I know it probably doesn’t seem like it, but I really don’t like having to call out Republicans – especially Northern Virginia Republicans – when they’re behaving badly. But I do it, because it’s better for us to police ourselves than it is to let the Democrats mock our policy positions and make us look like we’re out of touch at best. And, honestly, Bob Marshall and I have been on a streak together for the last few months, where I have agreed with him on his stance on the federal health care mandates being unconstitutional, on his opposition to increased convention fees and the desire for a primary to choose our 2012 Senate candidate, and his concern over Speaker Howell’s repeal amendment. I was starting to think I might have misjudged him.
But even Brett Favre’s streak had to come to an end, and I have to disagree with Delegate Marshall on his latest foray into using the Constitution as a weapon against the federal government. Marshall has garnered national attention over his controversial statements that Virginia should use its authority to regulate the Virginia national guard to ban gays serving openly. The statement, coming just days after Congress passed a repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy that was 17 years in the making, has aroused anger across the country. And, ignoring one of the cardinal rules of politics that when you’re in a hole you should stop digging, he’s made statements today arguing that “If I needed a blood transfusion and the guy next to me had committed sodomy 14 times in the last month, I’d be worried,” among other statements.
Stop talking, Bob. Please, just stop talking. You aren’t going to make what you said any better by explaining yourself, especially when your explanation is as ridiculous as your original argument.
As I noted in my post earlier this week, repealing DADT was a popular move, with 77% of Americans agreeing with the move. I won’t comment on whether Marshall’s reading of Article I Section 8 clause 16 is accurate, as I am not familiar with the history and construction of that provision nor how it has been construed by the Courts, but I will say that on first glance, it doesn’t really seem to give Virginia the ability to do what he suggests it does. But, regardless, his opposition to gays serving in the military seems to be based on a poorly reasoned theory that gays are somehow more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases than straight people are. That’s simply not true – some sexual acts are more prone to the transmission of STDs, but those acts can be committed between heterosexuals just as easily and as often as between homosexuals. If the guy in the foxhole next to Bob was “committing sodomy 14 times in the last month” with a female partner, statistics show the soldier should be just as worried about it as if his squadmate was with another man.
There is no reason why we need to keep dragging this fight out. Regardless of whether you are for or against gay marriage, gay rights or however you want to characterize it, there’s no reason to keep trying to bar these folks from serving in uniform. Trying to find cunning ways to circumvent Congress is a waste of energies that could be better spent elsewhere.
Even a majority of Republicans agree that gays shouldn’t be barred from serving. There’s no legitimate military reason to stop them from serving, and in a few more years everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.
And if the fact that allowing gays to serve is the right thing to do isn’t good enough for him, he needs to recognize that damage he’s doing to the GOP brand. Marshall is handing a box of ammunition to his enemies and to the GOP’s critics – and on an issue where he is on the wrong side of both history and public opinion. I understand he’s taking a stand on something he believes in, but he’s wrong. And the louder he is in being wrong, the more damage he’s going to do to the party going into the 2011 elections.
Delegate Marshall is wrong here and would do all of us a great service if he would simply let the issue die.
Republicans pride themselves on being the biggest supporters of the military, right? Now, you believe that cow-towing to the liberal, and quite literally social-engineering, left to be the best course of action, even to disregard 235 years of tradition and reason? From Washington to FDR to Clinton, they all opposed open homosexuals.
Citing a 77% poll of Americans agreement for gays in the military does not compare to the majority, as stated by the Pentagon Working Group, of those in active duty that disagree with repealing the law. So, you’d rather have a liberal majority trying to make a political point, than to listen to our military men and women? Even now, they are talking about removing General Amos for saying the repealing the law make cause problems..
Currently, gays can and do serve in the military, just not openly, for obvious reasons. Marshall’s proposal simply applies DADT to Virginia National Guard, which takes its commands from our Governor, and which was rejected on a straight party line vote. This is nothing new. This is repeating what Bill Clinton proposed. For all your talk about going back to the founders, I suggest you read up on how they treated active gays in the military, as well as the code of conduct that is currently in the military code (regarding sodomy).
