The American Spectator : The Wrong Gay Line

Text Size

The Wrong Gay Line

Adm. Michael Mullen has weakened the U.S. military.

(Page 2 of 2)

You don’t have to be anti-gay to not want to be involved in intimate functions with members of your own sex who might consider you a sex object. This policy would hurt recruitment at a time when America is involved in two wars and the military is having a difficult enough time keeping the ranks filled. People who serve in the military know this, even high-ranking officers (and when they’re off the record they’ll say it). So does Mullen when he’s not concentrating on how to cater to his civilian political bosses. Or has he been away from service on warships and in the Pentagon so long he’s forgotten?

This issue may instruct us on whether the Republican Party has learned anything about standing for something rather than falling for anything. To the usual suspects on the cultural left the military is just a huge, expensive ball of clay to be molded to their liking. They’ll push for a gay-friendly military using the tired and irrelevant charges of discrimination and homophobia. This nonsense should be resisted, even though the left, with full support from the left-stream media, will go full-goose hysterical and call anyone who opposes this lark a hater.

A strong military is good for America. A militarily strong America is good for the world. We can maintain that strength better without having to sort out and deal with all the various tensions, resentments, and counter-resentments that would be the inevitable result of gays in the barracks. Americans would be thankful if our leadership, civilian and military, would redirect the energy they’re now wasting trying to get gays into the military toward keeping Muslim jihadists out of it.

Page: < 12

topics:
Gays in the Military, Adm. Michael Mullen

About the Author

Larry Thornberry is a writer in Tampa.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (189) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Richard Baker| 2.8.10 @ 6:58AM

Mullen is a fool. This guy is so PC-ridden that he doesn't think as if he were the JCS Chairman but as some junior Officer on the make. Admiral, you can't get any more stars. Bull Halsey weeps.

RJ| 2.8.10 @ 11:10AM

What happens when the pool from which one draws his "employees" becomes not as grand as once was? Change the rules for entry to allow more to join.

democratsarefascists| 2.8.10 @ 2:20PM

Dream on. The end result of this will be the end of enlistment. No male soldier wants to be ogled and fondled in the shower, or to have to watch it happen to someone else. So when your military is made up entirely of Democrat homosexuals who won't fight, don't bother to look me up. I'll be too busy fighting to take this country back.

Alan Brooks| 2.8.10 @ 8:08PM

Toddard will be happy when the US military declines.
And Daphne Kenward will dance a jig.

Tim| 2.8.10 @ 7:01AM

What a scared, small-minded bigot.

Gays are already in those showers. Mr Thornberry says his small mind can cope if he doesn't know they are gay, but if he has an inkling, then his small mind is just going to be under so much duress he just couldn't stand it.

Kathy| 2.8.10 @ 12:09PM

So, once again, rather than take the issue at hand and address the problem, you resort to attacks on the individual making the statement.

So typical, and so tiring.

He's correct, by the way. Open homosexuality in the military will be disastrous, on several fronts.

Tim| 2.8.10 @ 1:04PM

There's more than one Tim, just so you know. There are many serious and professional gay people out there who deserve to be left alone. Can we accomodate them without opening the door to the ridiculous and flambouyant aspects of the "gay lifestyle"?

democratsarefascists| 2.8.10 @ 2:24PM

Re: "What a scared, small-minded bigot. "

Spoken like the weak, useless Democrat you are. You're all for it because you'd never have to live with it. Just like you're all for taxes, because you don't PAY THEM.

HYPOCRITE.

Ara| 2.8.10 @ 4:29PM

I must be one of those rare "weak, useless Democrats" who do pay their taxes--and lots of them, unless some of the rich, useless Republicans who exploit all the loopholes (such as no capital gain taxes). So...

Gays and lesbians are already in the military. In most cases, their bunkmates and company comrades already know. The top military officer in the country says it is a good thing. Other countries have gays serving in their militaries and it is not big deal. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE????

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 4:48PM

I guess we have to explain it to you. When you join the military, you are no longer a free citizen. You are compelled to do as ordered, including sharing sanitary facilities. I can not tell when a squadron mate is a homosexual or not without the squadron mate making it known. Why should my squadron mate's sexual preferences be of any interest to me? I would interact with that squadrom mate as I would with any other. When DADT is revoked, that squadron mate may declare that he is a homosexual. Now I don't want to take a shower with this person because I consider him sick minded and I cannot be sure he is not waiting for the oppotunity to make some undesired advance. But I have no choice now, because I am not free to seek isoplation from him. Do you get it now? And what about any differences in the way this person is now treated? do you think he is safer from getting his butt kicked on a regular basis now that he's out of the closet? You idiots that have never been in the military, and think it's a laboratory for social experiments are in for a dose of reality when recruitment and retention numbers decline to the point where re-instituting the draft becomes necessary. Then you'll whine and complain about that when it's your ideology's fault that the all volunteer military became unsustainable. Liberals are such idiots!

Christopher Holland| 2.8.10 @ 8:29PM

Talking of being a bigot - what happens when the gays and the muslims mingle? You think christians are bigoted then you need to take another look at your khoran - you ain't seen nuthin yet. The chief of the army staff wants muslims in the military, even if they go postal and shoot people - its good for diversity, he says. Good luck with working out the solution to that one - gays in one corner, jihadists in the other. And good luck telling the jihadists they are bigots, see how far you travel with that one.

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 4:34PM

Maybe, but the difference right now is that they're not supposed to broadcast his sexual preferences. If one does overtly demonstrate homosexual behavior, it is unceremoniously removed from the rest. Maybe Tim doesn't mind bending over to pick up the soap whilst showering with a homosexual, heck, he might even invite some kind of overture, but I would be willing to bet Tim is either a homosexual himself, or has never served his country in uniform. Either way, Tim has nothing intelligent to say on the matter, so he ought to just shut up.

Tom Henning| 2.8.10 @ 7:14AM

Mr Thornberry can't seem to decide if there are gays already in the military, or if the proposed policy change will let them in for the first time. He can't have it both ways and hope to be persuasive. In one paragraph he concedes that they are already in the military, and serving silently and without incident, and in the next he's speaking as if letting them in will be an enormous change.

The demise of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy will simply awaken self-deceiving heterosexual soldiers, as the author clearly was at one point, that gays are, and always have been, among them with no effect. Mr. Thornberry was never groped or raped (he surely would have mentioned that!) despite having served with likely dozens of gay men during his service.

Another terrible weakness of his essay is his convenient choice of Canada as a straw man argument. He's going to need to explain how both Britain and Israel both have eliminated their gay exclusion policies with no effect. Those militaries equal or exceed (at a personnel level) the level of training and combat readiness that American soldiers have, and they do just fine with gay and lesbian soldiers among them.

Moe| 2.8.10 @ 9:44AM

While Mr. Henning is repaeating typical canards supporting homosexuals in the military, as one who has spent long year in military service the authors observations on the discord and impact are spot one. What Mr. Henning and those like him are asking is that the US military reject its warrior and sacrificial ethos for an ethic of identity politics and self-indulgence and gratification based on sexual appetites. The assumption that the British allow homosexuals in is besides the point. Englands moral climate has been impaled on the spike of political correctness and puerile ideologies that have weakened it in all facets of life, including the military which cannot keep pace with the US. As to Israel, I can imagine that it allows homosexuals in only because they have a mandatory service requirement, EVERYONE serves, and the reason, their survival as a nation amidst all the hostile Arab and Muslim surrounding them. If they had the comfort of stability and security, minus the Sword of Damocles over them continuously, I imagine that they would have a different perspective. Lastly, look at JD Unwin's work on the sexual behaviors of civilizations. In it he surveyed 6-8 major civilizations, and around 80 minor ones. The link in all this is that the civilization collapsed and died when sexual mores were loosened to allow for homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, polyamory and other assaults on individuals and marriage. I think Mr. Henning and his type are asking us to see this evidence, reject it, smile and commit civilizational suicide. Thanks, but no thanks.

Bill| 2.8.10 @ 12:43PM

Blah, blah, snore.

Moe sounds like a 'mo.

Moe| 2.8.10 @ 5:26PM

Hey Mr. Bill,
How about you do a little maturing in order to respond to legitimate concerns about opening the military profession to a high risk sexual behavior that jeopardizes more than just hurt feelings?

Adam| 2.20.10 @ 9:14PM

Obviously most of you have never served in the military so have zero concept outside of Hollywood and publications like these. High risk sexual behavior? Gee, check out the Marines of-base in Japan sometime. Heterosexuals are just as risky.

Gays have served quietly for generations in the military. Anyone who has served as long as I have (20+ years) knows this and knows folks they've worked alongside with. Most are quiet, professional, and hard working. You need to drop the ideology and realize that any change will not be an issue to the rank and file. We will salute smartly and carry on. For the small minority that can't deal with it...well its a volunteer force.

Turkey Roostering| 2.8.10 @ 4:24PM

Tom, a small correction here:
A close friend, who was relatively high in the military intelligence apparatus in Israel (so much so that he underwent a mandatory name change not to endanger his family), told me that Israel's official line on gays in Tzahal is somewhat disingenuous.
Everyone, including gays, must enlist in the Army, or their ability to ever be employed in Israel plummets.
However, needing every single capable soldier, Israel did very careful studies of gays in stressful situations, combat situations, etc., to see if there were any differences. They found there were clear differences in personal courage, tenacity and "killer instinct", Richard Hatch notwithstanding.
Consequently, if there is no clear non-combat skill the homosexual recruit has that enhances the Army, they quietly slip him out, no pun intended, the back door. He gets an honorable discharge for unrelated reasons, so he's able to find employment.
A bit different than the official line...

Tony| 2.17.10 @ 4:15PM

As an active duty member of the armed forces whose son and wife both serve, I take issue with your thoughts on how the armed forces of Britain and Isreal are on equal footing with the U.S. Armed Forces. Having trained with both, and served along side of the Brits, I can tell you they are not in the same "grid square" as us when it comes to combat readiness. The do not do nearly 95% of the missions and deployments we undertake on a DAILY basis. Isreal faces total destrution at the hands of its Arab neighbors and Iran. So full conscription, to include gays, is a matter of national survival. Last time I checked, Canada and Mexico have never threatened to wipe us "from the map" as Iran's president has. And the Brits, well they had to eat the sandwich of open homosexaulity in their ranks because of a spineless government could no longer take the strain the GLTG community and politician were putting on them. Another issue is when gay rights activists talk about how many gay Arab Linguist and pilots have been discharged from our ranks. One would think that every pilot and Arab Linguist in the armed forces is gay. They are not our equal in any arena. If DADT is repelled you will see an exodus of mass porpotion from career professionals such as myself. The draft will be needed to fill the ranks.

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 7:49AM

"Even our Secretary of Defense has chosen politics over security." This is a given in today's military.
We can thank Bill Clinton for that turning the military into one giant social re-engineering
scheme. And Adm. Mullen is a product of that.
Unfortunately for many in the military and the Navy Seals that are being court martialed for giving a terrorist a boo boo is all the answer that we need to know that the senior leadership in the military and especially with Clinton appointees are more politicians that warriors.
Adm. Mullen and Gates are joined at the hip and playing party politic and Mullen is looking forward to having a very nice plum mob within the government after he retires.
It used to be retired generals and admirals used to go to work for defense contractors upon retirement but be a government bureaucrat is more attractive these days.
"What a scared, small-minded bigot." Isn't it all odd that only heterosexuals can be small-minded bigots and homosexuals are somehow immune of this malady. Why?
According to science homosexuals have a gene that makes them gay, so do homosexuals also have the anti-bigot gene that makes it physically impossible for them to be bigoted as well?
I guess what gets my military issued boxers in a bind is that American homosexuals are so in-your-face with their activism and if a heterosexual speaks up in their defense, they are branded as bigots, hate mongers, and purveyors of hate speech.
Seems a bit a one-sided argument doesn't it not.

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 12:41PM

Actually, there is no "Gay gene." It was never found. You can look that up. And the only reason homosexuality was removed from the Psychiatry books was because a few gay shrinks decided to remove it as a mental illness.

Bill| 2.8.10 @ 12:44PM

Thank GOD Margie has solved it!!!

You saved the day!!!!

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 1:12PM

Actually, little man, no. The science proved that there was NO gay gene. Which once again, agrees with the Bible, and what God says. He says He will throw you into Hell if you practice the homo lifestyle. I just happen to agree with Him, and once again true science agrees with God. As I said, you can look it up if you're interested in the truth.

