This week the democrats brought to the senate floor a bill which included a repeal of the antiquated, Clinton-era Don't Ask/Don't Tell (DADT) policy. We all know what that policy is so I won't go into it here. The measure failed to pass with a few democrats joining all (I think) republicans in voting against the bill. In the spirit of fairness I should mention that a number of the republicans who voted against the measure expressed a desire to overturn DADT but felt that other provisions in this bill precluded them from being able to support it. Now this is a common thing, to throw an amendment into a bill (such as a defense spending bill) which you know the opposing party would not support thus causing them to vote against a bill so that you can come out and say 'hey, these guys voted against increasing funding for our troops' when the reality is much more complex than that. So I took a breath and thought 'okay, let's see what is so awful about this bill that the republicans had to vote against it even if it meant that DADT doesn't get repealed.' I must be missing something. If anybody knows more about this bill than I do please enlighten me. I hear republicans complaints about how Harry Reid was greatly limiting the ability to introduce amendments to this bill and how the period of time in which the bill would be debated was being limited as well. I'm not sure how big those issues should really be. It doesn't appear to me that there are such awful things in this bill that you would vote against it. DADT wasn't even going to be repealed until a thorough poll of military commanders was taken in order to assess any potential negative effects of repealing that policy.
I think the republicans lose on this one. How is repealing DADT a bad thing? This is the height of hypocrisy in government. It was in 1990-whatever when Clinton installed it and it is today. If I'm a business owner and I fire or don't hire somebody based on their sexual preference I'm getting taken to the cleaners. We're talking lawsuits coming from every direction. Yet if you're the government/military you can exclude somebody based on whether they want to hold a girl's hand or a boy's?? This is just one of thousands of examples where government insists that they are above their own laws. We all have to include everybody regardless of race, religion, blah, blah, blah. And rightly so. But government doesn't have to. I'm very disappointed in the republican party. This is not what conservatives believe in. And it's not what Americans believe in. It's 2010, nobody is losing morale by having a gay guy working with them. It doesn't affect morale in my workplace, why do we think it would affect morale in the military? And even if it did would that work as an excuse for discrimination in MY business? Why not judge people based on the content of their character (or in this case their commitment to protecting the USA) and not on the gender of their romantic partners? We're fighting endless wars for heaven's sake, shouldn't we welcome absolutely anybody who is physically and mentally competent and passionate about defending the country? It's mind-blowing! In 50 years our society (if it exists) will assuredly look back to the early 21st century and wonder what in the world we were thinking.
Conservative ideas are good for this country. I think that conservative ideas are, in most cases, BEST for this country. Republicans used to espouse conservative ideas. They no longer do and I'm not convinced that Republicans have learned the lessons of 2006 and 2008 well enough that they will be able to govern this country any better than the democrats have been. I look forward to a Republican takeover of the House in November because we've got to slow down this train wreck that Obama has us on. But that alone is not the answer because although we're more likely to get conservative ideas from the Republican party, it's not a guarantee. If I have the option to vote for a conservative-leaning democrat I'll gladly do it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, you already know that I agree with you on this one. It just doesn't make sense to me. If someone wants to risk their life in defense of the US, you should be glad, and not deny that opportunity/right/whatever because of sexual preference. Dumb. You'd think they'd embrace every willing person with open arms.
ReplyDeleteI just don't see the logic behind this one, and not just because I may often disagree with Republicans - I just can't see the standpoint at all.
Oh, and speaking about conservative democrats, if you know anyone living in Utah, you may want to tell them about Karen Hyer (www.hyerforcongress.com). She is one of my former BYU professors, reference source, independent research adviser etc. And she's running for Congress in Utah. She's very conservative, but is actually running on the democratic ticket. I'm trying to spread the word more about her, since I'd love to see someone like her in Congress - honest, smart, down-to-earth, and very fair and caring.
Yeah, I'm really trying to understand the Rebublicans on this but just can't make sense of it - unless there's some aspect of this that I'm just not privy to. I don't know what they're worried about. Do they think that this is a slippery slope and once you start letting them in the military it becomes more difficult to deny them marriage? Sounds ridiculous but I'm grasping for any explanation, no matter how stupid. They say that this is just politicking by the democrats but they use that line alot. The majority party LOVES to blame the minority party of obstructionism and the minority likes to blame the majority party of politicizing issues. Aaaaaaah! Just pass good bills that protect people and get over yourselves.
ReplyDeleteThe republicans struggle with their image of not including minorities, etc. Much of it is unjustified and simply lies and half-truths being told by liberals. Now I don't want them to sell their souls and go against solid principles just to win votes but when they do stuff like this that makes absolutely no sense at all then they can't act surprised or angry when the opposition uses it to campaign against them.
Yep. The only thing that makes sense to me is what my friend pointed out: Fear of the fairy army.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI
I fear that this issue is really just a great way to sway voters. The fact is that if a person is homosexual, they CAN work in the military today. Just not openly.
ReplyDeleteThis whole issue is about acceptance of homosexuals in the military.