Let me ask you can someone be against active homosexuals, (as in, those currently choosing to live that lifestyle as opposed to those who do not who can serve), without being a bigot or hate-monger?
This is a states issue. Notice, this is just the National Guard/Militia.
Brian, you are on target here.
The Constitution says, in pretty simple language, exactly the opposite of what Del. Marshall is claiming here.
Bob Marshall, when he is not discussing any topic touching in any way on any aspect of human sexuality, is a pretty bright guy.
And, I respect that he has a sincere religious belief that homosexuality is wrong. I don’t agree with his belief. I think it puts him on the wrong side of history here, but I don’t think it makes him, as Blue Virginia would have it, “stupid” or latently gay.
But, and the governor has gotten this right, the way democracy works is that when you lose on the issue you bow to the will of the majority and you obey, or endorce if you’re an executive, the law of the land.
Del. Marshall has proposed an ill-conceived plan to try to bring Virginia law into harmony with his religious beliefs in defiance of U.S. law.
He’s wrong. And his explanation was worse, because it did sound bigoted.
Tommy, until we integrated the armed forces in 1948, there were no racially mixed regular forces in the military. And until we integrated women in the 1990s, there were no gender mixed regular forces in the military.
235 years of tradition doesn’t matter when there’s no rational basis for the policy.
That 77% isn’t a “liberal” majority. It includes a majority of Republicans, too. You don’t have to be a liberal to think that the government has no business in anybody’s bedroom and that the existing prohibitions against bad sexual behavior in the military will work just fine regardless of the gender of someone’s sexual partner.
No one should be removed for their opinion that the repeal will cause problems, as long as expressing that opinion wasn’t contrary to his chain of command or somehow out of line.
There’s no reason why anyone should have to lie about who they are or what they do, and that’s what this proposal would force Virginia National Guard troops to do. The Guard is responsible to the governor unless it is called up to duty by the President.
As I noted before, in Washington’s army, you didn’t have black troops serving along white troops, or women serving in authorized combat roles. Blacks served with some of the partisans, and women were often on the battlefield, but they weren’t authorized. Things have changed and we now accept both. There’s nothing wrong with that.
If you dislike homosexuals, that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. One can choose not to associate with them, watch TV shows they’re on, etc. It’s when you go beyond simple disapproval of who they are and begin to actively try to discriminate that you cross the line into bigotry.
Yes, Marshall’s argument only applies to the Virginia National Guard, but you can rest assured that if he is successful, you’ll have another dozen states follow our lead. Is it really a good idea to have state governments trying to override federal military policy?
Well said, Brian, and I agree wholeheartedly. I was going to put something up about this, but cannot state it better. Marshall needs to let this go. This fight is over and done with, and the current position will only stengthen over time. This is a huge loser of a cause long-term.
Brian, this is not a civil rights issue. Blacks had different water fountains, waiting rooms, school buses, etc., and to compare the two does a disservice to the civil rights movement.
Gays do, and always have, served in the military, just not openly. And they will, and should, be able to do so. DADT allowed for this to an even greater ordeal. DADT allowed gays to continue to serve their country, which was what was asked for by the gay-rights movement and what Bill Clinton granted. (I repeat, Bill Clinton)
235 years of tradition certainly hold a lot of weight in and of itself. Also, it is not based on the tradition before it… it’s tradition based on reason and evidence.
Do you see no problem with having gay and straight men in close-quarters, sharing razors, sharing drinks, sleeping in the same room, taking showers, all without having sexual tension getting in the way? Still currently, women are not allowed on the front lines due to the obvious distraction they pose, not because they are any less formidable fighters. So, would you say this is irrational too? Following your line of reasoning, I fail to see why you would have any problem with men and women showering together, or having them on the front lines.
Additionally, everyone on the battlefield is a blood donor. Currently, the FDA disallows any man who has had sex with another man from donating blood. Do you not see a problem maintaing both policies at the same time?
Saying that “gays must lie” is simply a false statement to score talking points which hold no water. No where does it say on the recruitment letters and forms that you must be a straight man or woman. It does, however, say you cannot be a hemophiliac! Would you not fight for the hemophiliac’s “right to serve openly” as well, or must they be forced to “lie”?