Bart Simpson| 2.8.10 @ 4:41PM

Right again, Mom!
Of course there's no "gay gene" - there seem to be genes that make people more likely, when coupled with certain sociological and psychological factors, to make that particular choice. Any study (like the 1993 study of 40 pairs of homosexual twins) finding a gay gene has - surprise! - not been able to be duplicated.
As to your statement at the end, a prominent psychologist told me exactly that: Homosexuality was considered a mental illness until 4 out of 7 board members of a prominent psychological association - who just happened to be functionally homosexual - voted to change that. The psychologist added, to my shock: "But in our private practices, we psychologists continue to consider it a form of mental illness."
(Another very capable, though less prominent, psychologist told me that he had cured 3 out of 3 homosexuals to a point where they were functionally heterosexual, and had very few vestigial homosexual ideations.)

Margie| 2.9.10 @ 10:35AM

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted with evil and He Himself tempts no one; each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren." Jas. 1:13-16.

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 4:57PM

Melvin, the human genome has been mapped. No "gay" gene has ever been discovered. Homosexuals are sexual deviants, no different from pedophiles or zoophiles. I do applaude your question regarding bigotry as exclusive to heterosexuals. You are on the right track with that thesis.

JP| 2.8.10 @ 7:59AM

I think everyone misses on how this game is played. Once gays are allowed in, the litigation begins. Do not think for a moment that by openly allowing gays into the military that the issue will just go away. For President Obama's plan to work, Congress will have to re-write large portions of the law in order to make the allowances legal. Once that is done serving in the military becomes no different than serving in the Post Office or Transportation Departmen. The difference being of course is that the military involves an entire structure of life.

Don't think for a moment that gay will not flood the courts with requests for drag queen parades, promotion quotas, life style accomodations. Gays will be openly recruited, standards will be lowered (both personal and professional), and morale will sink. Servicemen will rush to the exit doors at a time when our military is already stretched to the limit.

The President, of course is throwing a bone to his base. In private I am sure he is counting on the Congress to check him on this. But like with so much else in the Beltway, things like this take on a life of thier own. If this initiative gains momentuem, it will surely hurt the President and his party (esp with defense moderates).

For almost 20 years a small minority of gay servicemen have served with distinction. They've been able to sublimate thier life style only because they had to. What Admrial Mullens and the President are attempting is a wholesale assault on the last federal institution that continues to work with some efficiency (it is also an instiution dominated with conservatives). This move is truely a dangerous one

Copyleft| 2.8.10 @ 3:07PM

"Servicemen will rush to the exit doors at a time when our military is already stretched to the limit. "

Interesting that no one seems to question WHY we need such a huge military in the first place....

Worried about federal spending? Cut the frackin' defense budget already! We've given military contractors enough trillions, don't you think?

Flee| 2.8.10 @ 3:53PM

Defense is one of the only items the Fed govt should spend to support. No more arts, education, energy, insurance ad infinitum. That would cut a whole helluva lot more spending than cutting defense. Let the states do as they should and keep the Feds limited as designed.

Christopher Holland| 2.8.10 @ 8:39PM

Great idea - who needs an army when a white flag and a limp wrist will do the same job at a fraction of the price? That worked fine in 1776, 1812, 1860, 1917, 1941, Korea. Even ended the cold war when Ronald Reagan bankrupted the Russians by turning out more surrender monkeys than they could. Peace through weakness and stupidity - we know it works.

Copyleft| 2.9.10 @ 12:16PM

"Defense" from what? No other nation on earth is in a position to seriously threaten us, let alone invade or conquer us.

As for terrorism... well, what does that have to do with the defense budget? As we've seen, jets and missiles are useless in fighting terrorists. So why do we keep buying and building them?

ErictheRed| 2.9.10 @ 1:35PM

Hello!!?!?
Have you missed the last 10 years where China has spent 10% of their increasing GDP on defense? To whom do you think they are competing against? They have the stated goal of taking back Taiwan, either through the ballot or by force. China also holds most of this nation’s debt, and we can't pay it. One of their options is to send in their troops to take it. Get over yourself.
As for your straw man concerning terrorists, look back at your history, not one single inch of land has ever been captured by sea or air forces. The Marines are an exception in that they are a dept of the Navy. It takes boots on the ground to take land, but missiles and planes make it much easier to take that ground when those same items blow the snot out of the opposing force. Ever hear of Puff the magic Dragon, a C-130 gunship that killed EVERYTHING in a football field sized swath. So planes and missiles are a good thing. Know what your are talking about before showing everyone that you don't.

Copyleft| 2.9.10 @ 3:16PM

I agree, you can't take somebody's land without boots on the ground, and missiles, and jets.

So... whose land are we trying to take? I thought we weren't in the empire business.

Missy| 2.13.10 @ 2:56AM

Turn out the lights--it's over when a liberal homosexual decides our national security needs.

We're dead, folks.

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 5:03PM

OK, genius! Who is going to protect the US from the growing threats of the newly reconstituted Russian military, the growing Chinese military, and every other beligerant tyrannical enemy of freedom in the world? Canada? France? The reason we have to have a strong military, is because the rest of the free world depends on us to keep it free. If we let down our defences, do you think these enemies of freedom will just cease their provocations and join hands with the obamanation to sing kumbaya? You really are naive!

Copyleft| 2.10.10 @ 9:15AM

Interesting angle, Dan... you suggest that WE pay for EVERYONE's defense, everywhere in the world?

There's a new article today on that very topic, which you might want to check out. Being the World's Policeman makes Americans the world's biggest suckers. We need to worry about our own defense, and lot other nations handle theirs.

Missy| 2.13.10 @ 2:57AM

We ARE worrying about our own defense, numbnuts! Why do you think we don't want liberals screwing it up?

Not real bright, are you?

Tony| 2.17.10 @ 4:20PM

Copyleft, If you do not like they way we spend on defense, then "pick up a rifle and stand on the wall".

michigander_sandusky| 2.8.10 @ 8:28AM

JP...thank you!

hmd2010| 2.8.10 @ 8:40AM

Gays are already serving in the military. Don't be so close-minded and let them serve without having to lie about who they are. They will be better soldiers if they do not have to worry about hiding their sexuality day and night. Just imagine if you had to serve but had to hide that you were attracted to women because it was viewed with disdain. Why all this obsession with the sexual preference of a soldier? It's ridiculous and sophomoric.

Kathy| 2.8.10 @ 12:13PM

"They will be better soldiers if they do not have to worry about hiding their sexuality day and night." What about being openly homosexual will make them better soldiers?

Sophomoric? Really. What's sophomoric about the idea that the military is committed, by law (e.g., UCMJ) to moral behavior. Soldiers are held to a higher standard of behavior, for reasons that have served us well for a couple of hundred years (and beyond, if you account for the British military).

Tony| 2.17.10 @ 4:22PM

When people realize it is not a right to serve in the armed forces, they will get over the gay descrimination crap. We do not let fat people serve, so what's next, we are going to stop discharging those guys and gals too. We are in big trouble!

justme| 2.8.10 @ 12:40PM

So your point is that they should be able to openly express their affections to their shipmate/bunkmates, etc. How is this better? Soldiers need to focus on their duties without the distractions of romantic involvement in close quarters. This is the point - get it? The military should not be concerned with sexual relationships at all. Nobody is asking gays to lie - we just don't need to know who or what everybody likes to have sex with. It's private! Males and females are segregated for this reason. Now how would you propose we accommodate all the varieties of gay, straight, transgendered, and bisexual proclivities? Simpler to just say, "Let's all keep our sexual appetites to ourselves, shall we? That way we only need to build separate facilities for the obvious physical gender distinctions."

Bible Thumper| 2.8.10 @ 4:50PM

Lying about "who they are" or "what they do"?
They are no more homosexuals than I am a bed-wetter. Despite my natural proclivity to pee on urge, I control myself for societal reasons.
This is what happened for thousands of years among those with primarily same-sex ideations, and this is still what happens among those who prioritize G-d's Word over their personal sexual proclivities.

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 5:11PM

On what do you base their improvement as soldiers by allowing them to declare they are homosexuals? What area of official military duty do you think homosexuals will improve in thier performance once out of the closet? On the other hand, what do you think will happen to recruitment and retention once DADT is revoked? Are you willing to substitute the world's best all volunteer military for a mandatory draft simply to feel better and morally superior on the issue of homosexuality in the military? Try thinking it through, ... oh, but as a liberal, that's not possible, ... you don't think, you emote.

Adheeb| 2.8.10 @ 8:42AM

The leaders of this American republic have lost their moral moorings.

Pete2| 2.8.10 @ 8:57AM

Having served in the military, aboard ship, and being at sea for some time, the author speaks volumes of truth. The ones on here who are kowtowing to the gay acceptance Bs haven't a clue what they're taling about. Yeah, the military has gays in the closet. They're there because to opennly practice their lifestyle is one of the most derogatory things they can do in a military /combat situation. It's bad enough with females aboard ships and in the foxholes ( the biggest reason for female discharge is pregnancy). What a bunch of fools we have in this nation calling themselves leaders. Our enemies love these people.

Adam| 2.20.10 @ 9:26PM

As someone who's also served you know that there are a lot of nooks and crannies on ships...as well as on-shore installations. There has always been--and always will be--both hetro and homo relations going on there. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that our first and second term enlisted are somehow pure and protected flowers. They know the score, know who they serve with, and have no issues.
Seems the only folks who freak out are those who never served or are from older generations colored by religion or ideology.

Tenn Slim| 2.8.10 @ 9:02AM

Opine
bt
Adm M presentation at the House Hearings was sad, he was so uncomfortable even talking about the subject. DOD Secry Gates wished fervently that he was elsewhere.
bt
They have set up a delaying action, that will take years to implement. Regardless of the Right or Wrong of the subject, DOD will outwait the OBNA on this one.
end

Aslanson| 2.8.10 @ 9:18AM

The root evil here is that that behavior is a sin.
Our Lord said, "Go and sin no more." We are sure that he did not say, "go and make a lifestyle out of your sin."
Our military and political leaders do not know the difference. They need to be overthrown.

g| 2.8.10 @ 10:32AM

your a bigot deep down. your going to sit there and quote bible scriptures. but what you really need to do is look at the 10 Commandments. Where are you quotes "DIRECTLY FROM GOD" now. Huh There aren't any, because my God, unlike your God, doesn't preach hate. And, Jesus to the best of my knowledge always preached love and acceptance. Obviously you aren't one of those crowds. You probably hate soldiers to who in the line of duty would have to possibly kill someone. Well I'll tell you something else Bigot, I'm in the military, been in for over 10 years, and I'm gay and married. So continue to hate me I don't care. I'll still go to a foreign soil and fight for your right to hate me.

justme| 2.8.10 @ 1:22PM

"Jesus... always preached love and acceptance."

Matthew 7:6 - "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine..." These words don't strike me as loving and accepting. Rejection is the word that comes to mind.

Matthew 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Not a lot of love and acceptance there for the eternal punishment crowd.

By the way, there's also not much love and acceptance in your assignation of "bigot" to Aslanson just because you disagree with his understanding of what constitutes a sin. It seems to me he's just trying to be true to God's Word, regardless of the conflict that arises from taking such a position.

Rather than pitting "your god" against "his god," why don't you get to know the real God - the one that actually exists, who created you and loves you. Read the whole Bible, not just the parts you like. And I think this would be a good article for you to read: http://www.str.org/site/News2?.....mp;id=5691

And thank you for defending our freedom.

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 5:16PM

Oh! A swtich hitter? We don't hate you, we feel sorry for you! We'd like to help, maybe recommend a little therapy? You sound confused. Maybe you ought to get out of the military and "find yourself", so someone less disturbed can do a better job keeping the country safe!

Robert Ellestad| 2.8.10 @ 9:21AM

When you are in the military, your buddys soon see you are gay. They see you are not dating or keep your social life or family secret. If you are suspected of being gay, a few make your life hard.
I was in a unit that was protective of ALL its service people. Sadly my unit went away with the downsizing, while I was deployed in the Middle East (3rd time).
Came back to a new unit. In the Change of command the outgoing commander put a heartfelt "coming out letter" on the over head of the incoming commander AS A JOKE.
I went in a new unit i was suspected of being gay, my talents were not used. I was a Master Sgt doing dishes. Tired of wasting my time, I got out at 15 years.

Louis Jenkins| 2.8.10 @ 9:23AM

A futher perspective? Last weeks article on "Fighting Sodmites" (Death from Behind) brought on plenty of perspectives. In fact, it couldn't have been more perspectivized. Hang on to your hats!! Here we go again.

jean| 2.8.10 @ 9:41AM

MARRIAGE, HOMOSEXUALS, AND SOCIETY:
Re: marriage/ got this on the internet, are you interested in this argument?

By Dr. T. E. Rutstein (No copyright claimed. For free distribution to all media.)

