Repeal of Military Gay Ban Clears Final Senate Hurdle Before Passage


#1

In an unusual weekend session, senators voted 63-33 to advance a bill ending the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The repeal, which passed the House this week, could win final passage by Sunday or Monday.

Democrats won support from [SIZE=3]six Republicans to advance the bill: Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mark Kirk of Illinois, George Voinovich of Ohio and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. [/SIZE]

Repeal of Military Gay Ban Clears Final Senate Hurdle Before Passage - FoxNews.com

.


#2

I tried to call my dim whit senator Casey, but his “mailbox is full”.

I wanted to ask, “Why do you HATE the military” ???

If gays were allowed when I was of age, I WOULD NOT JOIN.

[SIZE=“2”]Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mark Kirk of Illinois, George Voinovich of Ohio and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

Why on earth do they continue to call themselves Republican ??? They are just DISHONEST.

.[/SIZE]


#3

If they simply repeal it, it will mean, do ask, and don’t allow enlistment if the answer is yes.


#4

Mostly familiar names…


#5

Kind of a petty reason.


#6

I wonder how much bribing the Democrats had to do in order to get these Senators to go along with it.


#7

:yeahthat:

You may have a good point there. Go back to how they handled it when I was in the Navy. On a ship, even a carrier, the quarters are cramped. You don’t want to be worring about the guy in the next bunk.


#8

IDK about this. I know I served with a few gay guys and they weren’t any more of a problem than any others, but that was before DADT, even, so they had to be very circumspect about it.

The military has lots of ambiguous wordings in the UCMJ that can be used to mean pretty much whatever they want (“conduct unbecoming” and “conduct detrimental to good order and discipline”, etc.). How this works out will depend very much on the actions and attitudes of the individual soldiers, and how the brass implements it.

Let’s just say I have my doubts that this will work out well…


#9

I don’t get it. Why not have gays in the military? Why would you be worried about a gay man or women sleeping next to you?


#10

[quote=“PartyPoor, post:9, topic:28635”]
I don’t get it. Why not have gays in the military? Why would you be worried about a gay man or women sleeping next to you?
[/quote]Despite what many may say, the issue isn’t whether or not its OK for homosexuals to serve, it is related to the elimination of a conservative majority within the military and to drum out the predominate Christian belief system within the military.

Currently, gays serve in the military and for the most part, everyone knows they are gay. Most service members, (including me before I retired), didn’t care as long as they kept it to themselves and didn’t use being in the service as an opportunity to recruit. Don’t ask, don’t tell prevented the homosexual agenda from becoming a predominate force with the ranks.

Here is what the military is now in store for:

  1. Military same sex couples will seek military chaplains to marry them. The chaplains, if they have real core belief system will refuse and the homosexual legal bullies will start their typical action to attack those chaplains.
  2. The militant homosexuals will attempt to have a position of superiority of the heterosexual population just like they do in schools. The will demand and receive special treatment and will have a shield that protects them from negative evaluations and disciplinary action.
  3. There will be a “gay history” month complete with events celebrating homosexual “achievements” (that will be completely fabricated of course) that straight members will have to pay homage to.
  4. Homosexual couples will demand access to military housing. When they move in next to a straight family that doesn’t want their children exposed to something that is against their religion, the straight couple will be forced to remain in place or they will be thrown out of housing.
  5. Homosexuals will form “cliques” that will harass and bully straight members. This is particularly true with lesbians. (It currently happens so if anyone wants to say I’m crazy, unless you’ve been there, you don’t know what you’re talking about)

The militant homosexuals aren’t interested in simply living their lives. Their goal is to increase their numbers and to increase their political standing. This decision provided both.


#11

Not to mention all of the lawsuits that could happen, which would really deter our military.


#12

I have a question. Why can’t everyone just leave everyone else the hell alone?


#13

Because, as Subvet so well put it:

The militant homosexuals aren’t interested in simply living their lives. Their goal is to increase their numbers and to increase their political standing. This decision provided both.

Yes, it would be nice if everyone left each other alone. Espcially the Naval Commanding Officer who convinced a young navy guy to have sex with him and destroyed a marriage between a couple who had 3 wonderful children.


#14

Okay, first of all, we have no way of “increasing our numbers”. Straights do that for us. Secondly, I don’t see what that story has to do with DADT. Thirdly, you don’t think the young Navy guy bears some responsibility for that, too? If he can’t be faithful to his wife, that’s his problem. If he was merely convinced (rather than coerced), it’s his fault he couldn’t stand up to temptation, and no different than if he’d cheated on her with another woman.


#15

Not just that but the militant homosexuals are more interested in trying to thought police everybody. Such as hate crime and hate speech legislation.


#16

But it’s not just militant homosexuals who want this. =/ In fact, I doubt there are very many militant homosexuals among the ones who serve in the military - they have rather more important concerns than hate speech laws.


#17

For much the same reason that a hetero woman would be worried about some strange hetero man sleeping next to her.


#18

[quote=“SuddenImpact, post:16, topic:28635”]
But it’s not just militant homosexuals who want this. =/ In fact, I doubt there are very many militant homosexuals among the ones who serve in the military - they have rather more important concerns than hate speech laws.
[/quote]They would have part of that legendary “13,000” who have been discharged since the DADT policy was enacted.


#19

^

I can’t even begin to think of the personnel and logistical nightmares for officers and NCO’s. Are they going to have to set up a special unit to investigate complaints from poofs? I wonder if they are going to assign commissars to make sure the enlisted tow the political line. All these people who ask why they can’t serve openly have never been in the military.


#20

Nonsence. Coercion and brainwhashing has done a fantasitc job of it.

Straights do that for us.

Huh? :confused: So-called ‘straights’ in the education profession and almost every other profession under the earth have consistantly proved to be SO politically correct that they can’t help BUT proliferate the gay agenda.

Secondly, I don’t see what that story has to do with DADT.

What story? The one in this article, or the fact that a previously very heterosexual male was coherced by his NCO?

Thirdly, you don’t think the young Navy guy bears some responsibility for that, too? If he can’t be faithful to his wife, that’s his problem. If he was merely convinced (rather than coerced), it’s his fault he couldn’t stand up to temptation, and no different than if he’d cheated on her with another woman.

Who ever said he didn’t play a role? He obviously did. What’s your point? Gays should be invited to serve openly so that all their counterparts know who to run away from?
You’re not making much sense here.