Frankly, there is no a problem with keeping the policy. Allowing Virginia to be that one state that upholds the line of reasoning and professionalism of every past president from Washington to Bush II, is commendable. And to have it overturned by an extremely liberal congress, and signed by a commander in chief who has never served and is in the pockets of the social-engineering left, gives credence to the fact this is not a good change in policy.
“If you dislike homosexuals, that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion…It’s when you go beyond simple disapproval of how they are and begin to actively try to discriminate that you cross the line into bigotry.”
So, there is no rational basis to not allow gays in the military. That’s quite an umbrella you have there. According to your very words, every US President from Washington to Bush II is a bigot, along with all of our founding fathers, and I would venture to say a near universal majority of past commanders, including a majority of those who serve now, are bigots. How tolerant of you.
Tommy,
I am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I am a life-long military professional. Believe me, the last thing that the National Guard wants is a separate standard for their personnel from that of the Federal components.
“…those currently choosing to live that lifestyle…”
Are you kidding me? That phrase alone discloses how little you understand the situation. Do you really believe that anyone would consciously choose to be a homosexual? Please tell us that you are not one of those fundamentalists snake-handlers who believes that homosexuality is a life-style choice that can be cured by accepting Jesus Christ into your life.
Oh man, here’s Howie Lind’s take on this, sounding more like a crazy blogger than Frank Wolf’s Congressional District Chairman:
Senators Webb and Warner on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
In this shame-filled lame-duck session, the Democrats in Congress have been
jamming through huge pieces of legislation at break-neck speed before the
“adults” take over in January. These newly elected members from the Nov. 2
“shellacking” (Obama’s word) would not be voting for any of this junk,
including overturning the current – and functioning – law of “Don’t Ask,
Don’t Tell” that restricts gays and lesbians from openly serving in our
armed forces.
Of note is how the two US Senators from Virginia, Jim Webb and Mark Warner,
reacted and voted on this very controversial bill. They are both chickens,
bowing to the left-wing, kook-fringe of the Democrat party who has been
driving this repeal since 1993, rather than supporting the vast numbers of
active duty and reserve military members and veterans who populate the Old
Dominion. Virginia has the one of the highest, if not the highest,
percentage of military and veterans in the country. Did Senators Webb and
Warner both seek to consult their constituents in Virginia and hold
hearings and demand to learn from the military leadership how this big
change would be implemented? Not a chance. They each hid behind the
skirts of Secretary of Defense Gates who “assured them that this could be
done without impacting the combat readiness of the US military.” Baloney.
Why didn’t our former Secretary of the Navy, now Senator Webb, demand to
see for himself how the Navy would implement this policy aboard ship. Why
didn’t he ask the Navy would gays and lesbians live, berth, and shower with
all crewmembers? Or would there be separate berthing areas for gay men,
gay women, straight men, and straight women? That doesn’t make sense. Or
would there be separate staterooms for all crewmembers. That is entirely
cost prohibitive.
No, our former Secretary of the Navy, who was actually fired after 10
months on the job in 1988, did none of that. (See President Reagan’s quote
in his diary when Jim Webb resigned as Secretary of the Navy — “I don’t
think anybody at Navy will miss him,” wrote Ronald Reagan.) And what can
be said for Mark Warner who doesn’t know an M-1 from a B-1? He didn’t do
anything either.
At least they could demand that a fair questionnaire and survey be
conducted. No, they let slide the fact that only 6 percent of the military
filled out and returned the survey which now everyone touts the bogus line
that 70% of the military is in favor of overturning the ban. So, 70% of 6%
equals 4.2%, and this equates to overwhelming support? Why didn’t they
both force Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen (JCS Chairman) to ask the other
95.8 % of the military? What a disgrace. Virginians will be sure to see
that Senators Webb and Warner don’t return to the Senate after the
elections in 2012 and 2014, respectively.
@HisRoc, Of course I am not. I don’t see why someone would want to choose it, and I believe sexual orientation, though can be steered slightly (probably), is probably ultimately “hard coded” in us when we are in the womb. However, I do not think so little of another human person that they are incapable of abstaining from sex, which you seem to imply.