Personally, I am not going to voice a stance either way on this one. However, I think that the driving force behind this change shouldn't be made by a political agenda. It should be made by the leaders of the military who work with and hopefully understand their employees. I think we have all seen the Washington doesn't really have a clue what is going on anywhere.
I think that the biggest concern, and this is voiced by everyone, even by the proponents for the policy to go away, is that such a change would create a LOT of tension between the soldiers. The fact is that much (if not most) of the military come from RED states.
A HUGE percentage of the military is conservative. Here are some stats based on a survey by the military about personnel.
"the survey found that 53 percent of active-duty personnel described themselves as either "very conservative" or "conservative," compared to 40 percent of the general population. By contrast, seven percent said they were "liberal or very liberal," compared to 20 percent of the general population."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ips/lobe43.html
The fact is that there will be hate crimes and mistrust within our ranks. The fact is that we do have very homophobic people in this country and I would put money down that there are a whole boatload of them in the service. Pun intended:)
And we are spread pretty thin fighting two wars with serious problems and policing the rest of the globe too. Right now might not be the best time to appease people by repealing the law.
Lastly, Many of on-duty personnel carry weapons at all times. The last thing we need is a bunch of adrenaline junkie, trigger happy Americans shooting Americans. And I would bet most of our trigger happy Americans are either in the military or in the police force.
Or fishing in our lakes and streams drinking a case of beer:)
ReplyDeleteWell, I think if those within the military cannot be civil towards a fellow soldier who may have a life-style they don't personally agree with, they have no business being in the military. If you can't behave in relatively harmless and low-stress situations, what would make anyone think that these men have the capacity of good judgement and psychological endurance and emotional restraint necessary to fight in a war????
ReplyDeleteSorry, there is no excuse to deny a homosexual, who's openly gay or not openly (doesn't even matter) the right to join the military - just based on sexual preference. It's stupid. And the only reason, I'd think, this whole 'don't ask, don't tell' policy was ever implemented was probably because 20 years you very literally may have gotten beaten to pulp if someone found out you were gay. You'd think things have improved a bit these days.
Anyway, I do understand that employers (even the military) should have a right to decide who will be a good fit for their job. But, considering what's common practice in the States now, it seems ridiculous to exclude someone based on the common stuff (religion, gender, sexual preference, race, etc.) unless there is a very clear and compelling reason why someone cannot perform the job properly based on those things. Otherwise, there ISN'T a good reason other than what Troy has pointed out. Game playing, politicizing, maybe gaining votes, or simple personal bias.
It's just stupid. That's all it really is.
The no vote was a bad move. The obstructionism is one of the biggest problems I have with Republicans right now. They can't even vote on things that should go through, as imperfect as they might be.
ReplyDeleteAmmon, Ammon, Ammon come on. I'm getting tired of having to disagree with you. I won't address the absurdity of your comment about how "gays CAN serve in the military, just not openly." Really? Should we be satisfied with a society that allows people to work in a job as long as they don't let on that they're gay. What if the DADT policy referred to being a Mormon? Would you so casually speak of it then?
ReplyDeleteSecond, I wish our society would get over this Red state/Blue state thing. Look at the electoral map from the 2008 election even in those states that we think of as being very "red" like TX, MS, AL, TN Obama was getting over 40% of the vote. And in the bluest of blue states (OR, WA, MA, NY etc.) McCain was getting very near 40%. So this idea about red states and blue states is hype drummed up by the media and political hacks. So what if a majority of our military comes from states that usually lean republican? "Red State" does not equal gay hater. 53% of the military calls themselves very conservative or conservative. So what? You can't extrapolate from that that they must hate gay people. And besides wouldn't those numbers also mean that 47% of military call themselves very liberal or liberal?
I like Fran's point. If the military guys are such loose cannons that they're gonna pound on a guy because he looks at them the wrong way in the shower then how in the world will the act when they're put in tense situations with innocent people on the other side of the world with whom they have much less in common (culture, language, eating customs, religion) than they do with a gay American? We need to demand better behavior from the military and I have respect for those guys and ladies, I think they could handle themselves admirably around people they disagree with.
Oh, and this reveral of the DADT policy wouldn't have taken place until the military essentially approved it. The commanding officers would have had to issue a report to the president voicing their opinion based on the atmosphere in the troops. So it wouldn't have been only Washington calling the shot on this one. Any way you look at it the republicans did the wrong thing here.
Yeah, come on Ammon. If Troy has to keep disagreeing with you, we both may have to ask ourselves our conservative/liberal we really are. :)
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Troy, you posted for posts in a row now where we agreed. Just wanted to point that out. :)
I know Fran. Wait. Is it really 4? I might have to go back and look at that number. I might have to rethink my life.
ReplyDeleteAmmon let me write something we can agree on just to bring back a sense of normalcy between us: Memphis BBQ is awesome!!
FOR THE RECORD. I never took a stand on this topic. All I did was regurgitate what I read this morning on several anti-DADT articles and blogs by liberal authors. All of them brought this up as a concern.