Marriage is not for the married couple. It is for the survival of society. We don’t even care if the couple likes each other. All we ask is that they promise to create a rather permanent bond. This assures the production of offspring that will not have to be fed by other members of the community, and who will not prey upon society (see e.g. the crime increase created by the disintegration of the black family). But in America we think that the individual is supreme, and so we think marriage is primarily for Jason and Jennifer. It’s not.

It’s not easy to get married and raise decent children. It‘s easier to be single and promiscuous. But promiscuity was the death knell of primitive societies, and they knew it. With modern times, we forget why these institutions evolved and we ignorantly lay our axes to the roots of stable society. It’s only when you pay higher taxes for social welfare programsto support the crippled products of promiscuity and when you fear to walk the streets at night that you might realize that society is crumbling. But then it is too late.

Marriage is not based on religion; marriage is based on social survival. But all religions support social survival. Marriage precedes religion and is, in a way, secular, just as criminal law is secular, though we have the Ten Commandments too, for example. But religion is not the basis for the social evolution of marriage. Socially controlled procreation is the major purpose of marriage, though not the only purpose. Another purpose, for example, is to prevent men from warring with one another over women. Another purpose is the protection of women from male violence. Still another is to assure that every young man gets one woman, and is not left alone, angry and uncivilized.

Marriage is found everywhere, and everywhere it is between man and woman. That is a situation dictated by every society, not by judges. The institution is as old as civilization, and always between one man and one woman. Societies who did not follow this rule are now extinct. And societies who downplay marriage, or corrupt the basic concept of marriage, fall into turmoil of one form or another.

By the same token, homosexuality has always been considered anti-social and anti-natural by virtually all societies. This is because of course even primitive societies were concerned about preventing crime, social disorder, dependent mothers and children. But, above all, primitive societies needed soldiers, young men properly raised by their parents to support causes larger than mere individual wants. Enemy tribes would easily conquer societies riven by confusion of offspring and social chaos.
Homosexuality discourages procreative sexual relations, and historically all societies will not stand for that. Indeed, they could not stand for that and still hope to survive.

Modern societies can fudge the rule against homosexuality. We are rich enough, and the results of doing so are, though devastating, slow and subtle. Already we see marriage in eclipse, skyrocketing numbers of babies and dependent mothers, gangs of restless young criminals without fathers or real family. How long can this last? Shall we just wait and see?

As for the legalities of “marriage,” let’s get serious. You can wear your shoes on your hands, but that does not make them gloves. Applying “marriage” to couplings of same sex people warps the whole legal concept of marriage, developed over thousands of years of human history. What does “divorce” of a homosexual or same sex couple mean? Who cares, except maybe the couple--or, if they have adopted children, the unfortunate children?

In same-sex or homosexual “marriage”, who is the “dependent” spouse, in the same sense as a pregnant woman would be dependent? Who needs alimony? Who should have rights not to testify against the other in court? You can think of other anomalies and injustices that arise when you apply the rules surrounding marriage to situations where they simply have no history and make no sense. And where’s the fairness in giving special rights to same sex people or homosexuals who “marry” as opposed to a single person? Just go in front of a justice of the peace and you get giant breaks? Is that fair? What if the two “married” people are not always homosexuals? Can they still get “married”? Can two homosexual brothers get “married” to each other? Will it be bigamy for a “married” homosexual to “marry” again without “divorcing”? Will it be bigamy for a “married” heterosexual to “marry” again without “divorcing”? What a mess, when you try to make shoes work as gloves.

And notice, by the way, that the proponents of this foolish new definition of “marriage” jump back and forth between “same sex marriage” and “homosexual marriage” as if the two concepts were one. They are not the same concept. They have different, though equally baleful social effects, as well as differing legal effects. For example, how can two heterosexual men claim they should be able to “marry” each other because their group is discriminated against?

Society simply does not care very much about what homosexuals do, except insofar as homosexuals offer a lifestyle at war with marriage. Society, on the other hand, cares very deeply about what heterosexual men and women do, and society seeks to channel the desires of men and women for each other into a stable relationship with responsibilities for their offspring.

The fact that judges are sometimes ignorant of the real basis for marriage is simply shocking. Judges are supposed to be the solons of society, not weathervanes of popular feeling and partisan pressure groups. Judges should know the subtle bases of their societies, at least better than the average high school student. Or is that too much for us to ask of these appointed wise men? Apparently, society has made a mistake in appointing judicial elites from sheltered students after they have spent years poring over dusty law books, spinning legal theories inside of cold marble buildings.

And, please, Mr. Judge, don’t hand us some nonsense that the Constitution demands homosexual marriage and that the judges must give society the proper definition of “marriage.” The writers of the Constitution believed homosexuality to be wrong and most often made its practice a felony. You mean to tell us that they wrote a Constitution to protect homosexuality? Please. We always suspected that judges were using
the Constitution as a cover for what the judges wanted society to do. Now we are sure of it.

These judges assert that the equal protection clause is the basis for their ruling that “marriage” applies to same-sex and homosexual couples. That is simply false. The “equal protection” clause of the Constitution forbids the state from treating people in the same situation unequally, unless the state has a good reason for the unequal treatment. Thus for example the state could treat blacks and whites unequally, or men and women unequally, as long as the state could cite a sensible reason. Unequal treatment by the state cannot be merely arbitrary. Thus, the state could distribute sickle cell treatments unequally to blacks versus whites, since the anemia medically affects blacks. And the state could forbid women to take off their shirts in public on a hot day, while allowing men to do so.

And, please, don’t insult our intelligence by claiming that homosexuality is somehow inherited, like skin color or gender, unless you think that Darwin was wrong about natural selection. Believing that there is an inherited gene for homosexuality is as bizarre as believing that there is an inherited gene for species suicide.

Our laws have always defined marriage as between a one man and one woman, and not between three or four. But even one man and one woman cannot always marry, if there are certain “disabilities” as outlined by law, for example existing valid marriage, close kinship ties, under age, mental illness, etc. The one man, one woman rule for marriage has an extraordinarily good reason for its existence, as outlined in the above paragraphs—certainly more than enough to meet the equal protection rule.

Sure, judges will always fill in the law a little, when necessary, to make a statute sensible or apply a clear principle to a definite case. That’s unavoidable. But no former lawyer/politico in a black robe should dare to rewrite laws that affect the principles and values of a whole society. That is the job of the elected legislature, if anyone. The legislative procedure is wide-ranging and can call wide-ranging hearings involving people from all walks of life. The legislature can hear from the entire society, and not be limited to the facts and arguments of the self-interested parties to a mickey-mouse lawsuit.
Furthermore, even on the face of the rule, there is no unequal treatment of one class versus another. No one can marry someone of the same sex. No one-- whether that person happens to be tall or short or homosexual or heterosexual. No one can “marry” a person of the same sex. The rule applies to homosexuals and to heterosexuals alike. Where is the equal protection violation? Sure, someone might prefer to “marry” someone of the same sex. But you can’t, any more than you can “marry” your mother. Because, you see, society isn’t about you two or about your partner, or your “fulfillment.”; it’s about society. Of course you can’t see that, anymore than children can see why they cannot take toys from weaker children.

Again, the existing rule is even-handed: anyone can marry a person of the opposite sex; but no one can “marry” someone of the same sex. By the same token, everyone can marry a person of the opposite sex. Homosexuals can marry each other, heterosexuals can marry each other, and homosexuals can marry heterosexuals. But no one can marry someone of the same sex.

Unelected, limited-perspective judges were not appointed to change the law on the requirements for legal marriage, or on legal divorce for that matter. The sheer, mind-boggling arrogance of these self-styled judicial arbiters is simply amazing. Maybe even more amazing is the cowardice and ignorance of citizens in a supposed democracy who meekly go along, thinking that marriage is just kind of cute, like a Valentine.

Impartial observers of history simply cannot deny that society has always discouraged homosexuality, often with severe criminal penalties. There is no historical precedent in the thousands of years of human civilization, for encouraging homosexuality in any way, nor of allowing same-sex marriage.

Proponents of a change in marriage law are loud and passionate. They use propaganda tools skillfully. They change their name from “homosexual” (i.e. “same sex”, the descriptive, accurate term) into “gay”, a nonsexual term meaning “elated or very happy.” And they claim that society’s refusal to approve of them is somehow a vicious persecution. But homosexuals are wrong in their position, despite all the smoke and mirrors they use.

Yet homosexuals continue to argue, “We should have the same right to marry that heterosexuals have.” Again, they do have the exact same rights as heterosexuals: homosexuals can marry and so can heterosexuals. But each must marry someone of the opposite sex. And each is forbidden to “marry” otherwise. The fact that someone would prefer to “marry” someone of the same sex is as irrelevant as any other preference regarding marriage law—like a preference for marrying someone who is underage or is close kin. “Equality” has nothing to do with the discussion.

There is simply no merit to the argument that marriage laws must include same sex and homosexual couples. Yet, through specious arguments and intimidation of weak politicians and judges, the homosexual lobby has had some success. Why?
The conclusion is simple: the facts are so clearly against the homosexual lobby on the marriage question that we citizens must be put in mind of the Founders’ warnings that democracies fall apart because of the power of factions---that is, the power of organized special interest groups to passionately and often violently push their own self interest ahead of the common good of the whole society.

MarkD| 2.8.10 @ 11:31AM

You're dumb.

NavyBrat| 2.8.10 @ 11:39AM

What a witty & intelligent response. You must be the star pupil of your special ed class. Please, mentally defective one, continue to dazzle us eith your pathetic intellect.

MarkD| 2.8.10 @ 12:17PM

You're dumb too if you agree with her comment. She completely denies that gay americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law. She typifies the same mindset that kept the military from integrating blacks (which also happened BEFORE they were able to legally wed whites). Sometimes two simple words will better than 13 paragraphs.

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 12:35PM

MarkD,

Better to let people think you are a fool, rather than type out inanities, and remove all doubt.

Also, what are the "equal protection[s] under the law" that are being denied, precisely?

MarkD| 2.8.10 @ 1:28PM

Is one who responds to a fool foolish?

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 1:34PM

MarkD,

Won't answer a simple question, huh?
What a shock.

Who R U| 2.8.10 @ 10:01AM

........to tell me who to love? Hate NEVER wins..........and it WON'T.

Quartermaster| 2.8.10 @ 6:10PM

Nope, people like you won't win, because people like you hate society and anyone that restrains them from doing the wrong thing.

No one is telling you who to love. They are simply telling you that you can't engage in a sterile lifestyle with the approval of society. That is why you refuse to negage the facts and instead try to use government to destroy your opponents. Instead, you will destroy the very society that has protected you and allowed your lifestyle as long as you don't rub our faces in it.

Richard| 2.8.10 @ 10:03AM

Obama is just like Clinton, they have no idea what the military is like, because they have never served, and they want to push their gay agenda into the military. The problem is, that if you ask anyone with military experience, they will tell you this will NOT WORK!! Why?? Because the military, unlike regular society, runs on MORALS and HONOR!! If you commit adultry in the military and are caught, you are court marshaled !! Unlike society!! Can you just imagine a group of gays on a submarine?? In a foxhole?? You get the picture don't you?? Someone would get killed real fast in that situation. Now multiply those situations all over the military and you would have a CRISIS!! Just ask ANY VETERAN and you will get an education on WHY THIS WILL NOT WORK. I am a former Marine Corps infantry veteran {Khe Sahn Hill Fights 1967}. Semper Fi and GOD BLESS OUR MILITARY!!

G| 2.8.10 @ 10:37AM

Dude your an Idiot. I'm in the military and I am gay. But tell you what go to Pendelton and see how many of your Semper Fi buddies are putting out gay ads for "Friends" Your right your a FORMER Marine, but y ou have NO idea what todays military has in it. I've been to Iraq, various countries and 2 different military branches, and guess what if you don't want to see gays you won't. but if you look close enough you will see us there, we are doing our jobs just like you, we will kill just like you, we will take showers in the same communal showers just like you. But when it comes to who we sleep with why does it bother you so much. Do you have something to hide.
Stop hating, start accepting. its something you can't change.

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 11:56AM

Dudette, pervert, whatever; if there are as many pansies in the "military" as you say there are, maybe that's why Usama escaped Tora Bora?

All you homos were too busy practicing your perversion and let him get away.

Perhaps you would like to name your branch, unit, and MOS, if you indeed do serve?

loulou| 2.8.10 @ 5:41PM

Dude, your grammer is atrocious.
Did you even finish high school?

Tony| 2.17.10 @ 9:51PM

G, you are a disgrace to the Corps. I can tell you as an active duty Marine, you are a minority in our Corps and you have no place in our ranks. One thing you are good at is hiding the fact you are gay, because you would be outed the minute someone of moral courage who would not be dismayed by the lack of leadership the CJCS and SecDef have demonstrated. You are not worthy to wear the Eagle, Globe and Anchor and the only reason why you get to do so is because of DADT.

