Post Reply
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Article: Repeal of DATD is probably still years away
5 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 2:08PM #11
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,786

Feb 15, 2010 -- 2:00PM, Ken wrote:


Feb 15, 2010 -- 1:20PM, Mlyons619 wrote:


From what I've heard, it's being ignored now, and is applied only to troublemakers who want to rub their sexual orientation in the Army's face, and so force the issue.



Then the best solution is to repeal it. That way there won't be an issue to force.  



I agree with you Ken.


 


And I find it amazing how heterosexuals are allowed to force their sexual orientation in everyones faces, and pretty much no one says anything. I can't turn on the television with out heterosexual, sexual orientation being forced on me.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 2:12PM #12
Mlyons619
Posts: 16,572

That repeal would have to be made by POTUS as a major policy change, and the evidence thusfar is he lacks the testical fortitude to do such a thing...

"No freedom without education"
            --Thomas Jefferson

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition"
            -- Monty Python
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 3:07PM #13
Erey
Posts: 18,940

What I read today is that the military is already taking steps to adapt to a post DADT world.  They seem ready to accept it, more or less. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2010 - 8:35PM #14
costrel
Posts: 6,226

Feb 15, 2010 -- 3:07PM, Erey wrote:


What I read today is that the military is already taking steps to adapt to a post DADT world.  They seem ready to accept it, more or less. 



The military could adapt to a non-segregated military and to women in the military, and it's about time it adapted to homosexuals in the military too -- especially since, I'm quite sure, homosexuals have always been part of the U.S. military.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2010 - 12:04AM #15
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

I agree with the principle that gays should be able to serve openly. And nobody quoted in the article disagees with that.


However, I question how closely some are reading the article. The people quoted as saying it might be best to do it over time -- a period of years, perhaps -- aren't just bozos babbling their personal opinons off the cuff. They are experts who were charged with the task of looking into how feasible the change might be -- and what it would take to impliment it.


Nobody, as of yet, anyway, in this thread seems to be directly addressing the concerns or points they raised.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2010 - 2:35AM #16
hyoka
Posts: 277


From the article ….


“Politically, the timeline puts off congressional debate over lifting the ban until after elections this fall.”



I find it hard to believe that it goes much beyond the politics involved in keeping the issue on the “down low” in order to keep the antigay factions of the Republican party from getting in a dither and flocking to the poles in order to save America from the ‘homos’ .


The other stuff about taking more time so people can get used to gays and to diminish the possibility of violence against gays, strikes me as BS because there are already gays in the military and I suspect there is already violence against gays (or perceived gays) in the military just as there is still violence against gays outside of the military.


As I’ve said before , I come from a long line of civilians so I confess that I don’t know how it is in the military and I’m curious as to what real soldiers think about DADT or if they even think about it at all.


In the mean time, what this whole “internal assessment “ thang looks like to me is a big stall to keep from exciting antigay conservatives until after the elections and that’s probably not a bad idea in the long run.


Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2010 - 10:06AM #17
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

You could be right. It could be all about the politics. It often is.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2010 - 12:36PM #18
Erey
Posts: 18,940

Feb 16, 2010 -- 2:35AM, hyoka wrote:



From the article ….


“Politically, the timeline puts off congressional debate over lifting the ban until after elections this fall.”



I find it hard to believe that it goes much beyond the politics involved in keeping the issue on the “down low” in order to keep the antigay factions of the Republican party from getting in a dither and flocking to the poles in order to save America from the ‘homos’ .


The other stuff about taking more time so people can get used to gays and to diminish the possibility of violence against gays, strikes me as BS because there are already gays in the military and I suspect there is already violence against gays (or perceived gays) in the military just as there is still violence against gays outside of the military.


As I’ve said before , I come from a long line of civilians so I confess that I don’t know how it is in the military and I’m curious as to what real soldiers think about DADT or if they even think about it at all.


