The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Thoughts on DADT Repeal

Text Size

Thoughts on DADT Repeal

By Aaron Goldstein on 12.19.10 @ 3:57AM

Let me state right off the bat that I agree with the Senate's decision to repeal DADT.

Frankly, I find arguments against allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military are neither compelling nor convincing.

Earlier today, I was following the debate between John Guardiano and John Tabin over the merits of repealing DADT and was struck by this passage Guardiano wrote in response to Tabin:

Why, then, have the ban on openly gay service in the first place?

Because sexual dynamics are inherently disruptive and you want to keep these dynamics in check. Because sexuality is a behavioral characteristic which can and does shape human behavior, and in profound and often unsettling ways. And because in the Marines, infantry and other combat arms especially, esprit de corps requires a strong sense of brotherly love, not same-sex attraction and allure.

Homosexuality, in fact, is incompatible with a shared sense of manhood and masculinity that binds infantry units together into a brotherhood. Hence the reasonable compromise measure, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which allows gay men and women to serve, albeit discreetly.

I find Guardiano's reasoning to be flawed. First, Guardiano argues that admitting military personnel who are openly gay undermines comradery. But that argument is predicated on the assumption that because someone is gay thus he or she is automatically attracted to every single member of the same sex. Are men physically attracted to all women? Are women physically attracted to all men? The answer is an emphatic no. So where is it written that all gay men must be physically attracted to every man in the universe? Indeed, the same question can be applied to lesbians. The answer is an equally emphatic no.

Now I don't deny there are our military personnel who have reservations about homosexuality. As such I don't doubt that some of our military personnel would be uncomfortable serving with those who are openly gay. But I think that says more about the character of uncomfortable military personnel than it does about the soldier who is openly gay. The only reason a soldier would be uncomfortable serving with a soldier who is gay is the fear of the gay soldier making unwanted advances towards him or her. Again, we have an underlying assumption that the gay soldier is automatically attracted to every single member of the same sex. It is an assumption that rests on a foundation of arrogance, conceit, fear and irrationality.

The second flaw in Guardiano's argument is his assertion that homosexuality is incompatible with military service but finds DADT an acceptable compromise. So let's see if I get this straight. Let us say you have soldier has served with distinction in combat, has demonstrated leadership skills and is respected by those both superior and subordinate in rank. But then it is found out that soldier is gay. Is that soldier suddenly rendered incompetent? Are all his combat achievements negated? Is the respect he has earned wiped out? Of course not. Or at least it shouldn't be. But if a soldier is rendered incompetent, has his combat achievements and loses the respect of his superiors and subordinates then that tells me the military values sexual orientation over competence and character.

If that is the case then let us not forget that it was no less a figure than Barry Goldwater, who in opposition to DADT when it was first proposed in 1993, said, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

View all comments (45) | Leave a comment

Paris of Hilton| 12.19.10 @ 4:29AM

In 1993, Barry Goldwater was a senile old man, completely dominated by a young liberal wife. Tell me again why I should care about his opinion?

Personally I couldn't care less about this, if the military were not negatively impacted and there were no broader cultural effects, but comeon, don't be disingenuous . This is a huge deal for the political gay movement.

Gay culture, with full partnership rights and lawsuits over "discrimination" (lady gaga jokes?) will now become the routine in the military. The legality of gay marriage in the military will be used by Justice Kennedy to end gay marriage throughout the country. So this is the end of the historical uniqueness in this country of marriage between men and women.

This is to gays what racial desegregation in the military was for African-Americans. If you wanted to downgrade marriage between men and women in this country, you should be very happy tonight. Gays are now a full special class and the lawsuits will be endless until no distinctions are made in any aspect of life (watch out boy scouts as well!).

Will| 12.19.10 @ 5:11AM

What a morale boost for our troops!, When we've got over-worked, under-paid, over-deployed military personnel fighting two wars, with a possible third on the way, how do you reward them? By having them tip-toe around yet another obstacle! Yes, set 'em up like bowling pins, a joker in every deck! A new class of slacker, another Jonah comes aboard. More monkey-wrenchin' from the Hope n' Change gang. Stay tuned for the new Army Al-Qaeda brigades forming up to fight discrimination against THAT special interest group.

pookie| 12.19.10 @ 5:26AM

For me the most appalling thing about DADT was that it made the daily abrogation of honesty and integrity a requirement for devoted service to this nation.

