

AP story:

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

Well, all their goals unless they want to get married that is.

This is still a good thing though, even though, as my wife says, most who are homosexual still aren't going to make it known.

That's not really what matters, though. What matters is that they can't get discharged for it any more. Big plus.

 

[Nile]

Finally.

Can't say his reasoning in the article is the best we could've hoped for, but it's still a step forward.

 

[Espy]

AP story:

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

Well, all their goals unless they want to get married that is.

This is still a good thing though, even though, as my wife says, most who are homosexual still aren't going to make it known.

That's not really what matters, though. What matters is that they can't get discharged for it any more. Big plus.[/QUOTE]

I never said it was what mattered, I just commented on the situation many will still find themselves in.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

AP story:

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

Well, all their goals unless they want to get married that is.

This is still a good thing though, even though, as my wife says, most who are homosexual still aren't going to make it known.

*shrug* It's a start?

 

[Espy]

AP story:

He says he is committed to their goals and he will achieve them

Well, all their goals unless they want to get married that is.

This is still a good thing though, even though, as my wife says, most who are homosexual still aren't going to make it known.

*shrug* It's a start?[/QUOTE]
Yes. It is. I don't know why people are having such a hard time with my comment.

Let me make it easier for you all: Good for him. I am GLAD he did this. It's a SHAME that gays in the military are still going to be part of a culture that will push them to hide their sexual orientation or fear some sort of harassment.

Or did people just not like me saying that if he really wants to help the gay community he could push forward with equality in marriage for homosexuals? Sorry, it's just what I think he should do if he really intends to work for the homosexual community.

 

[Ross]

Or did people just not like me saying that if he really wants to help the gay community he could push forward with equality in marriage for homosexuals? Sorry, it's just what I think he should do if he really intends to work for the homosexual community.

That's the next step. Solve a morally-smaller issue that has more support now (getting rid of the don't ask don't tell policy), and use that momentum to work on the more controversial and less-supported issues, like gay marriage.

It's all in the strategery.

 

[Espy]

Umm... You do know what his stance on homosexual marriage is right Ross? Here's a hint: same as GWB's. That's why I struggle with how real his support of gay rights really is.

 

[Ross]

Umm... You do know what his stance on homosexual marriage is right Ross? Here's a hint: same as GWB's. That's why I struggle with how real his support of gay rights really is.

If that's the case, then be glad for the stuff he IS doing, if he doesn't intend on working on gay marriage at all.

 

[Espy]

Like I said above, I am. Good for him.

 

[Ross]

So don't complain

 

[Espy]

I fail to see how expressing a desire for a better and more complete stance is complaining but... Whatever floats your boat.

 

[strawman]

So, this is something I don't understand. Out of 1.5 million active duty personnel, we've lost 600 or so due to this policy, and this is one of the more important things on his plate? That's 1/25 of 1%.

Of course, we've had this discussion on the board here before, and I'm sure it's going to end up the same way, so I won't get into the debate on DADT again.

But it doesn't matter. Obama is just giving lip service, and nothing significant is going to come of this.

-Adam

 

[Krisken]

So, this is something I don't understand. Out of 1.5 million active duty personnel, we've lost 600 or so due to this policy, and this is one of the more important things on his plate? That's 1/25 of 1%.

Of course, we've had this discussion on the board here before, and I'm sure it's going to end up the same way, so I won't get into the debate on DADT again.

But it doesn't matter. Obama is just giving lip service, and nothing significant is going to come of this.

-Adam

A lot of which are responsible for translation and other key elements. Not to mention, no soldier who serves his or her country honorably should be discriminated against for any reason.

 

[Armadillo]

Mark your calendars, people-this is a historic day in our nation's history: President Obama did something that I 100% support and commend him for.

That ain't gonna happen too often, kids.

 

[AshburnerX]

So, this is something I don't understand. Out of 1.5 million active duty personnel, we've lost 600 or so due to this policy, and this is one of the more important things on his plate? That's 1/25 of 1%.

Of course, we've had this discussion on the board here before, and I'm sure it's going to end up the same way, so I won't get into the debate on DADT again.

But it doesn't matter. Obama is just giving lip service, and nothing significant is going to come of this.

