AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.
Click here to visit the new home of Politics Daily!
The current policy, which says the military will not pry into a service member's personal lives if he keeps his sexual orientation private, has been overturned by a U.S. District Court in California. But an Appeals court issued a stay of the lower court order, so the policy remains in effect. A gay rights group, the Log Cabin Republicans, has asked the Supreme Court to take the case.DADT is a Clinton era policy and not a law, the UCMJ is the LAW regarding homosexuality (and other sexual offenses)in the military, and will not change if this policy is "reversed".
November 06 2010 at 11:28 PM PermalinkHere is the thing, you can fire gay and effeminate males just for being gay and effeminate AND, you can sexually assault gay and effeminate males in the workplace AND in public schools. Title VII does NOT protect gay and efeminate males from harassment. Please NEVER repeal DADT until you change Title VII. God Bless Everyone.
November 06 2010 at 11:22 PM PermalinkApparently the military doesn't know what they are fighting for. If they are not fighting to protect the rights of ALL citizens, then they need to go home. If there truly were a problem with unit cohesion, it would be because the red-necked homophobic straight soldier caused the problem. Why aren't they advocating kicking HI out instead? The general is wrong and needs to go. His views are based on the premise that the most disciplined organization in thw world is unable to be disciplined to realize that gay people exist, have a right to exist, and have a right to co-exist on a equal basis as everyone else. It must be a horrible thing to be a bigot and to realize that other people are your equals.
November 06 2010 at 11:20 PM PermalinkI completely agree with the marine Commandant...dont ask dont tell is the right way to go and anyone wanting to serve is welcome under the ruling. I served in the old navy of the fifties and know that living conditions can be very restrictive and crowded and if someone is gay and wants to serve let him be silent about it.
November 06 2010 at 11:19 PM Permalink +2Well said, Im glad I didn't konw who was queer and who was not... I didn't want to. Im just grateful they were there.
November 06 2010 at 11:17 PM Permalink -1Here we go again, excuse after excuse after excuse. How many gay troops have made the ultimate sacrifice while having to lie about who they really were? Just because your name is Amos or McCain doesn't mean you have the right to ban people who want to serve under the pretense of combat effectiveness, gays have served this country since the Revolutionary War. Mr. President, man up and make the right decision to put don't ask, don't tell into the history books. I served in VietNam with guys who were gay and one of them saved my life.
November 06 2010 at 11:17 PM PermalinkIt's funny how people who don't serve (B, for instance) and don't know like to make comments. If there is no cohesion, things fall apart. This general has been in the Corp for a long time and he knows how to lead some of the finest warriors into battle. I'm not against gays in the military, but I am also more for combat effectiveness. The fog of war is bad enough without fear of one's comrade. Yeah it sucks, but that's the way it is. The opinion of General Amos on the matter of gays in the military has nothing to do with his leadership ability. B, what makes you think you know anything about military leadership. I also find it funny how so many STRAIGHT Americans are in an uproar over this! To me it is just an excuse to whine about things. We need our boys to be sharp when they are out among the RPGs, IEDs, and suicide bombers. Our boys are putting their lives on the line for you ungrateful people and you have the gall to criticize those who fight for our freedom and yours. I seriously don't care who's on your arm when you're on leave, but I do care about combat effectiveness. Liberals, you have the election to whine about now. Move on from this issue.
November 06 2010 at 11:11 PM PermalinkSpikeritz: OH, PLEASE! General David Petraeus, Sec. of Defense Bob Gates, Admiral Mullen (Chairman/Joint Chiefs), and ONE HUNDRED & FOUR (104) retired Admirals & Generals DISAGREE with this ONE Marine. ALL FAVOR DROPPING DADT to improve the security of our nation. 26 other nations, including many who've had troops serve side-by-side with ours, have LONG permitted gays to serve openly in their ranks, with NO IMPACT to their combat effectiveness -- or to ours. This Marine is CLUELESS.
November 06 2010 at 11:07 PM PermalinkThis one Marine is correct and NOT clueless, those other militarys you mention are a joke, like the French army of WW2. They would not be able to fight on their own with out our troops there. Not an opinion but a fact.
November 06 2010 at 11:19 PM Permalink +2dfenceatty: So you say homosexuals have ruined a perfectly good word "gay." Well you breeders have ruined many perfectly good words such as "queer", "faggott", "sissy" etc. etc. Look up the word "gay" and you will find that it has many meanings including how prostitutes dress. The word "homosexual" has only been around since the mid 19th century which is about where your brain is.
November 06 2010 at 11:04 PM Permalink -1the admiral is not only entitled to his opinion but morally obligated to give on issues that will effectthe corp.He is also required to carry out the commands of the civilian goverenment.Allowing gays who have been serving with honer under an unfairly imposed cloud will create minor problems that can be dealt with through military rules and codes of conduct.IT will be much less contentious then the intergration of blacks in 1948 under truman and is just as well an idea whose time has come and the right thing to do . If our troops are fighting for freedom it should be for everyones!
November 06 2010 at 11:02 PM Permalink +1Follow Politics Daily
POPULAR
News From Our Partners







Top News
More News
More on Aol
Local News
More Blog/Sites
Sites and Services
84 Comments