|
| Thread: Senate repeals Don't Ask, Don't Tell |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 18, 2010 10:51 PM |
|
|
Senate repeals Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Link.
The bill will be signed into law this week by President Barack Obama, who made lifting the ban a key campaign pledge.
The repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is a major victory for Mr Obama and congressional Democrat leaders and a historic breakthrough for gay rights advocates.
It will also mark a striking cultural shift for the US armed forces as gays are allowed to serve for the first time without fear of dismissal.
“It is time to close this chapter in our history,” said Mr Obama who has remained in Washington to complete political duties while his family begins their annual Christmas holiday in Hawaii.
“It is time to recognise that sacrifice, valour and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed.” He added that as commander-in-chief, he believed the measure would strengthen the country’s military.
Eight moderate Republicans joined the Democrat majority to vote 65-31 for repeal. The legislation goes to the Oval Office desk as the House of Representatives has already voted comfortably for repeal, the bill will then be signed into law by President Barack Obama.
The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law was enacted by President Bill Clinton in 1993 as a compromise after his efforts to end the ban of gays serving was thwarted by strong opposition from military chiefs.
More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under its provisions in the last 17 years. The law required gays in the armed forces not to reveal their sexual identity while the military was not allowed to ask about it.
Defence secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joints chiefs of staff, have both pushed hard for the ban to be lifted. A Pentagon survey indicated that two-thirds of military personnel predicted little impact if the ban while opinion polls consistently show clear public support for repeal.
But several service chiefs objected to the change at a time of war and nearly 60 per cent of the Marine Corps and frontline Army combat units said they thought lifting the ban would damage their ability to fight.
Gen James Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, has led opposition to repeal during wartime. “I don’t want to lose any Marines to this distraction,” he said this week. “I don’t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting [in hospital] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.”
---
A positive step.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 18, 2010 11:03 PM |
|
|
Great news. 
"More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under its provisions in the last 17 years."
something to think about...
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 12:13 AM |
|
|
Minor issue compared to all the other crap Congress should be dealing with. I saw nothing wrong with the current policy; it's going to be difficult and expensive to change existing military policy. Curious that Congress put this as high priority.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 12:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I saw nothing wrong with the current policy
In your opinion there is nothing wrong in firing a person based on his or hers sexual orientation. That is... interesting.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 02:28 AM |
|
|
You can fire anyone for any reason in most states due to "at will" employment.
I am glad the issue is settled. Perhaps we can move on to more important issues, like the poor economy and national debt?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 03:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In your opinion there is nothing wrong in firing a person based on his or hers sexual orientation. That is... interesting.
One, this is the military, not a corporation. I wouldn't hold the military to the same legal obligations as other institutions. For obvious reasons.
Two, what OD said.
Third, I am a staunch supporter of gay rights to equal treatment under the law, and my posting record on that point is rather clear, so no need to throw me under the bigot bus. I just don't feel the military is the place to gum up the works just to make a point about social equality. Demand fair treatment for marriage, private employment, traffic tickets, whatever, and I'll be right there at the picket lines with you. But leave the military alone, especially when we're in the middle of a war.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 06:33 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 06:33, 19 Dec 2010.
|
Especially when we are in the middle of a war....
Wow.
How to address this, knowing I am not the best at expressing myself...
First, the Military should be held to a HIGHER standard then any 'corporation'. As one of the biggest 'employers' in America, any of the rules and guidelines that other employers have to follow, they should have to follow.
Second, saying that we should not look at certain policies just because we are at war is a bit..odd. Please tell me that you do not think we shouldn't question the Military at all when we are 'at war'. How long has it been again since we were not 'at war' for more then a couple of months in a row?
Maybe I am missing something or misreading something. I am human.
I agree there are bigger issues that can be addressed, however.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 07:37 AM |
|
|
Of course there are bigger issues to be addressed, but this is an improvement. Whatever a private business can do is one thing, but the military is part of the government, and the government cannot be allowed to discriminate on a thing such as sexual orientation. And if the people in the military don't like this, they have bigger problems, such as being professional enough to do their jobs. We spend a ridiculous amount on the military, so the least they should do their jobs without complaining about such a trivial thing. We are, after all, at war, and if they let the presence of homosexuals distract them, then what can we say about their professionalism?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 08:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Please tell me that you do not think we shouldn't question the Military at all when we are 'at war'.