-Adam

A lot of which are responsible for translation and other key elements. Not to mention, no soldier who serves his or her country honorably should be discriminated against for any reason.[/QUOTE]

We are basically asking them to pretend they are straight for their military careers. I know the military is all about smashing square pegs into round holes (wow that sounds dirty in the context) but to ask our soldiers to deny something they have no control over has got to be demoralizing. Not to mention that if a straight member has sex with someone in his unit, he's reprimanded and maybe moved somewhere else, but if a gay one does, they get booted out. It's a double standard.

 

[Shegokigo]

So, this is something I don't understand. Out of 1.5 million active duty personnel, we've lost 600 or so due to this policy, and this is one of the more important things on his plate? That's 1/25 of 1%.

Of course, we've had this discussion on the board here before, and I'm sure it's going to end up the same way, so I won't get into the debate on DADT again.

But it doesn't matter. Obama is just giving lip service, and nothing significant is going to come of this.

-Adam

That's fine, but now imagine how many they would lose in the many future years to come if the policy didn't change? You can't be short-sighted on this, which he isn't.

 

[Cuyval Dar]

So, this is something I don't understand. Out of 1.5 million active duty personnel, we've lost 600 or so due to this policy, and this is one of the more important things on his plate? That's 1/25 of 1%.

Of course, we've had this discussion on the board here before, and I'm sure it's going to end up the same way, so I won't get into the debate on DADT again.

But it doesn't matter. Obama is just giving lip service, and nothing significant is going to come of this.

-Adam

That's fine, but now imagine how many they would lose in the many future years to come if the policy didn't change? You can't be short-sighted on this, which he isn't.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I don't think that the military has a problem finding recruits that aren't gay.
And furthermore, I don't think that they have lost any skills that can't be trained to an infinite number of recruits.

And I fully agree, Steiny. Obama is just paying lip service, just like with all of his other campaign promises.

 

[AshburnerX]

Yeah, I don't think that the military has a problem finding recruits that aren't gay.
And furthermore, I don't think that they have lost any skills that can't be trained to an infinite number of recruits.

And I fully agree, Steiny. Obama is just paying lip service, just like with all of his other campaign promises.

So... what, you think it's OK to exclude and remove them for being gay, just because they might not be vital personnel? I'm not sure what your trying to say here.

Lip service or not, it's an incredibly stupid policy and it's forcing a large number of men and women to pretend to be something they aren't.

 

[crono1224]

Curvy doesn't like something obama has done? There's a fucking surprise. It was a silly policy to start with and doesn't hold water, despite how many people were actually kicked out i am sure it created plenty of more tension knowing if it leaked that you were gay you could get kicked out. Also that reduces recruiting of openly gay people. Who cares the actual numbers it was a good move on a hugely publicized thing.

Lip service or no I am sure our president can handle more that one thing at a time, he isn't GWB.

 

[North_Ranger]

*to the OP*

Hm. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Oh, and Cuyval? "Infinite number of recruits", really? Then tell me why the US Aemy had to lower their recruitment standards a few years back just to meet their recruitment goal? I mean, clearly they wouldn't need to, since they have "infinite number of recruits"?

But I digress. While dropping the DADT might not mean a rise in recruitment or a drop in discharge figures, it's still a powerful symbolic act. It sends a message that being a homosexual is not something to be ashamed of, something you need to keep under cover if you want to have a career in the armed forces.

 

[Dusty668]

I thought the don't ask don't tell was much better than the previous "If any evidence of perversion is found hunt it down ruthlessly, disgrace them personally and professionally, allow them to be harassed by their former squadmates, then put them in jail."

 

[Iaculus]

I thought the don't ask don't tell was much better than the previous "If any evidence of perversion is found hunt it down ruthlessly, disgrace them personally and professionally, allow them to be harassed by their former squadmates, then put them in jail."

Well, yes, it was an advance at the time, but these days, it's a relic. For the record, we dropped our own DADT policy in 2000, and everything went swimmingly. The ECHR got something right, that's for sure.

 

[phil]

Umm... You do know what his stance on homosexual marriage is right Ross? Here's a hint: same as GWB's. That's why I struggle with how real his support of gay rights really is.

/I origonally made a post about some really deep shit pretaining to my thoughts about the right.