In the mean time, what this whole “internal assessment “ thang looks like to me is a big stall to keep from exciting antigay conservatives until after the elections and that’s probably not a bad idea in the long run.





 


excuse me!  YOu are blaming the DADT on republicans when:


1. Republicans never created it


2. and the democrats dont seem to care very much about gay people. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2010 - 2:00PM #19
Stardove
Posts: 15,558

The law passed in 1993 is not what most people believe it is.


WHY THE LAW DID NOT GET A NAME OF ITS OWN  
7/4/2007 3:45:00 PM  

The 1993 statute should be called the “Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993”
 

The law excluding homosexuals from the military frequently is mislabeled with the catch phrase, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  There are four major reasons why this law, which should have been called the “Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993,” was never given a name of its own: 


1.  Inaccurate News Reports


On September 9, 1993, legislation sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), which would have allowed the Clinton Administration to accommodate gays in the military, was defeated 63-33. On September 28 a similar amendment, sponsored by Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) and Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO), was defeated with a second bi-partisan veto-proof vote, 264-169.  The proposal made by President Bill Clinton had gone down in flames, but major newspapers failed to accurately report the story. 


A thorough search of media archives reveals that only two newspapers reported on the defeat of the Meehan/Schroeder amendment.  Neither account quoted Senate-approved statutory language making it clear that “The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.1  Instead, most news reports conveyed the erroneous impression that Congress had passed Clinton’s “compromise,” the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” plan to accommodate discreet homosexuals in the military.


2. No Primary Author or Distinctive Name


Many congressional bills are identified with the names of their primary sponsors, or are given attractive sounding names to build support before and after passage.  In this case, there was no individual author, and no descriptive “short title” for legislation to codify long-standing Defense Department regulations.  “Section 654, Title 10,” also known as “P.L. 103-160,” continues to be misnamed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” 


3.  Political Self-Interest


The newly inaugurated President Clinton was determined to deliver on his campaign promise to repeal the Defense Department’s ban on gays in the military.  Homosexual activists, who were fully engaged in private meetings at the White House and Pentagon, organized a mass rally on the Washington D.C. Mall on April 25, 1993.  A spontaneous force of public opposition, however, made it impossible for Clinton to get his way with legislation.  Clinton still had a political interest in appearing to have accomplished something. 


Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had been a key figure in the decision to reject various versions of the president’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” proposal, and to codify the pre-Clinton Defense Department Directives. Democrats nevertheless provided political cover to President Clinton by not correcting erroneous reports that Congress had approved Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” plan.


4.  Inconsistent Enforcement Regulations


Primary blame for the confusion belongs to Bill Clinton himself.  The determined President tried to mitigate his defeat in Congress by misusing the regulatory process.  Signing the law on November 30, (apparently with his fingers crossed behind his back), Clinton subsequently announced enforcement regulations that implement the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” concept that he had proposed, unsuccessfully, on July 19.  This administrative policy circumvents and undermines the law because it is dramatically different from the statute Congress had passed.2  


The 1993 law requires Defense Department documents and briefings to accurately explain its meaning.  Instead of complying with that mandate, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, Edwin Dorn, issued “guidelines” on how to implement Clinton’s July 19 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” proposal.  The resulting confusion encourages dishonesty and complicates enforcement.


Glaring differences between Clinton’s policy and the law explain why factions on both sides of the issue are critical of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  President Bush should not have retained—and the next president should not continue—“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”



 

Beliefnet Community Wide Moderator ~ Peace Love Stardove
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community

The words I speak and write carry energy and power, so I choose them with care and clear purpose. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2010 - 6:02PM #20
hyoka
Posts: 277

Feb 16, 2010 -- 12:36PM, Erey wrote:


 


 


excuse me!  YOu are blaming the DADT on republicans when:


1. Republicans never created it


2. and the democrats dont seem to care very much about gay people. 




 



EXCUSE  ME !


I’m NOT blaming DADT on Republicans.


Where do I state that DADT is the fault of Republicans ?


Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook