Comments on: Dem Rep: Time To “Tear Down” Barrier Blocking Gays From Military Service

By: mike

mike — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:01:55 +0000

I completely agree with Virgil, it’s about unit cohesion and effectiveness. And I really like how those who have never served feel the need to impose their liberal agenda on to those of us who have served and those that continue to serve. I see nothing wrong with the current policy, as a leader I can’t ask, so I don’t. Since when has a persons sexual preference given them any more rights than anyone else? If you sign up for the military your aware of the regulations so why is it that they want to challenge the system. I truly beleive this would cause more problems across the services than it would solve.

By: virgil

virgil — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:11:26 +0000

Being a retired military man, let me relate an experience from my service in Vietnam(3 tours) a small unit I was in had two **** in it. We did not know this until one accused the other of being involved with a straight man. It put our little unit’s effectiveness in jeopardy with the disruption it caused. A military unit is like a chain it is no stronger than its weakest link. It has no place for petty jealouslies, that is why it is a rare occurance for a husband and wife to be assigned to the same unit. A small 65 man unit that I was in while in Germany(front line communications highly mobile) was severely hampered by 2 couples(husbands andwives) they were eventually separated into 2 different units to preserve the effectiveness of our unit.As for as sharing stories about my social life with a gay person,why should I since we do not have common interest. I do not wear my sexuality on my shirt sleeve and neither should you.

By: RCap

RCap — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:27:25 +0000

As far as my understanding goes, there are legitimate reasons for the policy. First off, you must understand that the Army does not and CANNOT follow an entirely free or democratic system. As a soldier I have to maintain a certain standard of behavior. The Army also regulates my appearance and physique. And we are also restricted as to who we can have close relations with, (fraternization, etc).
The issue is keeping sexual preferences separated. If **** openly display their preference, its the equivalent of a woman walking into a man’s locker room. This is legitimate because of the lack of personal space soldiers have. The tension can disrupt unit cohesion. The law does NOT keep LGBT soldiers from serving, it merely asks them to regulate their behavior in a similar fashion to straight soldiers in order to maintain unit cohesion. I personally have no problem with ****, but I would prefer that this, or similar legislation remain in place.

By: jeff

jeff — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:20:13 +0000

For those of you who say “wait”, please keep in mind that this is a “faceless” policy simply because a face cannot be given to it until the servicemember has already been thrown out.

I have been serving for 17 years, waiting for the day when I can quit lying or avoiding conversations where my personal my come up. For those of you who think that is easy, think about how many times a day at work you discuss or mention your spouse, family, girlfriend/boyfriend, or even a date you went on the night before. Now imagine that if you mentioned any of the above, you would be fired.

It may be selfish, but I can honestly say “screw political capitol”. This issue is my, and many others, lives. Politics is too fickle. A republican take over in 2010 pretty much guarantees that I will retire from the military the same way I served, beholden to the personal moral code of others who I will never meet. I’d like to retire knowing that I did serve honorably, with the country who I have offered my life to awknowledging that I was worthy of that honor.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:39:21 +0000

Also, we don’t ask for special rights. We ask for basic rights. The United States boasts of freedom and justice and equality. Let’s live true to our creed at last!

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:36:46 +0000

Mr. Thayer, the heterosexual relationships I have been in were like rape to me. Are you a proponent of domestic rape, sir? If so, I truly pity your wife….

I’d love to be able to be with my girlfriend and not feel ashamed and scared whenever we’re out in public together. I’m a soldier. Don’t I deserve to stand tall?

By: Anthony

Anthony — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:56:05 +0000

I can say from still being active duty in the military, that I for one, would love for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy to be rescinded. Maybe then, I and other Marines I know, would be able to come out of the closet about it, and stop living a lie that is tearing us up inside. It would make us a better military overall.

By: John Bates Thayer

John Bates Thayer — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:34:12 +0000

If “gay” men and women really do want to get married wouldn’t it make more sense for homosexual men to marry lesbian women? After all, they’d still end up, ‘er, find themselves married to a person of the same sexual persuasion as they were, wouldn’t they? Besides, if they so chose they could even have their own children without having to bother with finding sperm donors or surrogates. Sounds like a “win-win” policy to me.

By: John Bates Thayer

John Bates Thayer — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:32:34 +0000

I get sick and tired of liberal bed wetters whining about being “homosexual, bisexual, trans-sexual, transvestites, etc., etc.” There is no such thing as homosexuality or other “alternative” forms of sexuality. Some people just don’t get *** right, that’s all. I don’t care if you have *** with a fire plug. Your “*** life” doesn’t give you any special rights whether you are having *** with your wife or the tail pipe of your Harley-Davidson.

By: Jesus

Jesus — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:44:58 +0000

Well, If I were gay, I wouldn’t trust the military to protect my rights. A gay person would probably be purposely killed by friendly fire (murdered by some nut case) and the military would probably cover it up. Why would anyone think that straight people are not crazy hypocritical idiots.

By: Publicus

Publicus — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:03:37 +0000

Seems to me this is poor timing on her part to distract away from her efforts to torpedo the Cramdown Legislation that is trying to move through Congress. It will be interesting to see if this thing even makes it out of committee. I suspect it will be read twice and forwarded to committee to be discussed at some later date.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:32:03 +0000

I don’t understand why gay marriage is not approved of let alone why gay individuals are not allowed in the army. We say that America is the land of the free without segregation or limitations. If we don’t accept everyone no matter their race, ethnicity or sexual preference, then we are making a mockery of everything we stand for.

By: Steamboater

Steamboater — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:29:18 +0000

It’s about time. If not now, when? Let’s see if Obama doesn’t turn wuss in the face of republican opposition. It’s bad enough he doesn’t support same-*** marriage (civil unions are not marriage), so let’s hope he keeps his word about DADT and doesn’t try to disuade Tauscher from going through with this.

I remember when I was drafted during the Vietnam War. It was the most humiliating experience of my life and something I will never forget or forgive. I was told to go to the shrink when I checked off a box that asked if you had “homosexual tendencies” (they could never believe that someone was a homosexual but just tended to be one). The shrink said they would take me in the army if I underwent psychiatric counseling so I asked him, “Are you telling me I have to be nuts to go into the army?” I left and never looked back but it was a terrible experience and not only having been asked what I was aked but the silly and stupid questions they asked me on a form to fill out e.g., “What’s a bull ****, name 3 homosexual bars in NY etc”. If Obama doesn’t follow through with his promises wth overtunring DADT, don’t bother to ask for our votes come 2012.

By: Dan Weston

Dan Weston — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:15:22 +0000

Why all the asterisks in these comments? Do they stand for gay, ****, ***, ****, (which if these are bleeped out spell gee, aye, why and eff, aye, gee respectively), or some other 4-letter word? I’m pretty sure minors have better things to read than The Plum Line, so why the prudery? We’re all adults, and censorship just feeds bigotry. Cockroaches hate sunlight, so enough of the ****. We can handle the truth.

Or the lie, which we can’t begin to oppose until we hear it clearly and uncensored.

By: Ben Murphy

Ben Murphy — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:57:34 +0000

I hope that her bill will have protections for **** in the military, not just revoke DADT. Odd that people who decry DADT are unaware of the history behind it and that it served as an imperfect layer of protection for **** in service for a number of years.