Adam| 2.20.10 @ 9:35PM

Nick and Tony, G is right. And there were plenty of gays wearing EGAs long before DADT was even in practice.

CK| 2.8.10 @ 10:07AM

Talk about "gay panic." Gays are already in the barracks and the showers. Show some patriotism and stop disrespecting the gay Americans that are fighting and dying for your--for our--freedom and safety.

Shawn Mills| 2.8.10 @ 10:22AM

If your only concern is bathing together with homosexuals then you need to sort out your priorities. I wrestled in High School and showered with straight men everyday and none of us ever had problems. You lull yourself into falsely believing that every gay guy wants to have sex with everything in sight. Just because were gay doesn't make us whores.
And do a little research into history and you'll come to find that pederasty was a highly encouraged and successful tool in some of the most advanced and superior armed forces in world history.
It is the right thing to do. Period.
Oh and by the way, not telling the truth - is lying. Its lying by omitting the truth.

Paul S.| 2.8.10 @ 10:59AM

In terms of the actual repeal of DADT, I do believe that the author of this article is speaking from his heart, and from his experience, and believes wholeheartedly what he is saying. I agree with the prior comment, however, indicating that he does contradict himself - are gays already in the military, or are we just letting them in if we repeal this law? We all know better - we're not really "just" letting them in. Gays and lesbians have served with honor and distinction in our armed forces and the armed forces of many nations since the dawn of time, without incident.

That being said, I do want to agree with other comments indicating that some gay people do tend to get far too "in your face" about their sexuality. I am a gay man, and I much prefer my quiet, country life just enjoying my own partner and my own time. I don't really care for all the advocacy and showiness that is part of life for so many modern gay men and lesbians.

However, the true bias of this particular article's author is shown rather plainly in his statements in that regard. Gays can't help but eyeball their straight counterparts in the showers, and we're all rapists who are just going to force ourselves on you. That, thank God, is wrong. We don't want anything to do with you sexually. We have plenty of our own to pursue our time with.

The bias here is that conservatives don't realize that, just like straight men and women, gay men and lesbians are more than capable of putting a lid on their sexuality when something else is more important - and I would say our national security and defense is more important than a romp in the hay, wouldn't you? We can *all* make this sacrifice, together, but I should still be able to give my lover a hug and a kiss before he goes off to Afghanistan for 15 months, just like the soldier and his girlfriend standing right next to us.

That's the point here. It's not about getting laid while in the service, but being able to share your life and family with your fellow soldiers, to enjoy the closeness and friendship with them that they get from sharing stories about their families with their fellow servicemembers as well.

That's my two cents on this issue.

SGT Medic| 2.8.10 @ 11:10AM

I am serving in the Army currently. While I do not agree with the lifestyle choice of homosexuals I respect their right to equality and fair humanity. I have had gay friends in the service and they were outstanding Soldiers. I have had gay Soldiers who were dirt bags. In my opninion and experience sexual orientation has no link to job performance. (I am referring to gay vs straight.... I do think that things such as beastiality/incest or other extreme forms of sexual pervesion have roots in mental/emotional/social disorders and have effects in every area of life)
However, I do not want another gay man in the shower with me. I do not want a gay man observing me pee during a urine analysis. I will be honest and admit that I can not (at this time) think of many other times when I would be bothered by having an outwardly gay serving with me.
I have no idea how repealing 'Don't ask, don't tell" would affect our ability to perform as warfighters. I don't think any side really knows.
I do know that gays who are serving in the military knew what they were getting into when they signed the dotted line. They were not tricked or decieved or forced to enlist/commisision. So to say that it is cruel is untrue.

I don't think repealing don't ask don't tell would be the right thing to do.

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 5:31PM

Bravo! Great post SGT! I would like to add, that none of this drive to revoke DADT comes from top military leadership, or from the American people clammoring for justice for the 2% of the general population that practice homosexuality. It comes from a far-left administration bent on destroying America's superpower status. No consideration for the effect revoking DADT will have on the military institution is reflected in any of this. The resaons being advanced by the left are disengenuous (yes, liberal democrats lie) and easily rebutted. This is just a political stunt by an administration desperate to pander to leftists that hate America.

MarkD| 2.8.10 @ 11:29AM

Clearly Larry Thornberry hasn't served in the military or else he would know that the "extraordinarily disruptive" scene that he paints is going on right now and has been ever since there was a military. If we expect our troops to be honest we can't demand that they lie. No worries Larry, there will never be pink camoflage. You are a dinosaur and your way of thinking will meet the same fate.

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 11:34AM

There is one thing I wish homosexuals would do.... Stop hiding behind the bigot, and hate speech card.
Some of those who posted are homosexual, and are in a meaningful debate.
But there many that hide behind the bigot and hate speech card.
You started this damn argument with getting in everyones face, now debate it.

Arti| 2.8.10 @ 11:47AM

"It would be a thumb in the eye of the men and women of our military who've been performing well and bravely under very tough conditions."

Those men and women include honorable gays and lesbians who are currently serving in the military.

Shame on you and your homophobia.

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 11:59AM

I don't fear homos at all.

The only way I would ever fear a homo, is if one was coming at me with a weapon and I didn't have my gun with me.

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 12:01PM

Arti, no one is saying that gays and lesbians in the military are not doing what they swore to do.
As I have posted earlier Gays and Lesbians started this argument but they also want to hide behind the, "Oh your just being homophobic card."
If gays and lesbians want to convince a heterosexual that, "Don't ask don't tell" should be dropped then you don't do it by calling a heterosexual, "Homophobic, hate monger, and a bigot."

Truth to Power| 2.8.10 @ 12:51PM

Phobia doesn't capture it. What is the Greek word for disgust?

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 5:36PM

We are not homophoebic! That imples that we are afraid of homosexuals! We are not. We just think homosexuals are creepy and mentally ill. I would bet there are things like spiders and leeches that have a similar effect on you. Try thinking about the words you use rather than using pop-culture terminologies, words have meanings!

Kevin| 2.8.10 @ 12:07PM

Oh no, whatever would we do if straight men had to shower with gay men? Are you daft enough not to realize that there are already gay men in the military - reversing DADT would not in any way change the current showering/barracks situation gays and lesbians are ALREADY IN THE MILITARY.

As for the rest of your arguments, I certainly felt like I was back in the 1940's. After all, everyone knows that having blacks in the military will cause morale to crumble. Or wait, worse yet, those women. They could never fight alongside our young lads.

Stop the fear-mongering, Larry, and get with the 69% of Americans who realize that DADT is embarrassing to our country and a blight on our military.

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 1:06PM

Oh, here we go again I was wondering when the comparison to Black Americans was going to be brought into the mix.
For one thing, civil rights for Black Americans was not brought about by advancing a Black Agenda, but rather by advancing civil rights for a race of people.
Homosexuality cannot be compared to the Civil Rights movement that Black Americans went through.
This tactic makes great sound-bites and appeals on the emotional level, but that's about it.

Kevin| 2.9.10 @ 1:06AM

Excuse me, Melvin, I was not comparing the civil rights struggle of blacks to the civil rights struggle of gays and lesbians in the way that you've characterized. I made no comment about the immutability of certain character/racial traits, and of any agendas (but now that you bring it up, if you think that black civil rights leaders had no agenda you obviously need a history lesson son).

My statement was in regards to arguments made by those opposed to lifting bans on certain classifications of people. The arguments made then and the arguments made now are the same -- that the morale of the entire military will crumble, and that there will be a mass exodus of soldiers from the military. Clearly, that did not happen. It was a false paranoia, which to me makes it seem more likely that the paranoia of today is similarly misplaced.

ErictheRed| 2.9.10 @ 1:40PM

Please pardon this distinction, the draft was a law then correct? We did away with the draft after Viet nam and became an all volunteer force. So if I left b/c of the repeal of DADT then there aren't that many homosexuals to take place of all of the rest of the military that decides to walk.

Thom| 2.8.10 @ 12:13PM

Wow. This article is truly an ignorant, mean spirited piece of work. Don't like gays? Tough shiz. There is no rational basis for maintaining dadt that is not based on ignorance, hatred and hysteria. All Americans are entitled to equal rights. Don't like the US Constitution? Move Iran. Why do these right wing ignoramuses hate America?

danfromatlanta| 2.10.10 @ 8:06AM

Since when did homosexuality become a constitutionally protected right? And since when did military service forego the UCMJ infavor of imaginary constitutional protections of homosexuality? You're an idiot!

Pingback| 2.8.10 @ 12:44PM

The American Spectator : The Wrong Gay Line | MyGaySpot links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

campaign catholic city david glbt human jersey Lesbian maine monday national obama people president-obama rights senate state the-state tuesday wednesday

Bill| 2.8.10 @ 12:45PM

Bigotry is SO ugly.

Thanks, all, for reminding me of that.

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 1:15PM

Bill?

Are you the same pervert loving Bill I argued with last week?

Were have you been, Willy?

Are you ready to explain your "vulgar discrimination" against polygamists, necrophiliacs, and practitioners of bestiality?

Richard Baker| 2.8.10 @ 12:57PM

Bill:
So disagreeing with the homosexual agenda is bigotry? Am I mean, too? Perversion is.

t| 2.8.10 @ 1:19PM

I am former military officer who was responsible for assigning billeting and showering arrangements. I have one question for the people who are advocating that we allow gays to serve openly -- how do I billet them? This is not a rhetorical question, and I'm not asking it to be difficult; I really would like to know how we would solve this problem.

I had to assign people to 12-person tents when on deployments. I could not put men and women together, even if they were married. Do I put all the gay men together and all the lesbians together and wait for the sexual harassment allegations? Do I parcel them out? When at home, in two-person dormitory rooms, I couldn't put heterosexual couples together, but should I put two homosexuals together? What if one of them is enamored with the other but his affections are not reciprocated? Haven't I created a sexual harassment situation? What should I do when the two gay men that I've assigned to a dorm room together become lovers and then break up? Do I reshuffle room assignments to accommodate them? We do not billet heterosexual couples together for these reasons, but how do we work out the logistics behind billeting homosexuals, and to complicate the issue even more, bisexuals?

I am fully aware that I have on many occasions put homosexuals into dorms and showers with heterosexuals, and that really isn't a problem in my experience, even when everyone has known that an individual is gay; as some of the comments have reflected, homosexuals generally aren't interested in heterosexuals, and contrary to popular belief, military people are not all knuckle dragging, homophobic troglodytes. The problem isn't gays hitting on straights -- it is accommodation of sexual behavior, of all kinds, in an environment that often lacks any semblance of privacy without creating situations that foster sexual harassment. We are currently able to overcome this by not billeting men and women together, and by asking homosexuals and bisexuals to not advertise or act upon their sexual preferences. How do we overcome it when we allow homosexuals to serve openly?

Again, I'm not asking this question to be contrary -- I'd really like to know the answer. In my experience it's not solvable. And please, don't come back with "Canada, Israel, etc. have solved it" because they haven't. I served in NATO for a couple of years, and the militaries that allowed homosexuals to serve openly were struggling mightily with these problems. From what I saw their answer was to essentially create units that were homosexual "ghettos" and to treat homosexuals so poorly that they would get out at their first possible opportunity. This is not a answer, and it certainly detracts from military readiness.

Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not just a matter of "get over your homophobia," most of us are not even remotely homophobic, and the few that are can be dealt with -- it is a question of how we deal with the logistics of the matter without fostering an environment that actively creates opportunities for sexual harassment.

Log Cabin Guy| 2.8.10 @ 7:34PM

Hi, t,

Well, you make a lot of good points. I agree the problem, to the extent it exists, is not gays hitting on straight men--gay know straight men aren't interested and they are asking for a black eye or worse if they attempt to hit on them. Putting gay men together? Hmnn. Well, in theory, our men (and women) in uniform put duty, honor, and self control first, but sexuality being what it is, I see the possible problems (I've read that the rate of pregnancies are up in the military in areas where men and women serve together, say on ships). I also find it interesting your comment that by putting gays together just puts them into another ghetto, much like the gay ghettos in "gay" areas of large cities, e.g., San Francisco. I really don't have an answer for you--I'll have to think about this some. The questions you raise, the problems you present are worth discussing and wrestling over; I'm less patient with the type of arguments that Mr. Thornberry makes that assume that gays who shower with straights will results in straights being hit on by gays, which you acknowledge doesn't happen (or, if so, rarely). I also see the problem of sexual harrasment charges, particularly in the hyper-pc environment we all find ourselves in. I guess I have to be honest and say I don't really know how to respond to your scenarios. At the same time, I feel for gay men and women who truly want to serve their country, but are forced to pretend they are something they are not (heterosexuals) or be thrown out of the military. Maybe there is no answer; or maybe there is one, but it will take some time thrashing out how to make it all work. Honest discussions on both sides of the question would be preferable than having conservatives accusing gays on being nothing more than craven sex maniacs, or anti-don't ask-don't tell folks accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being homophobes.