It also gave others permission to devote their attention to surveilling those they hate/fear, and finding ways to out them. This has no place in our military.

This is not special treatment. It is restoring maturity, honesty, and fidelity to countless situations where a philanderer (Bill Clinton) signed into law the kind of deceptive moral standards he operated under.

The unrealistic and immature views of people who say things like the above two comments belie a terror of other people's personal lives, and indeed a fear of adulthood in general. The point of the DADT repeal was to lessen and simplify government oversight in personal decisions, and snooping into private life.

Aaron, you missed one point. Mature people can easily set boundaries, and trust other mature people to accept their "no" if approached with romantic or sexual invitations.

It is immature and adolescent psyches that project their own fears onto gay people, choosing to believe that gay people are out of control, promiscuous, or whatever. One must wonder what is behind that psychosexually (i.e., the idea that they are so incredibly attractive to gays that they will not be able to say no). Is it wishful thinking?

Ted| 12.19.10 @ 11:30PM

This is a load of PC nonsense. If mature people can set boundaries so well, why do we have so much friction in the military between men and women?

This had nothing to do with military anything. It was purely a political decision for a small, vocal constituency. This will have a huge negative impact on all people who are serving, regardless of orientation.

seanmom| 12.19.10 @ 5:41AM

But, wait. Why is the repeal of DADT an automatic switch to having gays serve openly? The condition of service previous to DADT was not that--it was a PROHIBITION on gays in the service. So why isn't that the default position upon repeal?

Dean from Ohio| 12.19.10 @ 7:07AM

You idiot (I use this advisedly)!

DADT was an awkward compromise, not considered policy. It was like agreeing to smoke only 1 pack of cigarettes per day for health's sake because the cigarette lobby bought off half of those present. Of course it was contradictory.

Your armchair assurance that "this person huddled up to me in my foxhole is (probably) not attracted to me" is cold comfort. You neglect the glaringly obvious characteristic of male homosexuality: promiscuity. Unrestrained male homosexuality ends in orgies in bathhouses, and
then in violent demands by those in power for sex with those just beyond their reach. Even male homosexuals who "marry" have an understanding that they get some on the side when they want it. It is sex, sex, sex--always on the make.

@ "It is an assumption that rests on a foundation of arrogance, conceit, fear and irrationality."

Your assumptions are based on spiritual blindness, moral foolishness, groupthink and utter ignorance. How many years did you spend in uniform?

Michael L. Hauschild| 12.19.10 @ 7:30AM

"I want to be a lavender Ranger."
The Ivy League is now "racing" to establish ROTC now that the ban is lifted. That will indeed be a campaign ribbon of note.

Pelligrino| 12.19.10 @ 7:55AM

Mr. Goldstein, you are wrong. The arguments against gay involvement in our U.S. military are fully compelling. Yesterday's vote on December 18th (while the people of America are focused on family reunions during the swift run-up to these precious holidays in the year), this vote was a travesty.

Last post I ever read from you. Period.

You certainly are some idiot from liberal Massachusetts that knows nothing of life.

I saw this coming, seeing the kinds of Am. Spec. posts you have done these past couple of weeks (an awful lot, what do you really do in life?) This one posted on a Sunday shortly before 4 a.m. Do you think someone somewhere is giving you props for your silly work ethic?

Maybe fewer writings with much more relection in between each one?

You're the problem. We have DADT and then its repeal because (young?) men like you don't seek God's wisdom; you, in all self-centeredness, use man's.

Given a brain by God, you cannot use it. Your choice (or so you think) and you don't.

You have no idea what the modern junior military leader contends with. We give them zero chance to suceed with the litany of liberal nonsense that opiners like you think inconsequential.

And you used the back-and-forth between luminaries like Guardiano and Tobin to form your final opinion?

Your brief quotation from Mr. Barry Goldwater? How old was he in 1993? Was he at the prime of his life? Was he still in a job? Do you know the full context (all the words spoken before and after that little quip)?

Shows you are still just a babe in the woods.

That's cheap journalism. Right now, I could probably travel to Plains, Georgia and get former President Jimmy Carter to say just about anything. Or do you spend no time with our nation's senior citizens?

Maybe this is a first-person quotation from Barry Goldwater? You were there? Where exactly were you in 1993?

Please 1) get a real job, 2) stop wasting your time with the poetry slam crowd, 3) get smart enough to depart the idiot cocoon of the USA's Northeast intellectual circuit, 4) consider what it would be to walk in the moccasins of today's military troop 3 or 4 times deployed in 5 years, 5) humble yourself.

How about this: You are not yet 35 years old; go enslist. See if any of our Armed Forces services branches will have you.

Then, after 4 or 5 years and 5 deployments, start writing again.

Our egos -- for all of us -- are our biggest stumbling block. Often our very ruin.

Don't waste your life. In the meantime, don't try to come across as an intelligent voice on issues of such national consequence.

You have much learning to do. And you need to learn about God's timeless truths.

martin j smith| 12.19.10 @ 8:08AM

My reason for supporting the repeal of DADT iis as follows; Though Jews were the prime focus of Hilter's desire to exterminate non aryans, so were Gays and numerous other groups. Today, fast foward we have a group of self-righteous LEFTIES who are all for repeal yet want to go to bed with Islamic terrorists and their supporters. Islamic terrorists do not tolerate Gays, who treat women by our standards very badly, whose system of justice is barbaric, and are trying to destroy our civilization. We should not emulate that kind of behavior. We should be supportive of anyone who is willing to give their life for our country. They are Americans too.

Oldefarte| 12.19.10 @ 11:37AM

You are incorrect BECAUSE you're concentrating your argument on the RIGHTS issue. Homosexuals now have suffieient rights, and this DADT issue is one concerning their potential ability to openly display their lifestype. We can all agree that any criminality/discrimination should/is able to be dealt with within the framework of the law [and certainly Sharia Law's allowance of criminality towards homosexuals is entirely wrong and should be protested against, but that is not the issue here]. Homosexuals however want unlimited access to their objects of sexual desire and to be able to flaunt their lifestyle. They already have the ability to serve in the military, as long as they keep their lifestyle in the closet [which is proper]!!!!

Margie| 12.19.10 @ 2:22PM

martin,

You're also comparing the intolerance of homosexuals by Islamist terrorists with that of those of us who reject it because God does.

The intolerance of a terrorist~ we all know what that means. Off with their heads.

DADT just meant keep your mouth shut about your perverse sexual choice of behavior. Don't talk about it while you are serving, and we won't ask you about it, either. Heh, I'd say that's a pretty big far cry from off with anyone's head, and murder.

Please, don't compare terroristic behavior to those of us who are for protecting our military men and women from having to deal with doing their duty unmolested. Pun intended. So sue me.

Framl| 12.20.10 @ 2:38AM

If there is any difference between Islamists and Christianists, it is because secularists like myself hobble Christianists in the desire to murder those not like them. If you have any doubt about this, then take a look at what unrestrained Christian influence has done in Africa to legitimize the imprisonment and extrajudicial execution of gays.

Anthony| 12.19.10 @ 5:15PM

Homosexuals in the SA helped bring Hitler to power, without their support, he probably never would have been named chancellor.

Brian| 12.19.10 @ 8:30AM

20 years of pro gay propaganda in public schools funded by Repubs is finally paying off. We'll see next election if their treachery goes unanswered.

Glen H| 12.19.10 @ 8:33AM

"Last post I ever read from you. Period.
You certainly are some idiot from liberal Massachusetts that knows nothing of life."

Wow, what a compelling argument. Shouldn't you place all TAS contributors on notice that if they ever publish anything you disagree with, they are toast?

Kasandra| 12.19.10 @ 9:12AM

Question: where does this leave military chaplains who both by conscience and vows believe that homosexual practice is immoral?

JP| 12.19.10 @ 11:27AM

Adm Mullen said they can leave and don't let the door hit them on thier asses.

Sean| 12.19.10 @ 9:30AM

I can see it now. Join the few, the proud, the gay, the Marines. Huge recruitment centers in San Francisco and West Hollywood.

There is a ban on gays in the military because the military use to have moral standards.

Goldstein reasoning is flawed. Why doesn't the military have men and women showering together? A gay man is going to be attracted to the majority of the guys he showers with. The same as a normal man is going to be attracted to most fit women.

tatosian| 12.19.10 @ 9:46AM

"But that argument is predicated on the assumption that because someone is gay thus he or she is automatically attracted to every single member of the same sex."
Actually the argument rests more upon Guardiano's " sexual dynamics are inherently disruptive and you want to keep these dynamics in check" statement.
Is Goldstein saying none of those homosexuals, who are attracted to and have sex with men, will find any hetero service men attractive? And is he further saying that those homosexuals, who define themselves strictly according to their sexual activities (you know, the sex with men thing) WON'T pursue the hetero servicemen who have no interest in homosexuality? That's not gonna happen because why? Because homosexuals don't find all men attractive?
No flawed reasoning there.
" I think that (heterosexual "discomfort") says more about the character of uncomfortable military personnel than it does about the soldier who is openly gay. The only reason a soldier would be uncomfortable serving with a soldier who is gay is the fear of the gay soldier making unwanted advances towards him or her. Again, we have an underlying assumption that the gay soldier is automatically attracted to every single member of the same sex."
Of course. The fault lies with the uncomfortable military personnel, not the homosexual.
Goldstein's confused.
Heterosexual men aren't uncomfortable with or frightened by homosexuals and their tiresome advances. Heterosexual men simply don't like unwanted homosexual advances. Those advances, as Goldstein calls them, are unwanted, but they will happen. They occur now despite Goldstein's assurance that homosexuals don't find all men attractive.
Why do hetero service members have to adjust their behaviors and beliefs to please homosexuals? What is it precisely that the homosexual contributes to military service that demands that entire institution be changed to make homosexuals comfortable?
And getting back to the infantry thing that Guardiano mentions; what happens when a tough guy grunt spurns one of those unwanted advances with a hard right to the jaw? Is the tough guy looking at office hours or worse? What happens to the unwanted advancer? Is his privileged status preserved in the military?
"But if a (homosexual) soldier is rendered incompetent, has his combat achievements and loses the respect of his superiors and subordinates then that tells me the military values sexual orientation over competence and character."
Actually, with the repeal of dadt, the military will soon value " sexual orientation over competence and character."
Goldstein finally gets something right.

Lesser Weevil| 12.19.10 @ 3:33PM

The daily creepiness of catering to "open" homosexuals and their issues will certainly make military service that much less tolerable. But the real time bomb is the institutional corruption that will take place once a "gay" network is embedded in the hierarchy, pursuing their own agenda.

toadold| 12.19.10 @ 9:53AM

What is the plan B if the repeal of DADT leads to an overall loss in retention and recruitment infrantry unit numbers? There is none that I can see. The loss of Senior NCO could be particulary fatal. If the "experiment" fails are the politicians prepared for the blow back and repercusions in civilian society?

Bruce Berger| 12.19.10 @ 11:55AM

I think Plan B should be that the Aaron Goldsteins, the ones who viewed this issue strictly through the prism of being a rights issue, as opposed to what it should have been, which is a military preparedness issue, should be conscripted into the services.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.19.10 @ 9:59AM

Next, we'll be hearing about how reparations will be necessary to "right the wrongs." Whatever that means.

gsr| 12.19.10 @ 10:42AM

The truth is, those of us who have served realize, homosexual men are 9 times out of 10, slightly effeminate, overly sensitive and just plain wimpy to be blunt. They lack aggressiveness and the "killer instinct".

The homosexual agenda is advancing nicely, just like the secularization of the nation and the "de-clawing" of the United States is progressing nicely, under Hussein bin Obama.

His goal of a de-clawed, wimpy, feminized USA is becoming reality.

Or to put in still another way.........with all the issues this country has, our esteemed whores in DC waste time on gays in the armed forces? Puh-leeeze.

Oldefarte| 12.19.10 @ 11:16AM

Aaron's arguments are incorrect! Homosexuals can/do/have served in the military prior to Clinton/DADT,etc. The question is one of the OPENNESS of their lifestyle, and as long as they kept same IN THE CLOSET, their service would not be hindered. Alternatively, they wish to COME OUT OF THEIR CLOSET, in general life and in the military, and to flaunt their homosexuality. Obviously the homosexual community at large want the repeal of DADT and this openness, so that they can celebrate their openess in a GAY PRIDE STYLE within the military ranks [just as they do in general with their digusting parades in large cities usually]. They also with to have more access to confined quarters within military life with same sex individuals to apease their arousal purposes. The same exact circumstances occurred previously within the Catholic Church, and homosexual priests used their immoral lusts to destroy the lives of many small male children who were their victims. Now these homosexuals want to expand their targeted pursuits towards military members, not for the purpose of expansion/maintenance of their existing rights, but for their intended targeted potential objects of desire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank| 12.20.10 @ 2:41AM

Dirty old man, those priests were pedophiles, not homosexuals. You have a right to your own opinions (fantasies?), but you don't have a right to your own version of the facts.

Dean from Ohio| 12.23.10 @ 11:03PM

More than 80% of the children they preyed upon were boys. That makes the perpetrators nearly all homosexual, doesn't it?

Here's some statistics reported to summarize the findings of the church report at http://www.weirdload.com/johnjayreport.pdf

* US clerics (priests, deacons, bishops, etc.) accused of abuse from 1950-2002: 4,392.
About 4% of the 109,694 serving during those 52 years.
* Individuals making accusations: 10,667.
* Victims' ages: 5.8% under 7; 16% ages 8-10; 50.9% ages 11-14; 27.3% ages 15-17.
* Victims' gender: 81% male, 19% female
* Duration of abuse: Among victims, 38.4% said all incidents occurred within one year; 21.8% said one to two years; 28%, two to four years; 11.8% longer.
* Victims per priest: 55.7% with one alleged victim; 26.9% with two or three; 13.9% with four to nine; 3.5% with 10 or more (these 149 priests caused 27% of allegations).
* Abuse locations: 40.9% at priest's residence; 16.3% in church; 42.8% elsewhere.
* Known cost to dioceses and religious orders: $572,507,094 (does not include the $85 million Boston settlement and other expenses after research was concluded). (Hartford Courant, 2/27/04)

Purple Lips| 12.19.10 @ 11:24AM

Mr Goldstein et als it appears never served in the military. And most of the proponents who have (including those with flag rank) are political generals of the worst sort.

One of the first things Congress will now have to do is make changes to the UCMJ and remove the prohibitions against sodomy, same gender displays of affection, etc... Can't wait to see the first same-sex couple at Open Mess functions.

If Congress fails to make the necessary changes, the federal courts surely will. And once the courts inject themselves into this issue, there is no turning back. Homsexuals will begin demanding rights to co-habitate; they will demand the right t "fair housing"; they will demand the right to host gay events, dances, to express thier sexuality through changes in dress codes; the transgendered will demand the right to "serve"; they will demand the right to marry and adopt children. And of couse, through all of this straight males and females will be told to show "sensitivity", and in Adm Mullens words to "suck it up".

The exodus of straight and Christian servicemen will not be apparent at first. During the Post-Vietnam Era, it took 7 years to feel the effects of the new Hip, Pot Smoking Military. I remember seeing the stats first hand in 1979: over half of the Navy ships were docked due to shortages of NCOs, and crewmen (many slots went empty due to the high drop-out rate); only 15% of the USAF TAC fighters could deploy during an Christmas Alert (even the pilots didn't take thier duties seriously); many Army units at Ft Hood and in Germany were unfit for deployment due to drug and discipline problems.