Tommy,
In my tours as a military commanding officer, my biggest headaches with people who were “incapable of abstaining from sex” were by far the heterosexuals. I took disciplinary against countless straight soldiers for sexual harassment, adultery, fraternization, sexual assault, and rape.
Why do you seem to believe that homosexuals should practice abstinence when heterosexuals don’t, because their sexuality is “sinful?”
Tommy, I’m not arguing that this is a civil rights issue. I think it’s simply a question of military policy, and Congress is within it’s rights to set military policy. The UCMJ exists because of Congressional action, and Congress can change whatever military policies it chooses to regardless of the military’s opinion.
Here’s the thing that doesn’t make sense in your argument. On one side, you say there’s nothing wrong with gays serving, as long as they don’t disclose. Then you say “Do you see no problem with having gay and straight men in close-quarters, sharing razors, sharing drinks, sleeping in the same room, taking showers, all without having sexual tension getting in the way?” Which is it? Either having gays is a distraction or it isn’t. Do you honestly think that guys that are thrown into combat situations or squad level relationships don’t get to know their squad mates? There’s no way to keep a secret that big. If there’s no problem with gays serving in general, there should be no problems with them serving openly.
The FDA’s policy is thirty years old and should be revised because it isn’t based on modern science. Like I said, you are just as likely to get an STD from having unprotected anal sex with a woman as you are with a man. It’s the act that’s dangerous, not who is participating.
You think it’s inappropriate for me to equate race with sexual orientation, but it’s okay to equate sexual orientation with having a debilitating disease? Come on.
Regardless of whether there is no problem keeping the old policy, a majority of Americans want it changed, and have expressed their view in that regard through their elected representatives. DADT is no longer the law of the land, and there’s no reason why Virginia should try and fight it. We’ve got a long history of fighting good changes to the law in Virginia, and this is one area where I wish we’d not let our bad past actions repeat themselves.
Most of those presidents never had to deal with the issue, because it was accepted as a matter of course. It wasn’t really until Clinton that the issue became something that was actively talked about. Calling past Presidents bigots because their society is different than that of today is shortsighted and small-minded. I certainly wouldn’t do it, anymore than I would call Abraham Lincoln a racist.
Howie must have missed the multiple Joint Chiefs who have come out saying that there’s no issue with a repeal of DADT.
Besides, when did the military become a democracy? I don’t remember having a say in whether I wanted to get up at 4 AM to PT every other morning whether I wanted to or not.
Brian: That last point is key. The JCC can weigh in with their advice on policy. They’ve been asked to and they have. But when push comes to shove and the law has been changed, their duty is to jump in line and implement the policy. Or resign.
That’s a good rule of thumb in any line of employment. I always want to have my say and defend my position, but when a policy decision is made you either salute, say ‘Yes, sir.” and implement the policy or you find another job.
Brian,
First, thanks for having this discussion. It’s terribly important. Simply put, if you want to serve you should be allowed to serve, regardless. However, the military discriminates all the time. I’m glad it does. I wouldn’t want someone unfit or has poor eyesight to command and pilot a fighter jet, right? Oh, but, they were born with poor eyesight. That’s inherent to their being. That’s discrimination based on something they were born with. Too bad. President Obama is champion of equivocal use of the term “discrimination” and as such is a fallacy.
It’s simple human nature. We respond to incentives, we respond to situations. Yes, we have dicipline and self control. But you try to stack the odds in your favor and simply not place people in awkward social situations.
Let’s say this situation (which can open the pandora’s box) occurs: An active homosexual makes a move on a straight guy (obviously not sure he’s straight or whatever), but the straight guy decks the homosexual because he’s not into that. Next, the homosexual cries foul and as a consequence, the straight guy can get booted from the military because he has to “accept” the homosexual’s behavior, because it’s ok to serve openly. This opens a slew of legal issues. What about military chaplains who, because of their religious conviction, will not perform ceremonies for homosexuals or lesbians because it’s incompatible with the chaplain’s religion? The chaplain gets booted because he doesn’t accept the lesbians and homosexuals behavior. See where I’m going with this? A bunch of unintended consequences will arise. Not tolerant of the gay’s views? You’re out. This is intolerance at its finest.