Alessandra| 2.9.10 @ 7:31AM

"From 1992 to 1994, I served as chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon. During that time, President Clinton ignited a firestorm when he tried to force the Department of Defense to admit known homosexuals into the military. Key obstacles were the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ ) and department regulations stating that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." The uniform code prohibits indecent assaults, indecent acts, indecent liberties with children and sodomy. Each of those rules makes good sense in the unique military environment.

Even as Congress was wrestling with Mr. Clinton's proposal on homosexuals, officials were dealing with a major homosexual scandal at Fort Hood, Texas. Homosexuals had advertised a Fort Hood restroom as a gathering spot for casual sex. In just seven days, criminal investigators observed 60 men publicly committing serious acts on post. Officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and enlisted personnel participated. Many wore uniforms displaying their insignia of rank.

The Army dealt with the matter discreetly, and the chief of public affairs referred to it as a "potentially explosive issue." It was "explosive" because it contradicted the administration's campaign to portray gay GIs as "perfect gentlemen - a boon to the force."

At the Criminal Law Division, facts contradicted that party line. Worldwide criminal reports documented serious offenses being committed frequently by homosexual GIs. To be certain, homosexuals weren't the only soldiers committing crimes, but the administration's proposals would have placed homosexuals in situations of forced intimacy, where same-sex attractions invite serious trouble.

Activists claim the risk of crimes from same-sex offenders is no greater than it is between servicemen and women. They are wrong. Women are not required to sleep and shower under the watchful eyes of men.

Homosexuals dismiss concerns regarding privacy in showers and in the barracks. But the risk is high. At Fort Sill, Okla., in 1991, two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night. They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim was hospitalized under psychiatric care.

Recruit training is especially problematic. Male recruits had to physically subdue one homosexual drill instructor at an Army base to keep him from raping a male recruit as that recruit struggled to escape out a second-story window. At Marine boot camp, an aggressive female recruit was discharged for sexually touching and soliciting fellow Marines. Her intimidating manner caused fear and distrust throughout her platoon. At Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., a company gunnery sergeant sexually attacked a young officer candidate who had stayed back at the barracks while his platoon was out training.

Rep. Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, spoke firmly against dropping the ban on homosexuals, stating that it would cause "disruption" and "serious problems." Mr. Skelton is correct.

Assaults aren't the only problem. Few things threaten unit cohesion more than consensual sex between homosexuals while others are present. The Fort Hood incident demonstrates how public sex among homosexual officers, NCOs and enlisted men destroys respect for rank. How would men respond to such officers and noncoms in battle?

If widespread misconduct of that severity could happen with the prohibitions now in effect, how much worse would it become if consensual homosexuality were lawfully sanctioned - and made the subject of sensitivity training?

Discipline will suffer if gays are permitted to serve. I learned the importance of discipline on the Marine drill fields of Parris Island. S.C., and during fierce fighting with the 1st Marine Regiment. Later, in the disciplinary collapse following the Vietnam War, I spent many years helping rebuild discipline in the Army. Experience shows that highly disciplined units are important in garrison - and vital in battle.

Mr. Clinton practically brought down his presidency trying to lift the ban. After an exhaustive national debate, the House of Representatives determined that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Congress then enacted Title 10 U.S. Code Section 654, which states that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. That ban is an essential element of military discipline. It must be retained."

Richard H. Black, retired from the U.S. Army, was chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division.

Tony| 2.17.10 @ 10:04PM

No to mention, right now as we read these comments, the U.S. Army's 82nd Airbone Division is executing Courts Martial on nearly 20 Paratroopers who were involved in performing in Gay Porn films a local gay porn production company was making. One gay paratrooper at his CM said he had disgraced the Army and his family. He got served up what we call a Big Chicken Dinner or BCD, Bad Conduct Discharge. How is that DADT working for you repel supporters now?

t| 2.9.10 @ 12:47PM

Log Cabin Guy -- I had a feeling that I'd get a reasoned, calm answer back from you. I very much appreciate that, and I also appreciate your acknowledgement that this is a much tougher problem than most people realize. I also agree with you wholeheartedly that most of the "discussions" about DADT are incredibly counterproductive -- you don't get someone to see your side of an issue by calling them a pervert or a bigot.

I find it incredible that people like Adm Mullen don't recognize these problems, or that they're dismissed as simple implementation issues that will be easily dealt with. But these questions can't be answered with a back-handed "just do it," and it's not the same as integrating minorities and women into the military. The billeting problems that I brought up in my previous post are just the tip of the iceberg. There are also other issues related to family and determination of who receives dependent benefits -- specifically, how does the military deal with the unanswered question of gay marriage? One very small example -- if a homosexual couple is married in Massachusetts, and one of them is a military member, are they given base housing when transferred to Alabama?

DADT can be a tremendous burden on everyone. I absolutely believe homosexuals should be able to serve proudly and openly. But believing something is right doesn't make it possible, and I just don't know how we could make it work. Again, if someone, anyone, out there has got answers to my questions I really do want to hear them.

Alessandra| 2.9.10 @ 7:36AM

What is really the difference between DADT and an environment of “open” homosexuality? It’s all about homo/bisexuals acting out their homo or bisexuality towards other military colleagues. And that, in practice, is mostly about having the right to (homo)sexually harass others camouflaged under some shpiel about freedom of discrimination. It’s too bad for the rest of us that DADT can’t be applied to all other spheres of society. In every non-military job environment that I’ve been in where there were homosexuals and bisexuals, they constantly attempted to harass others with homosexual behaviors. Constantly. And, in my experience, there are at least as many closeted bisexual women (often married) as homosexual ones. Assuming a woman is exclusively heterosexual because she is married is nowadays an extremely naive position. Assuming that human beings keep their sexuality to their “bedroom” is one of the today’s greatest fallacies. They don’t and a troubled work environment is the result. Corporations would do much better to investigate such problems, because closeted homosexuals and bisexuals constantly make unwanted advances towards others, with varying degrees of aggressiveness, and they create all kinds of relationship problems for people in the workplace.

The reason pro-homosexuals are so dangerous in dealing with any issue related to homosexuality is that we can count on them to lie and deny every single case of harassment, inappropriate behavior, or sexual violence that is perpetrated by a homo or bisexual person.

Proteus| 2.10.10 @ 2:23PM

t,
Here are some ideas.
1. Billet those who want to preach the Bible together - no one else signed up for that
2. Billet two gay guys or women together, if you can, but no more, especially if they have served together for a long time.

Otherwise, use whatever randomization procedures you normally do.

Q.E.D.

Tim| 2.8.10 @ 1:19PM

This debate really doesn't bring out the best in people.

danfromatlanta| 2.10.10 @ 8:09AM

Right, and how do you expect repealing DADT will effect our military morale? Not a small thing to consider that any military runs on it's stomach and morale.

Log Cabin Guy| 2.8.10 @ 1:25PM

I am a gay man. I am also a conservative/libertarian/republican. I loathe the left and political correctness. I love my country and wish it to be restored to the land of liberty it once was. To my great regret (and somewhat shame), I did not serve in the military. I put myself up against any straight conservative republican in my love of country and freedom. However, I am disaapointed in Mr. Thornberry's column about "don't ask, don't tell." It follows the general meme that if one is straight, conservative, and republican, he must also apparently be prejudiced against gay men, even those of a conservative bent. Several times Mr. Thornberry mentioned the apparently grave "danger" of allowing gay men to sleep next to and shower amongst straight men, as if gays are nothing more than wanton sexual animals who will pounce on unsuspecting straight men, putting their own sexual proclivities above serving honorably in the military and possibly putting national security at risk. This is nothing less than insulting to the numberous gays and lesbians who now currently serve and have served in the armed forces. Mr. Thornberry warns that if gays are allowed to openly serve in the armed forces, recruitment will suffer. That may be true. But that only reveals the fact that it's straights who have a problem with gays, and it's a problem they need to get over. Mr. Thornberry's article dovetails with another popular meme among straights on the political right, and that is gays want to "recruit" straights into the gay life, which is complete horse manure. Most gays now know they were born that way, as were straights born straight, and nothing one can do can change one or another's sexual orientation. I don't doubt that the left would like to change the military into some kind of meals-on-wheels program, and infuse every aspect of it with political correctness (think Major Hasan), but there are many, many gay men and women who want to serve their country in the military, but dislike having to hide the fact they're gay as if it's some type of leprosy, or if allowed to be open about it, they will suddently lose all self control and try to molest and rape their fellow soldiers. This is total nonsense. Straight military men have nothing to fear from their gay compatriots. For those who love their country, whether gay or straight, country, duty, and honor come first, not the satiation of their sexual appetites.

t| 2.8.10 @ 1:31PM

I totally agree with your comments. You are exactly the person I'd like to have respond to my post above.

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 1:57PM

This may sound odd, but I guess you need to come out of the political closet.
In my opinion Gay men such as yourself have been stereotyped as boa wearing Village People.
A gay or lesbian a Conservative or Libertarian this concept is totally foreign to most people.
My wife is from the Philippines and the Filipinos don't get bent around the axle on homosexuality the way Americans do.
On the wife's side one of her distant cousins is a gay man and a attorney. During a family gathering he introduced himself and we solved all the world's problems in a span of 45 minutes with our discussion.
My wife latter commented to me did you know that my cousin was gay, I replied, "No." Not once did Cenin brow beat me about his homosexuality, I didn't even know until my wife told me.
Cenin and I had further political discussions and he was surprised at my lack of, "attitude" and I as well of his.
He made the comment that sometimes he gets annoyed with American homosexuals. My response was, "Why?" Cenin replied that American homosexuals are too in your face about their lifestyle. This is why that in my previous
posts that I mentioned that homosexuals would probably get accepted more if they were not so confrontational and combative.
Because the more homosexuals push, shove and demand the more the other side is going to resist.
I trying to say allot here and probably jumping around quite a bit, but Log Cabin Guy you need to relay to those around you to just ease up and stop brow beating others opposite point of view.

Log Cabin Guy| 2.8.10 @ 5:47PM

Dear Melvin,

The gays I have as friends are generally not the in-your-face type of gays; in fact, most of my friends are like me, gay men who are or once were in heterosexual relationships and with kids (I have a daughter and a granddaughter). But I do agree with you that many in the gay community are reflextively liberal, and feel they have to be in-your face about their homosexuality. I don't agree with that. But neither do I agree that gays necessarily have to hide they gayness out of shame or because heteros are uncomfortable with it. I don't tout my gayness, but I don't deny it either if someone asks me about it (though I was in the closet for years, afraid to have anyone find out that I am gay). Unfortunately for us gay conservs/repubs/libertarians, we are often treated like n_____ers within the gay community, because we refuse to be liberal democrats,, and treated like n______ers by our fellow conservatives, because we refuse to pretend we're heterosexuals, particularly in otherwise enjoyable magazines like American Spectator and National Review. Just know that not all gays are the fussy, hyper-feminized liberal drama queens you see in the media; a large proportion of us do love out country and want to defend it; but at the same time we don't want to pretend to be something we're not (heteros) just because some straights are afraid we're going to jump them in the shower (we're not) or rape them in the barracks (of course not!).

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 8:42PM

You mean all homosexuals are not like Too Wong Foo? Ease up Bob, I'm just kidding. Bob's kinda wound up.

BJB| 2.8.10 @ 4:32PM

Log Cabin,

Thank you for your excellent post. I agree with everything you say except for one item, and in my mind it is the biggest item, as I have always viewed this through the prism of optimizing our military.

My concern with your post is your trivial dismissal of the recruitment issue. I believe that if we repeal DADT we will see an uptick in gay and lesbian volunteers. So that is a positive for our military preparedness. However, if recruiting numbers from the rest of the population go down by more than the uptick in gay recruits then the military has suffered a net loss of manpower. That would not be good. Now you may dismiss those people as not being worthy of the military because of their bigotry, but in fact they may be potentially excellent soldiers. I don't know the answer as to how recruitment will play out if there is a change in policy, but it would seem to me a critical issue in determining how, or whether, to proceed with such a change.

As I said, I have always viewed this argument in terms of what allows us to field the finest possible military. I do not think it is a rights issue. I understand that a gay person might view this issue through a rights prism, but I do not. I just want a ruthlessly efficient fighting force.

