Obama Faces Pressure on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

The Gay Community should be careful not the shoot themselves in the groin with some overzealousness here.

Of the things that are on Obama's Agenda (economy, jobs, financial crisis, middle east, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), this is definitely on the bottom of his Scale of Preference, and pushing Obama on this might be counter productive.

Eliminating "Don't ask, don't tell" policy goes against common sense and will open pandora's box. If homosexuals are allowed to openly serve in the Armed Forces, it will be costly to eliminate the barracks system and allow ALL personnel to receive BAH and BAS. Discrimination of Single Soldiers will be the next barrier to remove, in order to protect the rights of heterosexuals. How will privacy among heterosexual males/females and homosexual males/females be maintained in field environments? I am curious to see these changes and the price tag to pay for it...just so homosexuals can openly express themselves?! This one needs to be thought all the way through before being implemented.

The policy should certainly be repealed - the documented rejection of Arab linguists when they are desperately needed just for being gay is stupid and weakens our nation's defense. But Obama isn't a friend to the gay community, he simply isn't an overt enemy (as the Republican's proudly and loudly are). I doubt this will make his radar in the first couple years, never mind 100 days.

Gary: What do you think of the firing of Army linguists for being gay, even though there is a back log of communications transmissions to be translated - a task that is time sensitive if we want to find bomb factories or on-the-move squads?

And I'm not sure why separate barracks would even be necessary. Homosexuality is not contagious you know.

I hear that the court has allowed Patrick Fitzgerald a 90-day extension to indict Blago. Could it be that Fitzgerald blew this one and has no evidence to indict?

Understand that gays are not banned from serving...they are just not allowed to exploit it and the government cannot waste millions of dollars each year investigating those who are suspected of being homosexual in order to remove them. Homosexuals must be vocal or conduct themselves inappropriately in order to be removed from service. As for enlisting, the question of sexual orientation has long since been removed (since the policy was implemented in 1993). Personally, what someone does in their private lives is none of my business, but if they make it my business, now my rights are being infringed upon. The current policy isn't perfect and more needs to be done to protect the rights of homosexuals AND heterosexuals, but it is low on the list of important issues at this time.

Obama made a promise to repeal Don't ask, don't tell. There is no doubt that countless millions of viewers saw him say this. But now, when he is faced with doing something about it, we shall see if his past performance on difficult issues repeats itself with this difficult issue. As most Obama skeptics know, Obama does not take on the hard or difficult issues. He capitulates or stands in the background until others have taken the heat. So my take on this one this time, is that he will sit back and listen to the "generals" and other fox-hole dwellers and never do the right thing for our gay military men and women. Let's not forget people that as we speak, there are 65,000 gays in the military defending this nation. But we do not equally defend or recognize them and that is very sad and inexcusible. And probably immoral.

jhw539: I never said homosexuality was a disease...your words, not mine. I am talking about protecting individual rights and since Junior Enlisted Single Soldiers (without dependents) do not qualify for BAH or BAS, they are required to live in the barracks and have little or no say in who they share quarters with...and some barracks have community latrines, which further diminish privacy. This may seem unimportant to you, but I disapprove of homosexuality (as I am very uncomfortable witnessing homosexuality, as much as it goes against natural law). For someone to be dismissed, they must have made it public knowledge...which is THEIR fault. Again, the days of "witch hunts" to find and remove homosexuals ended 15 years ago.

This is a slippery slope. If we allow gays in the military, then it will be children, and after that it will be animals!

Gary: " I never said homosexuality was a disease...your words, not mine."
Errr, I never said that either so glad we're in agreement. In fact I was pointing out it was not a disease nor a social practice (like, for example, whistling that can be passed by peer groups).

"I am very uncomfortable witnessing homosexuality"
Are you seriously implying that if there was a small minority of homosexual soldiers in a barracks the commanding officers would be unable to prevent public sexual activity? How bad has basic discipline fallen in our armed forces?

And gay soldiers have been drummed out for being dropped off by their partners. That's hardly in your face activity. That is a stupid weakening of our forces at a time when their skills could be helping protect our country.

Swoosie: President-elect Obama, like President Clinton before him, will find it difficult to override the advise of military leaders. Although, President Clinton had to take on a very popular Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, so he backed down and compromised to save face. Obama can ignore the advise and deal with the consequences, but it won't be accepted by many and repercussions could be devastating to a nation at war. We'll see what happens.

jhw539: You are obviously clueless about the military that I have served in for over 21 years, and you like to take things out of context in order to promote your agenda...I get it. Discipline is falling in the military, but only because of these "social experiments" that take the focus off the mission and on self preservation. Us heterosexuals have human rights too, but we are being ignored. Again, homosexuals can serve, but why must they make it public knowledge? Serving in the Armed Forces is "voluntary" and we have standards of conduct that would be challenged by allowing homosexuals to openly serve. There are other ways to serve the nation without being in uniform.

