Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Fails

[D_Rod Staffinbone]

it's not just the republicans, where was obama, the "fierce advocate" for gay rights?
gays soldiers, some of whom are currently in combat, obviously have more guts than the politicians in washington.

jfk wrote a book, "profiles in courage", about leaders who had the guts to speak out, usually when public opinion was against them. someone should write a sequel, "profiles of jellyfish", and name the most spineless leaders of our generation, who backed down at the exact moment it was most important to speak out.

from the 1976 film "network", still relevant today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q

 

[MalakingTiti]

Probably you would have opposed federal anti-lynching laws because the total number of people (mostly blacks) being lynched was not very great.

Mostly blacks? Try only black.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Mostly blacks? Try only black.

No, Fre is right this time. Mostly.
Some Japanese Americans were also reported to be lynched in the early 1940s during World War II when our country engaged in Japanese-American internment after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

[B_jeepguy2]

they don't kick that many gays out so why worry about.

The only gays who get kicked out are usually ones who do something stupid like hitting on someone they work with or are guys they are looking for an excuse to get rid of. I worked on an Army base for 5 years and knew a bunch of gays and none of them were getting kicked out and pretty much everyone knew they were gay too.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

The only gays who get kicked out are usually ones who do something stupid like hitting on someone they work with or are guys they are looking for an excuse to get rid of.

In other words, it's still discrimination.
Because what if a guy hit on a female soldier? Exactly... nothing.

 

[FRE]

Mostly blacks? Try only black.

No; it was not only blacks who were lynched. Jews and other white were also lynched, but in much smaller numbers.

 

[FRE]

The only gays who get kicked out are usually ones who do something stupid like hitting on someone they work with or are guys they are looking for an excuse to get rid of. I worked on an Army base for 5 years and knew a bunch of gays and none of them were getting kicked out and pretty much everyone knew they were gay too.

I've been told that in the armed services, most guys constantly talk about girl friends and sexual encounters. Many hire prostitutes. Those who don't engage in such talk and behavior are suspect. To avoid falling under suspicion, many gay men constantly invent stories; some even make a point of being seen with prostitutes. If they don't, they risk being discharged.

 

[FRE]

Fre, I hope your comment is not addressed to Luka as it seems, since he's on our side here.

The estimate I've come up with for the number of servicemembers discharged under DADT since it took effect in 1994 is conservatively 13,000 at least. Of course that doesn't take into account the untold 10's of thousands discharged for being gay before the policy was in place. Accurate statistics for those are nearly impossible to determine, since the discharges often did not specifically state that as the reason.

It was addressed to Luke. Apparently I misconstrued what he posted, probably because of failure to read carefully all the previous posts. From your comment, apparently Luke's post was satire. Therefore, I herewith apologize to Luke.

 

[maxcok]

The only gays who get kicked out are usually ones who do something stupid like hitting on someone they work with or are guys they are looking for an excuse to get rid of. I worked on an Army base for 5 years and knew a bunch of gays and none of them were getting kicked out and pretty much everyone knew they were gay too.

Your personal ancedotal expericience aside, speaking as one who's been engaged in this issue a long time, well before DADT, I can tell you you're dead wrong. There have been many 'witch hunts' over the years at various military bases, and more recently at foreign language institutes, designed to actively and specifically search for gay servicemembers to oust. In addition, it's not uncommon at all for someone to be discharged who never discloses their orientation and on the flimsiest of evidence, anonymous emails for example. Many, many fine servicemembers have been discharged simply because someone in their unit, or even in the civilian world, took a dislike to them for reasons completely unrelated to their job performance or their orientation. Seems to me the "don't tell" part of the policy ought to extend to everyone, not just the gay servicemembers.

It was addressed to Luke. Apparently I misconstrued what he posted, probably because of failure to read carefully all the previous posts. From your comment, apparently Luke's post was satire. Therefore, I herewith apologize to Luke.

Good, I'm glad you cleared that up. I don't think his post was satire, though your mistake may have been taking it that way. That's just how the panda talks. :wink:

Anyway, welcome back, Fre. We haven't seen you around lately.

 

[FRE]

Your personal ancedotal expericience aside, speaking as one who's been engaged in this issue a long time, well before DADT, I can tell you you're dead wrong. There have been many 'witch hunts' over the years at various military bases, and more recently at foreign language institutes, designed to actively and specifically search for gay servicemembers to oust. In addition, it's not uncommon at all for someone to be discharged who never discloses their orientation and on the flimsiest of evidence, anonymous emails for example. Many, many fine servicemembers have been discharged simply because someone in their unit, or even in the civilian world, took a dislike to them for reasons completely unrelated to their job performance or their orientation. Seems to me the "don't tell" part of the policy ought to extend to everyone, not just the gay servicemembers.

Good, I'm glad you cleared that up. I don't think his post was satire, though your mistake may have been taking it that way. That's just how the panda talks. :wink:

Anyway, welcome back, Fre. We haven't seen you around lately.

I made a mistake with my spam filter and just corrected it, so I am receiving notices now.

 

[Bbucko]

I'm surprised no one has posted this yet, but a stand-alone repeal of DADT passed the House this afternoon.

Now it's all up to the Senate, where Harry Reid will either make it happen or suffer the consequences. One thing I find perplexing is Scott Brown's reticence from signing on. How is he best representing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the first state to legalize same-sex marriage and which is in favor of lifting the ban by enormous majorities) by playing along with McCain and DeMint?

Isn't he supposed to be a moderate? He's hardly a Teabagger, after all.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

No, Fre is right this time. Mostly.
Some Japanese Americans were also reported to be lynched in the early 1940s during World War II when our country engaged in Japanese-American internment after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

No; it was not only blacks who were lynched. Jews and other white were also lynched, but in much smaller numbers.

According to Wikipedia, the Tuskegee Institute reported that between 1880 and 1951, there were 3,437 African-Americans lynched and 1,293 whites.
I'm surprised that there wasn't a far greater discrepancy.

 

[FRE]

According to Wikipedia, the Tuskegee Institute reported that between 1880 and 1951, there were 3,437 African-Americans lynched and 1,293 whites.
I'm surprised that there wasn't a far greater discrepancy.

Yes, most of us did expect a far greater difference between the number of blacks and whites lynched. However, if one considers that there were far more whites, then obviously the impact on the black population was much greater.

For years, attempts to have anti-lynch laws passed in the U.S. Congress failed. The argument against such laws was that they would violate states' rights. One might reasonably suppose that that argument was simply disguised racism. I believe that that was an important factor, but not the only factor.

For many years, people were killed by boiler explosions on river boats. There were attempts to get federal safety laws enacted, but states' rights was used as a reason not to.

Although racism is still a problem and probably will be for a long time, we have come a long way towards ending racism. It's a problem on which we must keep working while knowing that it may never be totally ended.

Those of us who happen to be gay cannot complain about having our rights violated unless we respect the rights of others and work to support social justice for all people.