Comments on: Obama meets military advisors over DADT

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:56:12 +0000

Thanks, Rob; you are completely correct. Another thing that happens as a result of DADT is that female members of the services are put into vulnerable positions when they reject advances from their male peers/superiors and suddenly there is an investigation that perhaps the reason for the rejection is that she is a lesbian. This is an example of how DADT is harming heterosexual members of our armed forces.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:43:28 +0000

There’s an interesting series of articles on DADT on the GayPatriot blog. I’m not a huge fan of the blog, but I think these articles are really insightful.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/03/03/dadt-redux/

Key points: culturally, the military is reluctant to change *any* of its policies without doing extensive studies of the likelihood that a change will improve combat effectiveness. To persuade people in the military that this is a good change, we need to stop talking about justice and start talking about how getting rid of DADT will improve combat effectiveness. One way to do this is to talk about the risk of blackmail. A gay soldier who follows all the rules to the letter can end up being vulnerable to blackmail as a result of DADT. This is a problem for soldiers with security clearances.

Maybe we don’t care about persuading people in the military that this is a good change. Obama seems to care, though. I don’t think he’s throwing the bus or dragging his feet. I think he’s trying to respect the way the military normally makes policy changes, which is a slow process. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t keep up the pressure–we should.

By: Danielle

Danielle — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:59:20 +0000

Fantastic start. If Obama can manage to get the DODT repealed by general consensus instead of arbitrarily pushing it through, it supports a message that change will shortly be required by all federal (and likely state) institutions. By going about it slowly he his gaining support for legislation that will allow all people access to the rights and privileges that are granted by the Constitution.

By: Army ROTC

Army ROTC — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:56:39 +0000

I’m currently studying at a well known university and am involved with Army ROTC. I love my country and would willingly give me life to serve it. At the same time, however, I feel like there are certain things about my country that need change, one of which is the DADT Policy. One of the Army Values, the supposed moral code if you will of the Army, is integrity. I think it is impossible to have unit cohesion if there are members in that unit that need to lie about a big part of who they are in order to not be seperated from the military. A repeal of DADT is necessary and I hope that it happens while I am still able to benefit from it.

By: ALAN

ALAN — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:22:43 +0000

If heterosexuals don’t want homosexuals in the armed services then they probably want to keep on dying in the service of our great country. And while they are dying, all the homosexuals can be nice and safe back here in the good ol’ USA. I know this kinda sounds mean but it is technically is the truth. If all they want are straight people to be in the military then it will be only the straight people that will die. I don’t want to see anybody die (either us or even the the innocent). May the GODS keep all of our Fighting Forces safe.

By: CHARLIE

CHARLIE — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:30:10 +0000

Good point about DADT being a law not a policy. Was this also the case with segregation in the military? Lincoln used all black units during the Civil War. Was that an executive order or a congressional law? Maybe President Obama, while rightly admiring Lincoln, should look to a more recent Commander-in-Chief for guidence on this matter. Whether it was his decision or congress’s, when it came to intergrating the Armed Forces Harry “The Buck Stops Here” Truman didn’t wait for any down the road reports and studies. As I remember the story, when the Brass balked he threatened to fire the lot of them and go down the list to Captains if he had to to get the job done. And it got done and the sky didn’t fall. He also fired Gen. McArthur for forgetting who was the CIC and the military’s roll in our country. Very unpopular moves at the time, probably cost him, but that’s the difference between a president of the people and a party hack!

By: SOLDIERinIRAQ

SOLDIERinIRAQ — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:29:46 +0000

Did anyone else notice the key word here… “change” DADT? What does that mean? It doesn’t mean repeal… is there a play on words going on here? Are we making DADT better? Or are we repealing it? Do it now plz… i beg you.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:42:44 +0000

I read these comments and all I can say is many people are politically naive. If we want this to succeed then it is important to build a consensus. Bill Clinton tried doing this unilaterally and we got DADT. Sometimes, we begin to sound like adolescents saying we want what we want when we want it instead of doing the work necessary to get there.

By: RoninTexas

RoninTexas — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:32:58 +0000

I wouldn’t mind sacrificing Shawn. Make all of us look like idiots with his anti-hetero BS.

By: R & R

R & R — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:28:53 +0000

Shawn, didn’t you know that the breeders need not worry about any of those things? Just ask one and they will tell you that “the Lord will provide, as it says in scripture.” I wonder if this includes paying the rent, the utilities, the credit card payments, etc.?