Oh, geesh. I guess the gay club will boo hoo and have a tantrum when Obama's puppet strings aren't moving to their liking. It was naive to think Obama would keep his promises....like, duh! He told every group in the book he would hear their message and deliver. Boy....suckers! To make a group of people who decide on a personal sexual nature of living doesn't make them priority #1 on the new President's list!
This just isn't the gay issue either, a lot of other groups will not be happy as the year goes on. Obama is first, and foremost, a p o l i t i c i a n. The whole Rick Warren thing just got the gay communities' panties in a wad because Obama picked a guy he personally liked to do an invocation. Get over it! I guess people who have conservative views aren't to be accepted nor tolerated. Guess it's okay to not be accountable to a higher being. It must make one feel better I guess.

swoosie, you said it best, O can't deal with the hard questions and tough issues until someone who actually has experience takes the lead. And then if it goes sour he can either blame someone else or tell another lie to cover that lie.

Gary: "Again, homosexuals can serve, but why must they make it public knowledge? "

I am boggled that you seem to think it would be possible for them to be homosexual without it being public knowledge. Who is the first person they want to see when they get back from a deployment? Who picks them up? Who do they want to call while deployed? Who sends them letters? Who is watching their home and pets while they're deployed?

I seriously doubt you know any homosexual couples - quiet, committed, ordinary, couples who have lived together for years, decades in some cases - if you honestly think it is possible for them to keep it secret. It's like asking a married man or woman to keep the fact they're married, a fundamental facet of their existence woven through their entire life's structure, absolutely secret.

As for "us heterosexuals" having our rights ignored, what on earth are you talking about? I in no way find allowing homosexuals to openly exist infringes on my rights in any way. As a happily married heterosexual, I have never once felt my rights being impinged by a gay coworker with a picture of his husband on his desk or chatting to gay men and women at social gatherings. It takes an amazing persecution complex to ignore all reality and believe that heterosexuals are oppressed in the US (or anywhere for that matter).

That will be a terible idea to let homosexuals in the military because it will break morale. And it should not be a top priority in President Obama's first 100 days. We have more important issues like the economy,housing crisis,the bailout,foreign affairs and other important issues.The homosexual community again is trying to force an issue on the American people to make them accept it.Let the Don't ask Don't tell policy stays as it is and move on to more important issues President Obama needs to tend to.

too many of you on this blog need something to do; go volunteer in your community. president-elect Obama has not been sworn in and too many of you are so critical; partly because those of you are republican just like to groan and moan about anything democrat then ther are those of you who have a problem because he is black and then there are those of you who like nothing better but to complain. Get over yourselves and for once try working together with each other as Americans...

January 20th 2009 will be like opening a window on a beautiful Spring day after a long hard winter to let the stale air out. I feel a lot of optimism is the air but I have a feeling that 2009 will be a tough year. It's going to take some time to clean up this mess.

jhw539: Your distortions are perplexing. "...Who is the first person they want to see when they get back from a deployment? Who picks them up? Who do they want to call while deployed? Who sends them letters? Who is watching their home and pets while they're deployed?" None of these things involve exposing one's sexuality unless they go out of their way to announce the individual they got a letter from was a lover of the same sex, or the person I am calling is their homosexual partner, etc. As for knowing homosexual couples, I do know a few and they are not "quiet" or "ordinary"...they are quite the opposite as many are. I am well traveled and my observations are not confined to one place, either.

As for heterosexuals rights...in the military (which you seem to have no knowledge of), we have to share common living areas, especially in field environments and areas where we do not have access to the modern comforts that you seem to take for granted. Sharing an open-bay shower room with homosexuals is infringing on privacy. You may feel comfortable with this, but I don't and I shouldn't have to accept the possibility that someone I know is gay "might" find me sexually attractive. I'm not saying all homosexuals are like this, but I know of incidents that give make me uncomfortable.

Sorry, life in military is very different from the private sector. I can see lots of problems with an elimination of the current policy. I don't dislike homosexuals, but I don't want to know their business and in the military, they will make it my business.

pt: Sorry, but little will change...and in some ways, it appears things will get worse. January 20th, 2012, will look very much like it does now. I think the only significant change will be larger security threats in the Middle East, increased tensions with Russia and a new realization that China is a much improved threat militarily and economically.

One major change could be the realization that our first Black President and a Democratic Party that has used them for political gain, will be exposed as no better than Republicans when it comes to social issues. Expectations are high for the President-elect and the Democratically-controlled Congress and when people see that their lives aren't any better in 2-4 years, they will once again call for "change." The more things change, the more they stay the same...and so it goes.