ReplyDeleteBut I do disagree with all of you. To "expect" that military people are going to react differently than the regular population is ridiculous. There are tons of hate crimes committed for lots of reasons including being gay.
The FBI reported in 2008 over 1,600 Hate crimes related to GLBT.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table_01.html
I think you guys must think we live in a rosy little world where everyone just accepts everyone. Unfortunatly we live in a world where this stuff actually happens. And will most likely happen LOTS more than it already does in the military if the DADT is repealed since these men and women are already stressed to the limit. Many of these people rely on each other to survive every day.
I don't think that majority of the people in the military is the problem. It is the minority who will cause unrest and spread hate and mistrust. Several blogs I am on note stories where loved ones in the military have already witnessed outright hostility toward GLBT.
Now before you all jump on the "disagree with Ammon bandwagon" for something that I didn't say. I don't think that doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't change the law. We should stand up against some things. I just think that it shouldn't be a political issue for one party to try to villainize another. And it seems to me that this is the way this is being used.
I think that the people who have been put in charge of the military should be pursuing the change if and when it's necessary. Not political parties to make a statement.
As of yet I have NOT stated an opinion either way. But thanks for all the hate:)
Oh Ammon! Silly. Of course, there are tons of hate crimes, including gays (which is probably why the gay community isn't happy with their shadow life any longer - they want to be able to live their lives the way they want, like other people, without being beaten up, or being unable to find a job). And I don't think military people are any different. However, just like in any other 'work situation' where such behavior is not tolerated, it shouldn't be tolerated in the military. Just like any job wouldn't consider NOT hiring women or gays because some guy may choose to sexually harass at the work place or mistreat a co-worker, the military shouldn't choose to not hire gays because some homophobic or violent or whatever person in the military may choose to beat up that person.
ReplyDeleteThe proper way to deal with those inappropriate behaviors is to fire/sue/or whatever the person who acted that way, not by isolating those who're wrongfully being persecuted.
To me it just sounds like you're suggesting that because the world is a bad place, and because you can't trust anyone we should keep those 'at risk' segregated in work situations so nothing happens. Sure, that's an option - appropriate for those at the developmental level of toddlers. Adults should be held to another standard though, and ultimately be held accountable for their actions.
I do agree that the military is a stressful place, which was precisely my previous point. However, it's a work environment people freely choose. And as I pointed out, if someone isn't fit to handle the 'stress' of working with someone who's different, they're probably not fit for duty in combat, and should more likely be subject to a 'military ban' than someone who has nothing going against him/herself other than being homosexual.
And, while you may be right that parties here use this issue for political purposes, that doesn't change the fact that the government (and with that political parties in congress/senate) are in charge of creating/repealing laws. I'd be fine to leave this simply to the military, if that means any other employer is equally exempt from 'equal hiring practices' or whatever they're called.
Anyway, you may not have stated your personal opinion, but you're still communicating ideas, and with those we can heartily agree or disagree. :) But I'd like to hear what your personal opinion is? Should DADT be repealed? Should it be left alone? Should it be changed but not by the government but rather the military (which really kind of is the government, too)? Should it be repealed later on? Never? What is your suggestion? What should be done?
Yes Ammon I think part of the confusion is that you are expressing a viewpoint but not necessarily your own. Since that is the case you shouldn't take it so personally. Unless, of course, the opinion you are sharing IS your own. Which of course is fine, you are entitled to your opinion and I know that your opinion comes after research and much thought. I know how you work. So I'm just arguing against the point of view that you offer here:
ReplyDelete1 - We can't run a society where we won't hire certain people because of what may happen to them by their co-workers. If gay people want to join the military let them. I'm sure they come into it knowing that they're putting themselves at risk of being ridiculed, or worse, but if they still choose it then it's their choice. I'm sure if I joined the military I would get made fun of for not swearing, smoking, looking a nudey magazines, etc. but the military shouldn't be allowed to keep me out in order to "protect" me.
2 - The military can't just make their own decisions about these things. They're not a private organization, they're the government so of course any repeal of this law would be a legislative matter considering that legislation is what initiated DADT.
3 - I'm still not seeing how the democrats are using this as a political issue or to push a political agenda. What's the agenda? Equal opportunity for employment? When did that become a democrat vs. republican thing? I thought that was an American thing. As far as the democrats using this to "villainize" republicans - I think the republicans are doing a darn good job of villainizing themselves on this. The votes are the votes man. Republicans (and a few democrats) voted against it. The record is there for everybody to see.
If there's still an aspect of this bill in general that I'm missing I'd love to know it. One other issue that was in this bill is that it would allow certain immigrants to become US citizens if they graduate high school (college maybe?) and serve for a period of time in the armed forces. I usually stand with republicans on immigration issues but if they want to argue that an education and service to the United States shouldn't qualify you for citizenship then I'll be parting ways with them on that as well.
I'm with Troy.
ReplyDelete