Look, I have no problem if you want to serve. If you misbehave, heterosexual, homosexual or lesbian (or anything else you want to include), you’re out. The trouble is, they are seeking to rewrite the UCMJ saying that sodomy is not a crime. That in an of itself will bring a host of unintended consequences. The military discriminates on a basis of gender. Isn’t that intolerant of those who want to mix in showers? The military is intolerant of people who don’t have better than 20/20 vision to fly a plane. It’s intolerant of people who can’t meet their physical tests. It’s intolerant of people who will not adhere to behavioral standards. It’s intolerant of people who can’t make the cut, mentally and physically. It’s intolerant of hemophiliacs because they have a situation incompatible with the demands of military life. Jeeze, they are so intolerant. Let’s stop the name calling and have a substantive debate.
Brian,
Forgive me for butting in here and answering Joe.
Joe,
Your arguments are both laughable and ludicrous. First, if someone makes an unwanted sexual advance on another person, the offended person does not have any legal right to “deck him,” any more than you can punch out a rude store clerk or a careless waiter. There is nothing in military law or regulations that requires anyone to “accept” unwanted sexual overtures, gay or straight. There are protections against sexual harassment that preclude violence.
As for chaplains, they are not required to perform any religious rites that their denomination prohibits. For example, a Catholic chaplain cannot be “booted” because he refuses to marry a divorced person or someone who is otherwise not qualified under canon law.
As for your sodomy argument, well that is just priceless. Are you really trying to tell us that no straight military male has ever, ever, gotten a blow job from a female partner. I won’t belabor the point by discussing all the other sexual acts that heterosexuals routinely engage in. Stop it; you’re killing me.
Finally, I would hardly compare homosexuality with poor eyesight. It is impossible to have a “substantive debate” with anyone who is so capricious in their logic.
Really.
HisRoc,
I’d be interested in your take on whether or not they should be in combat situations. (my opinion is no – but not for any stupid reason like worrying about whose ass he’s looking at or fear of blood transfusions).
His Roc,
You miss my point altogether, it brings in a bunch of unintended consequences. Are you telling me that it won’t be easier for homosexuals to cry foul now that their behavior is allowed? If they do change the UCMJ to decriminalize sodomy, the homosexuals have a higher legal ground and can intimidate people because it could theoretically be a hate crime (it is in D.C.).
I did not say anyone has a “right to deck” anybody. I simply said it’s an instinctive response for someone who refuses an advance. That action will have an effect and the advancer can cry foul because his behavior is supposed to be accepted.
I make my point clear, if you misbehave, straight or not, you should be disciplined. It’s what the military is built on. Unfortunately, if you rewrite the UCMJ and decriminalize sodomy, you will get a bunch of unintended consequences.
The practical implications of sharing the same dorms, showers, etc are ludicrous. The difference is now they can act on their sexual orientation with what seems, without repercussion. If you misbehave, straight or not, you should be disciplined according to the UCMJ.
I think this whole thing is a distraction honestly. Plus, they pass this in a small business bill during a lame duck session? Pathetic. Congress has reached new lows.
Joe, the issues you present are not new. They already exist and have existed since women joined the ranks. I don’t see why they would decriminalize sodomy specifically for homosexuals when it is currently banned for everyone – Article 125 of the UCMJ prohibits “unnatural carnal copulation” between persons of the same sex, opposite sex and between humans and animals. I see no reason why it should be adjusted.
The rules are the rules. Repealing DADT doesn’t turn the military into a 24/7 orgy.
Discrimination based on a bona fide occupational qualification is perfectly fine. I just don’t see any scenarios where being gay is a BFOQ.
Cato,
They have always been in combat situations and they are now. They might not have been able to openly discuss their orientation in the past, but everyone knew.
I served with many gay and lesbian officers in my career. Not one had to tell me that they were homosexual; I knew in many cases, but not all. It didn’t matter.
BTW, with today’s asymmetrical warfare, everyone is in a combat situation. The last soldier that I met with a prosthetic leg was a woman Army Transportation Corps First Lieutenant.