EDIT
You know what, Mytical? Forget it. I'm sick of talking to people who aren't listening. Go ahead and put whatever words in my mouth you want to. That goes for everyone else. In fact, why don't I just give all of you my password so you can all just post whatever you want by my avatar and I don't have to waste my time here any more?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 09:31 AM |
|
|
It was nothing but a disgrace for the US to have such a rule. I think this is a step in the right direction.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 11:24 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:35, 19 Dec 2010.
|
@Corribus. I was not trying to put words in your mouth. In fact, I even put that I probably misread/misunderstood. Ah forget it, I am just no good at expressing myself.
And Corribus..you are one of the posters I most respect. Though I often don't AGREE with you on things. Sorry if I offended.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 12:45 PM |
|
|
So what was the original law exactly? People weren't allowed to say they were gay in public and no one was allowed to ask?
If someone publicly announced he was gay he could be fired but if he stayed quiet nothing would happen?
If that's how it goes I see nothing wrong with that. I can honestly say that if I had a gay or two in my team during a mission it would bother me and propably the rest of the guys too. If no one knew they were, it wouldn't matter.
Then again, I don't see it having any effect on me at all in combat duties so if I wasn't an anvance recon I wouldn't care even if some were gay.
Then there's the point that FFL has a huge number of gays, has always had. You can't just push that aside. We could also arque that has lead to a number of rapes using dominant position(pun not intented) which is propably true.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 01:57 PM |
|
|
@Corribus. I am just hoping for some explanation on why it is that you think there is apparently something wrong with a gay person serving in the military. Especially after the Pentagon study that "Gay Troops Could Serve Openly Without Hurting Combat Readiness"
I did not throw you under the bigot bus, but you must be able to back an statement bluntly stating there is "nothing wrong", wouldn't you agree? I am just genuinely interested in your reasoning behind that.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 03:02 PM |
|
|
I think society - alpha male society of military - isn't really ready for that kind of law. Don't ask don't tell was meant to protect gay people from abuse. It's easy to remove all laws and claim liberty, but when it starts to produce tension between society that isn't ready for that kind of liberty - it's obvious that wasn't the best move.
One of my best friends is gay and he claimed never to even think of military because homosexualism and current military are strictly antagonistic.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 03:26 PM |
|
|
Homosexuals are disproportionately drawn to the military profession. This is something that should be addressed sooner rather than later.
It's not as though the drill sergeant is going to openly announce at the beginning of boot camp all the gay guys in the unit from now on. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was a policy between recruiters and recruits.
As far as being 'in the middle of a war', this has historically been a very common - and often weak - argument to justify all sorts of things. War comes and civil liberties are stifled, because people and lawmakers become lax due to fear or heightened caution. In actuality, you should be more diligent to ensuring good policy precisely because civil liberties are more vulnerable during war.
If we're going to wait until we're no longer in the middle of a war, we could be waiting for a long time, and this war we're in is, relatively, an extremely tame one. It's not like we're charging the slopes of Iwo Jima and there's artillery shells and body parts and small angry Asians flying all over the place and the sergeants in the back line are blasting on loudspeakers all the guys in the unit who are gay.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 06:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't ask don't tell was meant to protect gay people from abuse.
As I said, if soldiers aren't professional enough to treat their gay comrades equally, then we have much bigger problems than just this.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 19, 2010 06:24 PM |
|
|
Most US soldiers are young uneducated men who are in desperate need of money. What do you expect?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 20, 2010 12:27 AM |
|
|
Of course liberal congressmen voted out of office are making their last Hurrah that they dared not do when there was a chance for their reelection. They don't think there is a problem with requiring straight people to undress in front of homosexuals or shower with them or sleep next to them.
But I would say that straight people have privacy rights too.
I am not opposed to gays serving in the military. But they need to serve on all gay ships, all gay companies, ect or in other ways that ensure straight people don't have to put up with having to be naked in front of them.
____________
Revelation
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted December 20, 2010 12:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course liberal congressmen voted out of office are making their last Hurrah that they dared not do when there was a chance for their reelection. They don't think there is a problem with requiring straight people to undress in front of homosexuals or shower with them or sleep next to them.
But I would say that straight people have privacy rights too.
I am not opposed to gays serving in the military. But they need to serve on all gay ships, all gay companies, ect or in other ways that ensure straight people don't have to put up with having to be naked in front of them.
How are females arranged in the US army? Are they separated, too in all-female companies/ ships? Because if they are, I see a bit more sense in this argument.
EDIT: must stop flame-baiting...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2010 01:49 AM |
|
|
Lol the only reason I knew about this is because of Lady Gaga. 
Anyway, good. There was no reason at all to have such a discriminating law.
I think far into the future, like 50% of all populations will be bi- or homosexual as a result of overpopulation and it being more and more accepted in societies. 
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
|
|