Log Cabin Guy| 2.8.10 @ 5:52PM

Dear BJB,

While I wasn't trying to minimize the recruiting problem if gays are openly allowed to serve, you make a good point. Whether straight or gay, I, and many gays, have the highest regards for those who take up the uniform, and serve our wonderful country, no matter what their sexual orientation. I guess my point is that as long as gays are forced, in the military, to hide who they are, to pretend to be something they are not, to act as if being gay in and of itself is shameful (it is not!) by keeping it quiet and out of fear of being thrown out of the armed services, this only contributes to treating gays as second class citizens, citizens who aren't recognized by society as being able to love their country and defend it like everyone else. But your criticism is well noted, and I intend to ponder it. Thank you.

Log Cabin Guy| 2.8.10 @ 5:52PM

Dear BJB,

Alessandra| 2.9.10 @ 7:49AM

"most gays now know they were born that way"

The assertion that anyone with a homosexual mindset was born that way is utterly ridiculous.

It is absolute nonsense to state that the human mind is deformed after birth for every type of dysfunctional desire (animals, dead people, fetishes, rape, excrement, children, obese people, etc etc) and only when it refers to same-sex it is determined before birth. It’s completely illogical to single this type of desire out from after-birth impacts, it makes no psychological sense to exclude it, it has no basis on research or knowledge about the way humans develop or interact concerning sexuality, personality development, or power or violence. Furthermore, humans are meant to be heterosexual, and they come with a heterosexual biology.

If we read some of the history of psychology, science and sociology, it is clear that when humans don’t want to face social problems in their own societies which produce psychological dysfunctional behaviors, they have, often enough, ignorantly sought to “blame it all on biology.”

Readers might like to read this:
http://www.albionmonitor.com/1.....crime.html

As one very nice example, if you’ve heard of the early 20th century eugenics movement, it sought to explain poverty and crime by saying these ills were caused by certain genes.

The more someone tries to explain a very complex socio-psychological phenomenon by saying there’s some gene that has never been found that causes it, the more ignorant and intellectually disingenuous I think they are. There are rebuttal studies/reviews for all of the major homo “gene-proving” studies. As far as I can comment on it, it’s a question for specialists to debate, the genetics claims and study designs. As far as I know, there isn’t a single homosexuality gene study that has not been refuted.

It makes as much sense to look for a homosexuality gene as it does to search for a pedophile gene, a rapist gene, or a gambling gene.

As far as I can see, homosexuality is much more the product of a variety of complex personality development problems, social interaction problems, and definitely culture. The narcissistic element is immense and very clear in most homosexuals. Then, it’s clear that there are different expressions of homosexuality. Not all homosexuals have the same homosexual dynamics inside their minds. A lot of lesbians are desperately looking for self-affirmation through a mirror image. Then there are all those people who have a sexually objectifying, a perverse and a perverted sexuality, which they also want to find an echo to. There are the ultra-promiscuous. Then there are questions of doing psycho-sexual violence to others, especially lesbians and bisexuals harassing women. They can’t do it to men, they go after women. Then there are all the issues of extreme discomfort, deformation or rejection of either masculinity or femininity. Why do some homosexuals abhor masculinity to the highest degree possible? This is a psychological issue, it has nothing to do with genetics. I don’t see people who want to shove homosexuals in the military offering any good explanations to any of these phenomena, nor the problems they create in real life. And I certainly see that their most ignorant assertions about genetics causes for homosexuality don't stand up to scrutiny and are not in line with everything else that has been discovered about human psychology in the last 100 years.

danfromatlanta| 2.10.10 @ 8:15AM

Thanks for adding to the debate your comments equating homosexualty with other forms of sexual deviances. No "gay" gene has ever been identified, so homosexuals and their advocates lie about homosexuality as a congenital condition in order to claim the same kind of victimhood status as racial minorities for redress of their grievances. There is no difference I can see between a homosexual and a pervert that craves sex with animals or toddlers. They are mentally and spiritually ill, and in need of help, not nurturing.

Pingback| 2.8.10 @ 1:31PM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : The Wrong Gay Line [spectator.org] o links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…#sgp #rush #palin #tcot #teaparty #conservative #antiobama Topsy Retweet Button Add Topsy Retweet Button to your Blog or Web Site. WordPress Web Sites 3 tweets tweet The American Spectator : The Wrong Gay Line spectator.org/archives/2010/02/08/the-wrong-gay-line – view page – cached Wilford Brimley, the folksy and appealing character actor, did a series of commercials a few years back…

Pingback| 2.8.10 @ 1:35PM

The American Spectator : The Wrong Gay Line « Ardente links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…a military leader — instead of a court, a state legislature, or a popular vote? » the lead to an editorial in the Greenwood Commonwealth of … See the original post: The American Spectator : The Wrong Gay Line Mots-clefs : emphatic-statement, greenwood, greenwood-commonwealth, lead, military-leader, popular-vote, state-legislature, the-lead, the-most Cet article a été publié le Lundi 8…

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 1:36PM

Oh come one Tim. This is the American Spectator. This is the one place where we all can have a spirited debate without the usual preprogrammed sound-bites from infantile posters.
You have to have a thick skin here, but I have learned allot from a great cross section of citizens from all over the world.

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 2:08PM

Oh, Melvin, I understand. You mean infantile comments like calling people socialists, communists, marxists, Grandma killers, etc.? Naahhh.... None of that here at AmSpec.

The discussion here would be far better off if we stopped the name calling on BOTH sides and truly concentrated on fiscal conservatism.

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 2:24PM

First part of your comment is going to be hard to adapt to, because a Communist is a Communist and a Socialist is a Socialist this is names that describe people who believe in that belief. But, I will at a stretch give you Grandma killer.
Fiscal Conservationism absolutely and you'll get no argument from anyone on that subject.

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 2:40PM

If you actually look at the terms "communist" or "socialist", the Democrats don't even come close, and I think you know that. If you were to say that our government should be very limited and because we believe in individual responsibility, people should not expect the government to tax people unequally, I'd fully agree. But then again, people seem to forget that taxes are not as progressive as people here want you to believe. Payroll taxes are HIGHLY regressive as are capital gains and sales taxes. (Remember, I have a degree in Economics).

If you wanted to call Obama a "big government" person, I'd totally agree and think that is harmful to our future. But a socialist who wants the government to own EVERYTHING? No way. Obama made a bunch of money from his two books and doesn't want that money redistributed.

On taxes, I've been a solid supporter of a flat tax on both federal and state levels. Furthermore, I believe the business income tax should be abolished in favor of a consumption tax. In addition, I see no reason to have a differential capital gains tax even though I have bunches of stocks. We should encourage savings over capital gains if at all possible.

So stop the name calling -- it just takes away from the real issue, limited government.

Todd| 2.8.10 @ 5:36PM

So Obama is just a hypocritical socialist who wants to keep his own money but redistribute everyone else's, nothing new there. He just wants to be one of the "more equals". Typical Bob has to tell everyone he has a degree in Economics like it makes you right in all things economics, spare us your crap.

danfromatlanta| 2.10.10 @ 8:26AM

So I should be impressed with your degree in economics? I have a degree in a real science, not a pseudoscience like economics, and I can tell you that a tax system in which the top 10% of wage earners pay 90% of collected revenues is not a "regressive" system. But then only a pseudoscientist could come to that conclusion, just like climatologists that blame every change in the weather to global warming! You and your pseudoscience are a hoax.

danfromatlanta| 2.10.10 @ 8:21AM

OK, Bob. Please let us in on your private collection of "facts" that show somehow, that Obama is not a socialist. We have plenty of facts that back up our contention that he is a socialist. Identifying Obama as a socialist is not "name calling" as you assert. If he's not a socialist then why does he behave as one? Give me one example of how he has behaved as anything other than a socialist when he has the opportunity? How about an example of how he promotes capitalism and entrepeneurialism? Can't do that right? Wonder why?

Old Salt| 2.8.10 @ 1:39PM

I served in the Navy for 20 Years. In my first year, as a lowly and very young seaman, I was accosted in the shower by a senior and gay petty officer. I hesitated to resist due to his being senior. Fortunately for me before anything other than some very uncomfortable fondeling, anothe sailor arrived and the guy left in a hurry. I discussed it with my leadng chief, and the guy was either transferred, or discharged. at any rate he was gone in a heartbeat.

So now we are going to make this type of person the accepted more in our services. Weird!!!!

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 2:04PM

Yeah, and we should get rid of all of those men who make sexual advances towards women, as well!! Remember Tailhook!!!

In my time in the Army, there were far more sexual attacks on women than on men -- it wasn't even close. Face it, you are just a bigot. People need to be judged on behavior, not beliefs.

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 2:18PM

Bob... give the bigot thing a rest will ya?
You obviously didn't agree with Old Salt's comment, but his comment wasn't bigoted.
There are comments that I don't agree with you on, but you don't see me beating you up with the bigot stick.

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 2:30PM

Melvin, if you were once robbed by a black guy and therefore want to ban black guys from your city, what are you? If you saw a Mexican bringing drugs over the border and then wanted to ban all Mexicans from your neighborhood, what are you? If you think most Muslims are terrorists, what are you? If you saw a Christian killing an abortion doctor and then wanted to ban all Christians from you neighborhood, what are you?

This is the same logic used to call Obama a "socialist" -- and that seems all right with most of you.

I use the comment here to highlight AmSpec's continued use of those types of terms. I don't use this term elsewhere. I've got a deal, if you stop calling others extreme names, I'll stop as well. Deal????? I didn't think so....

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 2:50PM

This is too easy Bob. If I saw any man stealing from me, I would shoot him, if I saw a man assumed to be Mexican bringing drugs over the border I would shoot him, If I saw a what I assume to be a Muslim trying to hack your head off I would shoot him, If I seen a man assumed to be a Christian shooting what I assume to be a doctor I would also shoot the Christian. Simply the above acts are crimes against man and property and should not be tolerated in civilized society.

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 3:02PM

Melvin, you obfuscated the point, didn't you.... By the way, I once beat a guy almost to death because he attacked my daughter. Unfortunately, my pistol was at home.

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 3:14PM

Not really depends on who is doing the interpretation. If you would have called, you could have used my pistol.

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 2:33PM

I will!

3/5 Bob is an atheistic, pervert loving, anti-Christian BIGOT!

He is right that people should be judged on behavior. Same-gender sexual preference is a perverted behavior. Just as is all adultery.

All sexual relations outside of marriage are a perversion of the marital act. And thus, a sin.

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 2:47PM

"3/5 Bob is an atheistic, pervert loving, anti-Christian BIGOT!"

Absolutely. Anything that makes you happy. But I couldn't be more bigoted that you, 1/5 Nick. Don't you get tired realizing that most of the people who live in the U.S. are perverted? You never had sex outside of marriage? Are you suffering from E.D. or something?

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 2:56PM

"You never had sex outside of marriage? Are you suffering from E.D. or something?"

Getting a little personal, aren't we 3/5 Bob?
Is that a proposition or something? I knew you were a sicko!

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 3:03PM

You're my type of guy, 1/5 Nick... There are lots of drugs for your problem, however....

Nick`| 2.8.10 @ 3:09PM

If only there was a drug to cure your sexual perversion, 3/5 Bob.

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 3:12PM

Well, 1/5 Nick, you certainly have been effective in keeping me an atheist -- who would want to associate with people like you? I'd rather meet a group of homosexuals. Thank you....

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 3:31PM

3/5 Bob,

To answer your question, most of the regular posters here at AmSpec would. I'm guessing.

You, not so much.

Now, should I re-post the quotes that show why you are known as 3/5 Bob?

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 3:52PM

So, 1/5 Nick, you're into group sex? I thought so...

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 3:58PM

3/5 Bob,

So, "associate" is the latest euphemism you and your perverted bretheren use for "group sex"?

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 4:04PM

1/5 Nick, I'm in the majority, so, by definition, it is YOU that is perverted....

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 4:12PM

3/5 Bob,

So, might makes right, huh?

If the majority THINKS it is right, it therefore IS?
I know several groups that believed this in the 20th century. And they killed millions.

loulou| 2.8.10 @ 5:47PM

Tailhook??
The Tailhook "incident" never happened. There was a party and some broad wanted to make a name for herself and sued.

How dare you?

Alessandra| 2.9.10 @ 7:59AM

"In my time in the Army, there were far more sexual attacks on women than on men -- it wasn't even close. "

It's called first grad math. When two groups have extremely different sizes in terms of number of people, we need to look at percentages, not absolute number comparisons.

Thus, absolute number comparisons are usually quite meaningless in such a context.

If we compare the total number of heterosexual to homosexual cases based on percentage of each group and rank, and not absolute numbers, you might have a very unpleasant surprise at the result! I bet the result will be a lot different.

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 3:29PM

First off all, these were all the same arguments put forward when the military tried to desegregate and when the military tried to accept women. There were cries of "enlistment will plummet" "this puts our nation at risk" "these politicians care more for their communist agenda than protecting this country" etc.