Rentention, depsite the inducements of the GI Bill and bonuses, was at an all-time low. Everyone knew the military was a joke, a place for the undisciplined. Drug use was rampant, and most COs turned a blind eye to it or took part in it themselves.

Goldstein et als. do not understand how a growing gay sub-culture can subvert an institution like the military. The ignore what an openly sub culture did the the Catholic Priesthood. To people like Goldstein, it is a purely intellectual issue. They are so full of thier own abstractions that they cannot see the obvious.

An openly gay sub-culture will do more to destroy our military than anything the Taliban or Al Qaida can do.

Anthony| 12.19.10 @ 5:22PM

One hundred percent right on all points. We barely survived the military of the late seventies, but were able to survive it because Reagan instituted automatic discharges for anyone testing positive for drugs. No future president will be able to discharge anyone for testing positive for homosexuality. It will take a few years, then maybe someone will call for a draft, which I don't think the American people will ever stand for again. I guess it's time to learn Mandarin.

Pelligrino| 12.20.10 @ 4:04AM

The best post of the day (Sunday) award goes to: Purple Lips.

Very well said. Thank you.

You are speaking from experience and you apply true wisdom.

AND you were obviously a leader who cared about issues FAR GREATER than oneself while serving. Thank you.

Everyone dodges the core issue: The strength and very viability of our nation imperiled because every core value AND norm of MILITARY jettisoned.

The military is about hardship, long-long hours, achieving impossible tasks AGAINST the odds, beating self-discipline into oneself and a unit. It is not to be a frail and sensitive environment. AND utlimately the military is 1) learning to do things you hope you'll never have to do on the battlefield or high seas, 2) maintaining a readiness to do swift carnage/these very ugly things on an enemy or ENEMIES (there are many) at ANY TIME.

Any leader who has "been there" (10 years or more under the permanent duress of real leadership) can already tell
you that today it is impossible to focus on training, the mission, readiness, and a warrior ethic. We ALREADY have every distraction (that's putting is mildly) known to man.

Our nation loses.

(our enemies -- they are many -- were cheering this weekend)

Everyone got on soon-to-be Speaker Boehner for weeping. Why? I weep for my nation -- and all the freedom loving lands of this world that depend upon us. (There are MANY.)

We won't be there for them. We won't be able to survive ourselves.

That is not a world you want to live in.

Truth| 12.19.10 @ 11:44AM

The core principal has been diminished by
"fairness" To equate homosexual discrimination with race discrimination is fataly flawed. Being homosexual is not racial nor is it genetic or inherited. If it were it would be heralded as the seconding coming. How many headlines and stories for the NY times and the rest of the media? Being gay is not just another race. it it a lifestyle not necessarily chosen but as a result of complicated sequences in development. I do not believe it can be consciously chosen. So then where does that put us with this issue. Gays have been a part of our culture from the beginning. In the beginning it was a sub culture and later became accepted in certain slices of society especially the arts and the service industry. Gay waiters and designers have always succeeded and have been accepted. What is different in the Military? The Military is all about order and the order if things. Its order is brutally honest and not political. It is a machine. It is also a brotherhood and sisterhood morally. It is biological in function. H It is an order. Being gay biologically is not in the order of life. Dadt was Clintons only lucid moment but it should have been expanded to not include third party accusations and witch hunts.

Oldefarte| 12.19.10 @ 11:45AM

Purple's excellent arguments are entirely correct. This will destroy our first class VOLUNTARY military, but that no doubt is exactly what the homosexual community and their supporters want to happen. This country is being attacked from within by the trojuned-horsed radicals that came out of their closets on 11/4/08!!!!!!

CalMark| 12.19.10 @ 12:40PM

Mr. Goldstein, have you ever served?

Ever shared close quarters with dozens of other men for weeks on end? That includes open bay sleeping arrangements and communal (I mean high-school style) shower rooms, toilet, and sink areas. If not, you have no idea what you're talking about and need to get off your high horse.

You, John Tabin (who foamed at the mouth, at length, about this on Friday), and other armchair moralists like Senators Ensign and Collins will suffer no consequences for your high-minded "morality." It's always easier to dictate morality in OTHER people's lives.