I realize that I'm too drunk to give a real argument about this, but I will say this:

Obama is an educated man. An idealistic and nieve man, but an educated one. He knows that leftist ideals won't fly well with a middle centered America. I am 100% certain that he does not give 2 shits about sexual preference. He does, on the other hand, know that politics is not ready for a full on gay friendly politician. He has to pretend to be a church going man to please the the people who care about that. Thus, gay marriage will not be legalized in his administation and left to each state.

It's not right, but it's politics baby. in 20 years lets see where america is. Maybe then after we've hated on the gays and muslims enough we might be ok with making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Until then though, it's just a pipe dream. One that makes me sad because it should be legal.

 

[Ross]

I thought the don't ask don't tell was much better than the previous "If any evidence of perversion is found hunt it down ruthlessly, disgrace them personally and professionally, allow them to be harassed by their former squadmates, then put them in jail."

Well, yes, it was an advance at the time, but these days, it's a relic. For the record, we dropped our own DADT policy in 2000, and everything went swimmingly. The ECHR got something right, that's for sure.[/QUOTE]

 

[strawman]

Lip service or not, it's an incredibly stupid policy and it's forcing a large number of men and women to pretend to be something they aren't.

The alternative is merely a different form of sexual discrimination. How long until they are sued by a service member for not providing basic separate quarters and showers from objects of their affection?

Right now heterosexuals aren't forced to sleep and shower in the same quarters as potential sexual partners, so why should homosexual people be forced to do so?

The opposite is also true - male heterosexual service members may feel their privacy violated by showering with women, and for similar reason may feel their privacy is violated by showering with homosexual men.

DADT is far, far, far from an ideal situation. Propose something better, please. Until then, it sounds like it's still the closest we can get.

-Adam

 

[Bowielee]

Lip service or not, it's an incredibly stupid policy and it's forcing a large number of men and women to pretend to be something they aren't.

The alternative is merely a different form of sexual discrimination. How long until they are sued by a service member for not providing basic separate quarters and showers from objects of their affection?
[/QUOTE]

Wow, I find this to be one of the most ignorant things I've heard to date.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

The alternative is merely a different form of sexual discrimination. How long until they are sued by a service member for not providing basic separate quarters and showers from objects of their affection?

Right now heterosexuals aren't forced to sleep and shower in the same quarters as potential sexual partners, so why should homosexual people be forced to do so?

The opposite is also true - male heterosexual service members may feel their privacy violated by showering with women, and for similar reason may feel their privacy is violated by showering with homosexual men.

DADT is far, far, far from an ideal situation. Propose something better, please. Until then, it sounds like it's still the closest we can get.

-Adam

Ugh. This is why Obama's dragging his feet on this, I guess.

edit: I mean because people honestly believe what steinman posted, not that he has anything resembling a rational point

 

[Iaculus]

Lip service or not, it's an incredibly stupid policy and it's forcing a large number of men and women to pretend to be something they aren't.

The alternative is merely a different form of sexual discrimination. How long until they are sued by a service member for not providing basic separate quarters and showers from objects of their affection?

Right now heterosexuals aren't forced to sleep and shower in the same quarters as potential sexual partners, so why should homosexual people be forced to do so?

The opposite is also true - male heterosexual service members may feel their privacy violated by showering with women, and for similar reason may feel their privacy is violated by showering with homosexual men.

DADT is far, far, far from an ideal situation. Propose something better, please. Until then, it sounds like it's still the closest we can get.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

Same arguments made prior to the 2000 policy drop over here. Don't think any of them actually presented a serious problem in the end.

 

[Bubble181]

You can't tell someoen's gay just by looking at them (well, usually). After a football match, in school after gym lessons, whatever, we've all showered together with other people before - and 1 in 20 is gay, people. Chances are pretty high you've already showered with a gay person but didn't know. What the fuck do you care? As long as he doesn't suddenly start to ravage you right then and there; and most really won't -_-

 

[North_Ranger]

You can't tell someoen's gay just by looking at them (well, usually). After a football match, in school after gym lessons, whatever, we've all showered together with other people before - and 1 in 20 is gay, people. Chances are pretty high you've already showered with a gay person but didn't know. What the fuck do you care? As long as he doesn't suddenly start to ravage you right then and there; and most really won't -_-

Bubble... it's Americans. They are afraid of nudity

[/jk]