Second, do you truly believe that just because suddenly gays won't be thrown out of the military for disclosing their sexuality they are going to start fondling and groping people in the showers? Do you honestly believe that the tiny percentage of military men and women who are gay are going to overthrow the machismo culture of the military? If so, you are a fool. Anyone who ever had to step into a locker room at the gym or showers in high school can tell you that the macho culture dominates, and that is with the regular pool of men not even the military pool. This idea that overnight the military is going to become some sort of cabaret of Perez Hiltons is absurd.

Mike| 2.8.10 @ 6:43PM

You talk like desegregating the military and accepting women were unabashed good things for the military. I know a lot of fellow soldiers who will tell you in private that letting women and blacks into the military is one of the biggest reasons we lost in Vietnam and couldn't handle the job in Iraq. Letting in faggots would just be another nail in the coffin.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.8.10 @ 6:14PM

OKOKOK!
Enough!
May God protect all of our service personnel, and may we pass out thanks to each of them.

The subject should never have come up.

If someone is born homosexual...God made them that way. If they want to be Perez Hiltons, God can judge.
Enough!

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 10:00PM

Ken,
You can't be serious? God did not make anyone homosexual. How can you say that? It is a lie.

Curt| 2.8.10 @ 7:28PM

Homosexuality in and of itself, I don't see as disruptive. As has already been said, most homosexuals who serve strive to keep their private lives private. Those individuals who insist on bucking the trend, ignoring the team, standing out will get hammered. Not because they are gay, but because the military is not a gentle machine when it comes to those who insist on sticking out and making a pain of themselves. You weren't given a uniform and a haircut just so you could be yourself.

What will be disruptive to military discipline, is the establishment of yet another protected class of service members, who are graded to a lighter scale. Females and minorities in the military are already over represented in promotion and command ratios. Many of those promotees are talented individuals who earned their promotions. A few of them weren't. Some were promoted so an officer could say "Look, I'm tolerant! I'm with the program. Women and minorities are successful and happy in my chain of Command. No problems with bigotry or sexism here."

That small percentage brings the rest of their entire demographic into doubt. Suddenly every minority or female officer or SNCO has subordinates trying to figure our if they were promoted based on merit, or promoted so organizations' photo wall wouldn't look like a white picket fence anymore.

So what will homosexual service member find in the Post DADT military? Probably a nice gravy train of promotions and photo ops at first. Every commander wanting to shake their hand make them OIC ot NCOIC, or POC, of something or another. It will probably get downright odious as people line up to smile for the cameras. In the end they'll have to work twice as hard as the average service member to prove their merit, and prove they really earned their job.

They'll still have the issue of being a minority, and being unable to talk. For one, most folks still won't want to hear it, and two: talking "Too" openly about your love life at work is STILL grounds for sexual harassment charges. Remember, in the PC military, Sexual Harassment is a big bad scary No no that will get you fired the first time an E-1 whispers, "I think that may have kinda sorta, possibly offended me just a little bit." If there is one thing that gays in the military can expect, its that there won't be a lot of people asking them "So, what did you do this weekend?"

They'll face the standard ostracism of being a unusual and poorly understood minority. Just like the wiccan supply clerk, or the LT from Tanzania. No one knows or cares why the Tanzanian says "Pants!" Every time something goes wrong, and his insistence of marking "African American" on forms just leaves numerous help desks befuddled and confused. The Wiccan still can't get a tattoo of a pentagram below his elbows, and has to tuck his pentacle under his shirt, just just like the christian next to him tucks in his crucifix necklace.

The homosexual service member is quite likely going to wind up sharing an office with a charismatic pentecostal, a devout catholic, and possibly a black Muslim. All of them will be expected to act cordial and professional, and accomplish their mission regardless of just how bad they all hate each other.

If he is worried about how his comrades in arms will think of his orientation, he shouldn't. Its going to be nothing compared to civilians located just outside of whatever hole in the wall base he gets stationed at. Bases are not typically located in large, gay friendly metro areas. The locals outside of bugscuffle AFB, or Fort BFE aren't going to be nearly as open minded as his neighbors back in New York or San Fran.
I would suggest against going down town alone, and don't expect the local PTA to welcome you with open arms. The natives down-range are going to be even less tolerant and understanding of his personal life.

In the end, its a cold hard truth. If you want to really truly be yourself, and do the things you want to do, you are best advised to skip the recruiters office. The military ain't the place to be yourself. You're going to have to cut your hair. You're going to have to shave. You will be expected to look somewhat like the people standing next to you. You can't get the tattoos you want, or the piercings you want, or dye your hair the color you want, or date the person you want to if they happen to have one less cloth stripe on their arm then you do.

Military service sucks. You can find alot of maturity and pride. Alot of important life lessons too. But happiness in the military is not so easily found. That's why it's called service.

"Welcome to the suck". No, not THAT kind of suck, the bad kind.

JMH| 2.8.10 @ 7:31PM

Sec Gates and the CJCS SHOULD RESIGN - We will become an ineffective fighting force just like the Brits and Aussies. What a complete joke.

snookered| 2.8.10 @ 7:41PM

Not allowing homosexuals in the military always had one fatal flaw. Why have a draft board if gays cannot serve? No need to shoot off a toe or run to Canada to evade the draft. Five minutes with a condom, a camera, and a male friend and you are out of the draft. Oh, the don't ask, don't tell policy was really well thought out.

Pat| 2.8.10 @ 7:44PM

Getting our young folks to fight for us - we can't be bothered - has been a tough sell the last few decades. First, we tried offering them some bucks to attend the Ivy League community college of their choice, but lately we should consider offering Free Legal Aid, both during and after their enlistment is up. Being ogled by your tough as nails first sergeant while you're showering is one thing, being ogled by a Justice Dept. lawyer over a battlefield "incident" can affect your entire life, even assuming you stay out of the stockade.

Army life is like corporate life now, the emphasis is on getting along, tolerance and equal treatment - those gung-ho, hoo-rah, macho emotions are for the movies - sure it's an adventure but it's also a job. And corporate job-holders get bennies including "free legal" when you're getting sued for doing your job - yeah, it happens - which means the corporation picks up your legal bills.

In today's Army, the enemy inhabits populated towns and villages, we can't destroy the entire village, so we send the kids in to root out the bad guys. Shoot someone by mistake and it's "Law and Order" time. But, legal counsel should be free and available for the combat soldier before going into battle - is the order to attack the village "legal" considering the rapidly changing laws concerning engagements and what your own side will do to you should you be in the wrong? How does the average soldier know, especially when those safely far away will make the determination after the shooting is over?

Let anyone join the military, we're fighting for "tolerance for all" aren't we? But make sure they have their outside counsel's number on their cell phone's speed dial just in case - be all you can be assuming your lawyer says it's legal.

sangredulce| 2.8.10 @ 9:13PM

Let them NOW! They can be be loud and colourful, give them pink camos, It will make them good targets for our opposnets and easier for "friendly fire" to take care of this issue. In 6 months, there will be no more gay's in the military...

Ben Dover| 2.8.10 @ 10:34PM

What straight guy wants to shower with another guy who wants to use his rear end for recreational purposes? How many gays do these Senators and Congressmen have on their staff? Do they shower with them? No, wait, I forgot about Barny Frank, never mind.

ATLmedia| 2.8.10 @ 10:44PM

GOD, GUNS & GAYS
made America great-
Lets keep all three !

Brian| 2.8.10 @ 11:31PM

Gay orgies in the barracks. Who knew thats what they meant by "make love not war". They'll need a hazmat crew to clean the barracks every morning.

A Comment| 2.9.10 @ 1:44AM

Back in the '80s there was an gay airline mechanic. (well, probably more than one) Everyone knew he was gay. He was never harrassed, shunned or anything that might be considered insulting or degrading. Mechanics worked alongside him with - if not camaraderie - at least civility and the same friendliness accorded others.

On night the gay mechanic was working, lying on the floor in a particularly crowded area of the plane cabin and another mechanic said, "I'm going to have to get through here, I'll try not to crowd you." The gay guy said, "That's OK, I rather enjoy it."

The work environment was never the same. For the guy or the crew. He had made an unnecessary remark that crossed the line. And guess who felt wronged? The gay, of course!

It's is an odd thing that a woman can be sexually harrassed by a man, but a man cannot claim it by another man.

If you are a man who prefers men, is it not normal to hit on any young man you find attractive?

If you are a young man who prefers women, is it not understandable to not want to be considered a pick-up prospect by your shower-mate? Maybe straights will have to sing in the shower, "I only want a buddy, not a sweetheart...."

When (if) we have Open Gays in the Military, will there be disciplinary action against overt sexual advances? Well, it depends on what the meaning of overt is - and fat chance of you ever proving it, fella.

But that is why the uproar about open gays in the military. It's flippant remarks like that that cause trouble in the ranks. You can say it shouldn't. You can call it a perceived threat where none exists - you can call it latent on the part of the "straight" - you can call it anything you want. But no one better ever suggest we just have a separate Gay Army, Navy and Marine Corps. You would have riots in the Castro the likes of which you have never dreamed, by people who have never done any marching except in the Gay Parade in their pasties and spangles and g-strings and nun's habits.

Alessandra| 2.9.10 @ 8:06AM

Excellent points.

There's another issue that has not been discussed at all.

A visible majority of anti-DADT pro-homosexuals, whether homo or bi or straight, but especially the homo and bi ones, hate Christians and religion. What's going to happen with all their hatred in practice? Currently, they viciously attack Christians in the civic and public spheres, deny them their rights to a Christian society as it pertains to law and morality. What's going to happen within the day-to-day dynamics of the military, not to mention combat? Peruse any homo or liberal blog and you see the hatred and the bile against Christians (and any other social conservative). Who would trust them not to act on their hate against Christians and social conservatives in military situations? If it's virulent enough in civilian life, it doesn't take rocket science to imagine how it could be played underhandedly in the military if it's Open, Sanctioned (read In-Your-Face) Homosexuality.

Margie| 2.9.10 @ 2:20PM

Alessandra,
I've read all of your posts and just want to say thank you for your excellent contribution. Unfortunately, it seems the world is against the truth, and the homosexual militants will get their way with the Military as well. We have the Leftists to thank for this, especially the ones who choose to elect them. The truth is that Christians (true ones) do not hate homosexuals, and in fact desire, as I do, to see them come to the love and knowledge of Jesus Christ. For this we are truly hated, as you point out, and are called Gay-bashers, and haters, even by some of our fellow Christians, sadly.
The Bible tells us that in the last days the world would become as Sodom and Gomorrah, which in the Biblical account says that homosexuals were militant, as they are now, raping and doing violence to others. This is indeed coming true now.
"..but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom fire and sulphur rained from Heaven and destroyed them all-- so will it be on the Day when the Son of Man is revealed." Lk. 17:29&30;.

Alessandra| 2.9.10 @ 5:32PM

"I've read all of your posts and just want to say thank you for your excellent contribution"

You're welcome. :-)

"The truth is that Christians (true ones) do not hate homosexuals, and in fact desire, as I do, to see them come to the love and knowledge of Jesus Christ. "

The "you're full of hate" accusations are just attempts to derail civil discussion and not listen to what others have to say. Most liberals I know hate these two things. Furthermore, name-calling requires NO THINKING. It explains a lot about the behavior of liberals in such discussions ;-)

Have a nice day,
A.

Pingback| 2.9.10 @ 8:40AM

Must Know Headlines 2.9.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Families Party Democrat-Run Government W.H. Super Bowl Guests Include One Republican Federal Court Requires State Of Washington To Allow Incarcerated Felons To Vote The Wrong Gay Line: Adm. Michael Mullen Has Weakened The U.S. Military Obama Plans Televised Health Care Summit To Persuade Republicans to Back Bill Rep. Steve Cohen, D, Already Chasing Murtha’s Ambulance Religion Christian Speech…

Pingback| 2.9.10 @ 11:21AM

We Have Come Along Way in Our Exploitation of Transportation links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…way in a short time and we must continue to press on and seek our human destiny thru the innovations and research to propel the human race. Think about it. Lance Winslow Related blog posts The American Spectator : The Wrong Gay Line The American Spectator : The Wrong Gay Line The American Spectator : The Wrong Gay Line The American Spectator : The Wrong Gay Line Sustainability Cuba Style « CHILCOTIN ARK Sustainability…

Mike| 2.9.10 @ 1:15PM

First niggers, now faggots. When are we going to say enough is enough?

Copyleft| 2.9.10 @ 1:28PM

This oh-so-solicitous regard for "soldiers who may come from families and communities where they've been taught to be uncomfortable around gays" is very touching... who knew that U.S. soldiers were such sensitive little hothouse flowers?