Brian,
There’s no inconsistency in my argument. If you do not know someone is gay, how can it be distracting? Active homosexuals that go to gay bars, sleep around, actively living that lifestyle, many times lead to very sad consequences. (No, get off your Bible-thumping horse, I do not mean “sinful”, I mean natural and logistical) When two men have sex, sodomy is necessary; this is not the case for when a man and a woman do, so there is a clear and distinct difference.
Of course they get to know their squad mates. In fact, my family knew members who were gay. No one outed them, and it is rare to do so. It is only when they are caught having gay sex, many times with another soldier, that any action was brought against them at all.
I did not take offense at your comparing equal rights to sexual orientation, but rather blacks serving in the military versus gays serving in the military. This is not the same, and bringing it up is a waste of our time.
The principle you seem to be defending, that discrimination, for just the way someone is, is wrong. My point is that hemophiliacs, through no fault of their own, are born with something different to what some people call “normal”, and what the military tries to weed out. If they want to serve, they must lie to do so. Why are you not protecting their rights as well from serving openly? Your argument is inconsistent. It attempts to defend a position that no military could logically stand on: that is, the ability to discriminate against persons who have a higher propensity to do something that is counter-productive to the military’s goal.
Additionally, I keep hearing gays have a “right to serve openly” in the military. Can you explain why? If the policy is that of no active homosexuals may be in the military, then that’s final, and there is no argument. You can complain and hope it changes, but you do not have a “right to serve” anymore than someone who cannot meet the physical fitness test has. And, as long as you bring up race and culture, enslaving blacks was wrong 200 years ago, and is wrong now. It was never alright. From your prospective, to deny someone their natural right to serve openly and gay, regardless of the social atmosphere, should be wrong. So, why do you defend one and not the other?
What you just clarified with your last statement is: it was alright to be against gays serving openly in the military two days ago, but now it is bigotry. What about the majority of military personnel currently serving, and General Amos? Certainly, the American military cannot condone bigotry in its ranks. Therefor, should all of them be mandated to take sensitivity courses, or at least promise to change their feelings?
“..a majority of Americans want it changed, and have expressed their view in that regard through their elected representatives.” This was a lame duck session, attached to a business and technology bill(!!). Are you telling me this is how Americans want politics to continued to be run, and that this bill would have passed anyways after January? “Come on.”
So, again I ask, can someone be against active homosexuals serving in the military without being a bigot? Simple Yes or No will do just fine.
And lastly, just to correct your error regarding, “[Delegate Marshall's] opposition to gays serving in the military seems to be based on a poorly reasoned theory that gays are somehow more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases than straight people are. That’s simply not true.”
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/112/6/836.abstract In fact, Delegate Marshall is right, as is repeated by the CDC and the FDA. Across the board, gay persons are more likely to have an STD than a heterosexual. And in regards to your comment about how the standards for accepting gay men’s blood to be “looked at,” it was voted down as recently as 2000. Notice how intolerant science can be at times, paying no heed to special interest groups.
Tommy, the inconsistency is patent – there is no way two men are going to live in close quarters for that long without getting to know each other intimately. The other soldier is going to figure out pretty quickly that his squadmate is gay, even if he doesn’t catch him with his shirt off at a gay bar.
I don’t get the desire of some to separate being gay with engaging in gay conduct. Apparently you seem to think that being gay is okay, so long as you don’t engage in gay conduct. But I don’t see the difference, to be honest. Most folks who know gay people aren’t going to see them engaging in gay sex – so why is it a big deal to know if they are or they aren’t?
I’m not exactly sure how being black and serving and being gay and serving is that different. In both situations, you have a characteristic that was discriminated against by the military, and the discrimination was not based on any legitimate, bona fide occupational qualification. There is no job in the military that cannot be done at all or as well by someone who is black. Likewise, there is no job in the military that cannot be done at all or as well by someone who is gay. That’s where your hemophiliac argument breaks down. Someone with that disease can’t do a variety of jobs as well as someone who doesn’t have it. Barring them is not just in the best interests of the military, it’s also in the best interests of the individual. That’s not the case with characteristics like sexual orientation or race.
I’m pretty sure I never said gays have a right to serve openly. You are correct that no one has a right to serve, and the military is free to reject folks who don’t meet their qualifications or fit their needs at the time.