This is a horrible thing for our society and for our military. You disagree? Put your money where your mouth is: join the new, gay-friendly military.

As for the Armed Forces, prepare for a visit from the Law of Unintended Consequences. Weird twists that nobody expects, none of them good, cheerleading from the media and pious know-nothings like Goldstein and Tabin notwithstanding.

gdp| 12.19.10 @ 1:23PM

Here's one imminent oddity. What is the military going to do with openly gay soldiers so as not to offend our muslim allies? Are we going to stick to our guns and say that gays can serve openly in the military (but Christians can't)? Or will someone just explain that gays can serve openly in the military except in predominantly muslim countries where it might undermine our friendship and trust initiatives? If gays are asked to hide their gayness for the good of the cause, I assume that liberals will take offense. Will they also suddenly find offense in asking Christians to hide their Christianity?

I'm getting the popcorn out to watch how this unfolds.

btims| 12.19.10 @ 1:21PM

Serving in the Armed Forces is a NOT A RIGHT. You must meet the qualifications - mental, physical, character/moral/legal. At least that's the way it was for decades and decades. Now in our "Oprah-ized" society, it like everything, has become a "right".

Frank| 12.20.10 @ 2:43AM

If Jews had served under a DADT order in WWII, Auschwitz would still be open for business.

Trinity 31| 12.19.10 @ 1:39PM

Here's the only aspect of this whole debate that's relevant: does repeal of DADT strengthen or weaken the combat capabilities of the US military? If it weakens it, DADT must stay. If it strengthens it, DADT must go. We know what the status quo is with DADT. Those who advocate change muct make the case. And it's not about rights. It's about capabilities. So far, I have read NOTHING that makes the case for strengthening that capability. Anyone?

Yosemeti Sam| 12.19.10 @ 3:33PM

" ... Frankly, I find arguments against allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military are neither compelling nor convincing...."

OK then, follow your gospel and Christians will the Gospel!

bobmontgomery| 12.19.10 @ 8:46PM

".....says more about the character of uncomfortable military personnel....". Mr. Goldstein, that is a detestable comment. I am quite 'uncomfortable' with it and frankly it would behoove you to state what it is that qualifies you to cast aspersions on the character of US military personnel. Please do so or put a sock in it.

Pete| 12.19.10 @ 11:13PM

Will there be a corps of gay medics to attend to wounded gays?

greghawk| 12.20.10 @ 12:55AM

Military medical services have just put out an alert to recruit more trained proctologists. Imagine the run on the Treasury by those, now openly gay, suffering 'Service related' medical conditions. Un-B- f*ing-leivable!!

Tish| 12.20.10 @ 1:08AM

The military had a very efficient system for dealing with gays before Bill Clinton screwed it up with DADT. As long as service was the priority, no problem. When sexual preference became the priority, trouble often ensued because it meant someone wasn't doing his job. We already have military personnel whining that the only reason they weren't promoted was because they are gay. Yeah, make the military more like the privater sector --- that will really help on the battlefield.

Derek Leaberry| 12.20.10 @ 9:18AM

The Left has claimed another institution for itself with the homosexualization of the military. The American military was once an honorable institution filled with honorable men. As homosexuals are not honorable people, and the fact that homosexuals can now openly serve in the military, the military can no longer be an honorable institution. Conservatives within the military should prepare to leave when they can. Young Americans of a conservative bent should not consider joining the military. Conservatives should work to defund the military just as they should defund any left-wing institution.

john doeskii| 12.23.10 @ 12:28PM

Not well thought out. Tons of unintended consequences. For instance. This repeal will open the door for "Trans Gendered" soldiers. What barracks will they be assigned? Also, what about the partially trans gendered? Women who have had their breast removed and take hormones to be male but still have female genitial? Or men who take hormones and have breast implants but still have male genitial? Keep in mind that poor hormone maintenance dictates that when the artificial hormones wear off the previous chacracteristics return. Where will these creatures shower? Will female solders stay in the same baracks as "Chaz Bono"? Or would he/she shower with the men?