I'd tell them the same thing you tell a soldier whose family taught him to hate blacks: "Tough s***, soldier, you're in the U.S. Army now, and we live by the principles we fight for!"

Refusing to serve alongside gay comrades is every bit as un-American as refusing to serve with blacks, Jews, redheads, women, or guys who stutter. Get over it and do your frackin' JOB.

Liberty or Death| 2.9.10 @ 2:12PM

This is a futile argument for conservative, Christians to make with those who hate God and deny His word. You cannot understand; therefore, your eyes are blind and your hearts, cold, to the truth.

I will say this: We are not "bigots," or "gay bashers," because we do not agree with those who say gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military. We DO NOT accept the premise that the gay lifestyle is a natural one.

To us, the act of being gay is an abomination, a blight in the Lord's eye. You are not born with it. There is NO scientific basis for it. It is a sin. And NO, Jesus would not have approved. Read the Bible if you doubt my confidence in boasting that FACT.

Being gay is not even in the "ballpark," with being a minority. And since I do not believe in "protected classes," in general, I would have to disagree with offering anyone favor over another (the one caveat being marriage, societies thrive when the family structure is encouraged and intact). This hyphenated society may have been relevant during the civil rights battles of the 60s, and for a couple decades afterward, but today, this is simply a tool of the left to keep people apart, not bring them together. I digress...

So... should this obvious, immorality be accepted into our armed forces? Well, ask yourself this: Should we allow bestiality to be openly accepted in the service? Maybe Seaman Jones could bring his sheep on board and keep it in the bilge? How about the transgendered? Should we allow polygamy to be acceptable in the service? How about murderers and rapists? They have rights, right? Why even keep them in jail? What about officers and subordinates? Are we not infringing on their rights to have free love wherever, and whenever they wish? Why not?

The answer is NO. There is a reason THIS life choice, and many others, are not openly acceptable in society.

For those of you who will decry equality for all, I wholeheartedly agree with you. This is a free country. If you want to be gay, fine. If you want to pray to the devil... FINE. No one is saying you cannot. As individuals, we accept the consequences of our actions. That is not the argument here.

The debate is over morality-- right and wrong acts. If we are going to let gay people get married, serve openly, and have special rights as a protected class in our society, then why have laws at all? To the left there is no right and wrong, only shades of gray. To the left there is no truth, except maybe, the truth that there are NO truths. That is why this debate goes nowhere when we engage in these discussions.

Red, white, blue, green, yellow, or purple --you should be allowed to serve your country. This life choice is better kept in the privacy of the bedroom, not hanging out on his/her sleeve as a badge of pride.

The acceptance of the gay lifestyle is a true mark of where our society is heading. And it is not heading in the right direction.

Copyleft| 2.9.10 @ 2:28PM

Interesting argument. Would you care to explain why the beliefs of one branch of one religion should have any influence on how the government determines military policy?

After all, this is a SECULAR government we have; the teachings of your church may matter to you, but they're irrelevant to setting policy.

JP| 2.9.10 @ 8:06PM

You may find this a surprise, but even religious people have a voice.

Liberty or Death| 2.9.10 @ 3:34PM

Well, this is where we may disagree.

Our laws and government were founded on Christian principles (by Christian, I am referring to all the common denominations: Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran etc.). Freedom, being one of the primary Christian principles. God gives us all the freewill to chose or reject Him. So, the Constitution was framed with these very, moral ideas, by men who trusted and loved God. Yeah, there were a few who probably didn't believe in God, but there always are...

I think to turn our back on, or deny, our country's founding principles is to undo what the United States is all about. We are a nation built on laws. Laws are based on social, cultural morals.

But really, that is beside the point.

Our government, secular yes, affords us the freedom (or used to anyway) to live our lives in accordance with whatever way we see fit, with very few limitations. The government is not beholden to any religion, but allows us the freedoms to practice, or not, in whatever way we see fit. Our laws protect the moral and the immoral alike.

A law allowing "gay" people to serve in the military is not necessary, because those freedoms exist already. As many posters have said, there are gays already serving. By not having a law, we have not prevented them from serving in the armed services. We are simply asking them to abide by the same codes of conduct other soldier, sailors, airmen, and marines do. Keep your sexual preferences where they belong, in the bedroom.

The issue is not about allowing gays in the service. It is about setting them apart, affording them "special" recognition and status, for being gay. There is no factual basis for affording a special status on gay people. Their sex acts should be kept in the bedroom, along with their hetero counterparts.

Copyleft| 2.10.10 @ 8:03AM

"We are simply asking them to abide by the same codes of conduct other soldier, sailors, airmen, and marines do."

That's not quite true. Straight soldiers are permitted to have pictures of their wives and girlfriends, to see their loved ones off-duty and talk to them on the phone, and mention them in casual conversation.

If a gay soldier does any of these things, he or she is thrown out. That's not equal treatment, and therefore is un-American.

Richard Baker| 2.9.10 @ 7:34PM

Liberty or Death:
Agree with your comments about special recognition, or as I say, special rights.

Jed| 2.10.10 @ 9:48PM

I was in the Marines back in the late 70's. It seems I was at sea more often than not. When you consider being at sea for three months at a stretch, maybe gays in the suck wouldn't be such a bad idea after all. You see, we could build ships with glory holes, and make the fags service everyone right in the head. In fact, let's cut holes in all the stalls.....WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!! The reason Denmark for example is open to all, is because they could not fight their way out of a paper bag. We need open queers in the military like I need another hole in my dick...

countryslim| 2.11.10 @ 5:11AM

Deviant behavior by the Insane should be allowed anywhere and will certainly Improve our Military and its worldwide standing..

I can't believe America has sunk so low morally in the name of equality for a perverted minority. I really don't feel sorry for the twisted gender-benders with their militant agenda to openly culture such a terminal illness and force it upon the MAJORITY of others who are more disciplined in promoting positives for Humankind.

Mark Small| 2.12.10 @ 4:17AM

There seems to be much ignorance here.

There is no homosexual gene. Heterosexual is a scientific term denoting two sexes required for producing offspring. heterosexual is a state of being that can be checked -there can not be a don't ask don't tell policy for a state of being; there is howver, a DADT policy for an activity.

The fact is that heterosexuals prefer to or choose to engage in homosexual activity. These people are not normal -they are abnormal -calling the activity normal by conflating it with homosexual penguins; that is bizarre... Almost as bizarre as suggesting eating our young is normal because animals do it...

Putting lipstick on a pig does not change the fact that it is a pig. Homosexual sex will never be accepted by society as normal and is only tolerated because of the human dignity recognized of those that watch in disgust those that act like penguins...

Missy| 2.13.10 @ 3:52AM

If we allow open homosexuality in the military we will deserve all the gay activist crap that will rain down on us as a result.

Our military is not a social experiment and should not be treated as such.

Recruitment will plummet and our national security will be compromised as a result.

Proceed at your own risk, people.

F KRAUTNER| 2.15.10 @ 11:51AM

The military is double stupid for kicking out dozens of gay linguists who speak, read and write in Urdu, Arabic etc. The move is so braindead that only a military moron could have endorsed it.

The country lost the most qualified linguists they had to understand what the enemy is saying and thinking. These are the people who can put a fine point the meaning of inflection, tone of voice etc that defies direct word for word translation. The best of them were discharged.

This is the price to be paid for minding other people's business.

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 2:14AM

Who are you to judge those on the frontlines who are doing the fighting and the dying, liberal clown? What about their wants and needs?

Easy for you to whine about fairness when they have to pay the price.

Guess you should mind your own business, hypocrite.

Canacreations| 8.9.10 @ 3:06AM

Is there some type of idiot gene rampant in the US.

First off I find it hard too believe that the Tampa Police department has 60,000 members like the Canadian Military.

2md 25 Member nations in NATO. Only nations that do not allow open service the US and Turkey.

Total Canadian Losses in Afghanistan are now approaching 300. Survivor Benefits paid to same sex spouses from those losses are now at 23.

There has been no drop in recruitment in those 23 Educated nations.

However US recruitment has been tumbling for years.

The estimate today is there are almost 60,000 GLBT members in your military currently serving.

God has nothing to do with any of this.

And yes there are sequences of genes related to "gayness" as well a neonatal hormonal hot spots.

So yes they and me and others are indeed Born Gay. As you would find out if you did not get your information from Focus on the Family or the Family Research Foundation and instead picked up a copy of a peer reviewed article or two.

Lerro| 10.27.10 @ 5:54PM

I wouldn't advise playing political games with the U. S. Military personnel. Everyone involved make it sound like there are just thousands and thousands of homosexuals who are waiting for their chance to "enhance the military" by their enlistment. Instead, there will probably be less to join the ranks; and still the politicians will make an issue about how great some Officer or Enlisted man is just by being there and offering to pay the ultimate sacrifice. I will tell you one thing; no homosexual has ever proven that his brain-disease makes him any more of a warrior, than just being a typical homosexual. By believing that just from prior military experience does not make me or anyone a bigot.

Puma x Alexander McQueen | 8.12.11 @ 11:30PM

is good

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|129 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

A Further Perspective

The Wrong Gay Line

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (189) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Richard Baker| 2.8.10 @ 6:58AM

RJ| 2.8.10 @ 11:10AM

democratsarefascists| 2.8.10 @ 2:20PM

Alan Brooks| 2.8.10 @ 8:08PM

Tim| 2.8.10 @ 7:01AM

Kathy| 2.8.10 @ 12:09PM

Tim| 2.8.10 @ 1:04PM

democratsarefascists| 2.8.10 @ 2:24PM

Ara| 2.8.10 @ 4:29PM

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 4:48PM

Christopher Holland| 2.8.10 @ 8:29PM

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 4:34PM

Tom Henning| 2.8.10 @ 7:14AM

Moe| 2.8.10 @ 9:44AM

Bill| 2.8.10 @ 12:43PM

Moe| 2.8.10 @ 5:26PM

Adam| 2.20.10 @ 9:14PM

Turkey Roostering| 2.8.10 @ 4:24PM

Tony| 2.17.10 @ 4:15PM

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 7:49AM

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 12:41PM

Bill| 2.8.10 @ 12:44PM

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 1:12PM

Bart Simpson| 2.8.10 @ 4:41PM

Margie| 2.9.10 @ 10:35AM

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 4:57PM

JP| 2.8.10 @ 7:59AM

Copyleft| 2.8.10 @ 3:07PM

Flee| 2.8.10 @ 3:53PM

Christopher Holland| 2.8.10 @ 8:39PM

Copyleft| 2.9.10 @ 12:16PM

ErictheRed| 2.9.10 @ 1:35PM

Copyleft| 2.9.10 @ 3:16PM

Missy| 2.13.10 @ 2:56AM

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 5:03PM

Copyleft| 2.10.10 @ 9:15AM

Missy| 2.13.10 @ 2:57AM

Tony| 2.17.10 @ 4:20PM

michigander_sandusky| 2.8.10 @ 8:28AM

hmd2010| 2.8.10 @ 8:40AM

Kathy| 2.8.10 @ 12:13PM

Tony| 2.17.10 @ 4:22PM

justme| 2.8.10 @ 12:40PM

Bible Thumper| 2.8.10 @ 4:50PM

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 5:11PM

Adheeb| 2.8.10 @ 8:42AM

Pete2| 2.8.10 @ 8:57AM

Adam| 2.20.10 @ 9:26PM

Tenn Slim| 2.8.10 @ 9:02AM

Aslanson| 2.8.10 @ 9:18AM

g| 2.8.10 @ 10:32AM

justme| 2.8.10 @ 1:22PM

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 5:16PM

Robert Ellestad| 2.8.10 @ 9:21AM

Louis Jenkins| 2.8.10 @ 9:23AM

jean| 2.8.10 @ 9:41AM

MarkD| 2.8.10 @ 11:31AM

NavyBrat| 2.8.10 @ 11:39AM

MarkD| 2.8.10 @ 12:17PM

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 12:35PM

MarkD| 2.8.10 @ 1:28PM

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 1:34PM

Who R U| 2.8.10 @ 10:01AM

Quartermaster| 2.8.10 @ 6:10PM

Richard| 2.8.10 @ 10:03AM

G| 2.8.10 @ 10:37AM

Nick| 2.8.10 @ 11:56AM

loulou| 2.8.10 @ 5:41PM

Tony| 2.17.10 @ 9:51PM

Adam| 2.20.10 @ 9:35PM

CK| 2.8.10 @ 10:07AM

Shawn Mills| 2.8.10 @ 10:22AM

Paul S.| 2.8.10 @ 10:59AM

SGT Medic| 2.8.10 @ 11:10AM

danfromatlanta| 2.9.10 @ 5:31PM