I recognize that cultural mores and societal norms have changed over time and what was okay in the Continental Army doesn’t work in today’s army. If you think that’s wrong, then I guess you’d have no problems if we brought back death by hanging as the punishment for sodomy, or flogging for minor crimes like being late for drill. But I doubt that would be the case, so I don’t get your argument.
The opinions of the military are certainly important, but the military doesn’t set the military’s personnel policy. If they did, I’m willing to bet that E1 salaries would actually be above the poverty line. But that’s not the case. Congress makes those determinations. The military is an inherently conservative institution and there are times when it needs to be goaded into moving beyond old ways. And while General Amos is entitled to his opinion (although he may not be entitled to share it), there are plenty of higher ranking officers who have said the repeal won’t affect discipline.
The language was not “attached” to a technology bill. It replaced the text of the technology bill, through an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Happens all the time when you want to move something quickly and you’ve got something already on the union calendar that is ready for floor action.
Thanks for posting an abstract that is THIRTY YEARS OLD. Do you honestly think no changes in STD transmission or STD rates has occurred in 30 years? Especially given the attention HIV and AIDS has been given in the gay community? Come on.
How exactly is the standard being “voted down” (by whom?) indicative of valid science? If there’s a vote, clearly there’s some kind of political process, whether at the FDA or in Congress.
As for your request that I answer “can someone be against active homosexuals serving in the military without being a bigot?” I answer that question “yes.” But a lot is going to depend on the reason behind the opposition.
I guess Bob better hope he doesn’t get stuck in a foxhole with a straight guy that banged 14 two dollar whores last month. Lulz.
Funny how you guys who are against DADT always seem to focus on the male homosexual aspect and not the lesbian aspect.
pg: There are no guys who are against lesbianism
SV,
As long as their both hot and we can watch.
To Tommy:
I saw that you mentioned hemophiliacs and likened it to homosexuality. Is this your concession that being gay is a genetic trait? It would seem so since that’s the only logical link between the two. It seems that the people who are rabidly anti-gays in the military are also hell bent on creating the perfect Fourteenth Amendment challenge to Marshall’s idiotic law.
So Brian, are you saying the plight of African Americans and Civil Rights is the same for homosexuals, are you saying the rights are the same?
Do you agree that if the repeal of DADT cost lives in the field that it is the thing to do because a majority of Americans, as you claim, agree with it? Is that how we determine military policy in America, in the middle of a war?
Steve Vaughan,
You can’t be against homosexuality for men but for it for women. The argument hold no water.
Steve Waters:
Check your pockets for your sense of humor. You may have dropped it.
Probably so with this issue. I’ll check again and Merry Christmas!
We met two Air Force Officers at the Republican Advance this year who had taken the survey the Obama Admin had the service men and women fill out. First of all only 28% of the Armed Forces even filled out the survey, there are concerns over how they were delivered and to where, secondly, the survey was fixed for an apparent outcome according to the two Officers we spoke with at the Advance. I”m sure we will hear more of that in time.
Steve, I was making an analogy. They are similar enough to compare, but they are not the same, clearly.
The chances that this will cost anyone their lives is so remote it really isn’t worthy of mentioning.
This isn’t a military combat policy. This is a personnel policy. There’s a major difference.
Steve Waters,
Have you ever taken a Statistics course? Do you have any idea how large a sample of the population is at 28%?
Sure, I’m not surprised that a couple of Air Force officers attending a Republican political event would cast doubt on the survey; would your really expect them to applaud the results?
But as to your assertion that this repeal could get people killed in combat, that speculation is too specious to deserve rebuttal. Anyone who has spent any time in the military can tell you that there are so many variables that can lead to friendly loses that this issue quickly gets lost in the background noise, from inadequate intelligence to poor leader performance.
That dog just won’t hunt.
Do a search: The First Scandal Adam and Eve.
I just got a B+ in Stats, 28% is huge….
Yep. We give absolute credibility every day to polls with a far smaller sample size than 28%.
Samples are great, how about the surveys and large samples that say how many troops will not re-enlist if this policy goes through. That’s really good for our volunteer military.
Let me give you another sample, if the republican party takes a back seat on this and other moves to chip away at defining marriage between a man and a woman, you can forget our party ever having relevance ever.
At the core of this debate is to chip away at defining marriage in this Country, read Obama’s statement to CBS this weekend. DOMA is next.
http://m.cbsnews.com/blogsfullstory.rbml?catid=20026456&feed_id=0&videofeed=36
When it comes to right vs. wrong, principle wins over sample and yes I took statistics in college.
Wait, you think demagoguery on bigoted- and discrimination-based policies is the way for the Republican Party to *gain* relevancy?
This move has nothing to do with gay marriage. Come on.
Steve Waters,
Given the divorce rate in this country, is it possible for gays to do any more damage to the institution of marriage than we heterosexuals already have? We have established that marriage is a matter of casual convenience with certain legal entanglements. Why can’t homosexuals participate in this mockery?
I find it interesting that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the few major religions that proscribes both homosexuality and divorce. But, then again, there is that gay pedophile priest problem…
HR: I think gay couples should certainly have Civil Unions.
They should have the same opportunity to be miserable and go bankrupt that the rest of us enjoy.
Did anyone else catch that one of the reasons Marshall says we can’t allow gays to serve openly is because it may “inflame” Muslim opinion?
Really, he said that. Unbelievable.
Excellent discussion, folks. Thanks for the post, Brian. HisRoc brings some real common sense based on first-hand command experience to the table. Makes me wish every blog thread could be this substantive.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, everyone.
“Gays do, and always have, served in the military, just not openly. And they will, and should, be able to do so. DADT allowed for this to an even greater ordeal. DADT allowed gays to continue to serve their country, which was what was asked for by the gay-rights movement and what Bill Clinton granted. (I repeat, Bill Clinton)”
I’m right there! The DADT policy has served as a “guardrail” –if you will…to keep the consequences for not adhering to the better path of “hitting on” a fellow soldier, in play. You do it, and you’re court-martialed.
Without DADT, any number of Joe’s scenarios will come to fruition. All in the larger notion of moving gays forward to a position that gives themn more rights than us….despite the fact that they number as 5% of us—we have to accomodate them…
For the record….I support DADT at the Federal level, but I’m not so sure that Marshall’s constitutional argument on this is sound at all.
The repeal of DADT is a strategic maneuver on the part of the “gay rights” community and yes this is a measure on their part for equality and gay marriage. I’m sorry but that is the reality! Obama is already talking of going after DOMA since his victory with the repeal of DADT.
And if you think that going soft on this issue on behalf of republicans is good for the party think again, in the end it will cost republicans votes in future elections. If you don’t believe it to be the case just wait and see.
I can tell you across Virginia, evangelicals and social conservative will be very disenchanted with the party if we concede this issue, even in NOVA. The issue is just as big as abortion with conservatives in VA and throughout all 50 states.
Steve, honestly, I don’t care whether this will upset evangelicals and social conservatives. It’s the right thing to do.
When you get to the bottom of it, the reason Bob Marshall and his motley supporters on this board want to retain DADT on the commonwealth level and reimpose it on the federal level is that they really want to impede any progress for gay rights. Why? Because Leviticus and St. Paul say they must. Cut through all the sophistry and you have it. It is Faith versus Reason. I’d rather not live in a world where the Taliban or Bob Marshall rule, but it looks like the darkness will be with us for a long time yet.
Why do you say that, Centipede? DADT just got repealed. Marshall’s plan is DOA. Things are moving forward. Slowly, but they’re moving.
And don’t lump all of us Christians in with Marshall and those guys.
Nothing that I wrote is untrue. DADT has been repealed; Marshall wants it reinstated. Marshall’s plan is (hopefully) DOA; he wants it to not be so. I sincerely believe that you misread what I wrote. Since I consider myself a Christian ALSO, it doesn’t make sense that I’d be lumping you in with Bob Marshall (and those guys), especially since I know your views (I laud them on this issue) are contrary to his.
I do sense that you come from a different denomination of Christianity than I do. I also sense that you come from a different denomination of the GOP than do I. We are BOTH Christians and both Republicans. In my GOP Bob Marshall is not welcome, but you are since you value thought, reason and justice.