Congress Heatedly Debates Gays In Military

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy Riles Tempers Of Lawmakers

(AP)  Opponents of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military denounced it as cruel and unpatriotic Wednesday. Supporters insisted it was needed to maintain military morale, and raised the prospect of a rise of HIV infection among service members if gays are allowed to serve openly.

The heated exchanges came as Congress held its first hearing on "don't ask, don't tell" since its enactment 15 years ago.

Although legislation has been introduced to overturn the ban, the hearing wasn't an attempt to advance the bill, something supporters say can only happen if Democratic Sen. Barack Obama is elected president.

Republican Sen. John McCain supports "don't ask, don't tell."

Instead, "our purpose today is to begin a long-overdue review ... and to start a conversation about the real-life impact on our service members, their families and the operational readiness of our military," said Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., chair of the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee.

While there was plenty of conversation, consensus proved elusive and tempers flared as each side insisted on the moral soundness of their views.

The policy was intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation, and to prevent servicemembers from declaring that they are gay or bisexual or engaging in homosexual activity.

Among the most arresting debates Wednesday came when Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., a first-term congressman and the only Iraq war veteran in Congress, accused a witness of implying that U.S. service members weren't professional enough to handle serving with homosexuals.

"You're saying you don't trust our military professionals to serve openly with people who might be different," Murphy said angrily to Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a nonprofit that says it promotes certain military personnel policies.

"I think that's an insult," Murphy said.

Donnelly denied that, insisting that "forced cohabitation" and resulting "sexual tension ... will hurt discipline and morale."

"People are human, people have sexual feelings and they're not perfect," she said. "Prejudice is wrong, but feelings about sexuality are different."

Donnelly contended that if the law were repealed the number of HIV-positive service members would probably increase.

Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., a Vietnam veteran and medical doctor, called that comment "so inappropriate" and suggested that Donnelly advocate for the military to recruit only lesbians, who he said have a low incidence of HIV.

The top Republican on the committee, Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., didn't stake out a position, but said that judgment on "don't ask, don't tell" must "ultimately rest on matters of military readiness morale good order and discipline."

Pentagon officials weren't invited to testify after committee members concluded they wouldn't say anything other than that they'd follow the law.

Asked Wednesday whether the Pentagon thinks it's appropriate to re-examine "don't ask, don't tell," Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell said: "I would say only that 'don't ask, don't tell' remains the law of the land. And to my knowledge, the department is not advocating a change in policy."

[deacon20081]

Keep the Rule as is. Openly gay men are targets for blanket parties. A few bars of soap in socks smashed against a head does damage. I saw it happen while I served because a kid was just ignorant, a gay they would kill.

[beader59]

Hate to tell you all, but there are *** in the military and *** in the fire and police service and *** next door. Where is the connection between hiv and *** being open in the military. Is everyone stupid here. The good ole straight boys have *** all the time with locals. Is that okay with the bible thumpers here? What a glorious double-standard. If you care so much about serving in the military as an open gay, you better be concerned about Jenny and Bonnie''s husbands *** every chick while they are duty overseas. Who cares if you are gay? I say all homosexuals go on strike for two days and see what happens. I say all *** get out of the military as soon as possible, if the military is short-handed now, just wait. The numbers of criminals and half-wits will be what is protecting your precious rights overseas and at home. Get over racism nd hatred of every kind. White, straight people are not saints and straight people of any color are just as guilty of sins as anyone else.

[beader59]

Why are the words *** and gay and screw *** in my posting?

[republic1776]

A smoke screen....
Do we really need Congress debating wasting their time and our taxes dollars over a stupid issue.
Politicians are useless.

[nolalou]

I agree with what former Republican Senator and presidential candidate Barry Goldwater once said "You don''t have to be straight to be in the military, you just have to shoot that way!"

[randynason]

Supporters of the "don''t ask, don''t tell" policy are so homophobic that they think "I''ve got your back covered" to be a flirtatious tell-all.
*** serve openly in Europe with no problem. Leave it to the puritanical "we''ve got God on our side" U.S. military to fear something as obtuse as that.

[randynason]

Are you for real? What''s this? I can''t say gay or homosexual? C''mon, CBS. This puritanical attitude goes right to the heart of what I was saying about our society, in general.

[kevinbgoode]

Elaine Donnelly, a right-wing hoe with a phony-*** organization simply described as "Center for Military Readiness, a nonprofit that says it promotes certain military personnel policies." Huh? What in the crapola is this organization and who does it represent?

I can''t even believe this clown is even quoted. I see nothing that indicates she is an expert on anything, beyond being employed by a cabal of right wingnut political organizations with a history of trying to deny American citizens equal rights. Is there some reason why Congress should be interested in what Elaine Donnelly, who hasn''t served in the military, and has no advanced research credentials has to say?

What, exactly, is the significance of some cooked up, manufactured "non-profit" headed by a non-military political activist in debating this issue? Is this organization attached to the government, which is supposed to be in charge of reviewing personnel policies?

[kevinbgoode]

Well, it sure seems to me that any straight man who is so insecure that he can''t protect his own peepee in the showers is sure not gonna be capable of defending a whole nation. The military belongs to all of the American people - no citizen with the physical and mental capabilities to perform service for their country should be refused or abridged of their right to serve simply because someone else doesn''t like them.

[retiredusaf3]

kevinbgoode I have a question for you. Would you elect a Male Predident who said he had a boy friend who was going to sleep with him in the Presidential bedroom of the White House and travel around the world with him?

[patriot12436]

I don''t understand why members of congress would get upset with each other. Isn''t a prequisite for a politician to be willing to screw anything and anyone to be a politician ?

[donnie1050]

They just wanna be generals aids.

[neoconrcrazy]

when the roman emperors constated growing numbers of christians in their midst, they created exclusively christian legions -

why not create gay brigades?

[gunfighter51]

Is it no wonder the congress has less than a 10% approval rating.

Why are we spending time discussing this issue when there are far greater problems to deal with.

[rktsci3127]

Aaaah, hey congress...We have a few other problems...oil drilling, people losing houses, people losing jobs, economy going down the tubes. When you are done with *** and baseball players using steriods maybe you consider these other things before you go on another vacation. Find a gas station with free air and recharge your heads before you come back!!

[dinkydog1]

This is really a non-issue drug out by the Repugs every election year to get thier base of uneducated, ignorant buba voters excited. In the next few months look for more stories like gun controll, gay marrage, slave reparations ect. to motivate these ding bats.

[mcmaclean01]

My view on this is quite simple reinforce NO *** in the military, why not kill ONLY heterosexuals and keep our homosexual community from being slaughtered under the false declaration of destroying terrorist when in actuality they are creating them, and also fighting it in the wrong country, but then again *** Cheney%u2019s pockets need to be broadened by Halliburton beside the slaugter of 4000 American Lives enforces his profits

[n8yvn29]

*** are more than welcome to serve as cannon fodder and pay their taxes, but heaven help them should they come out of the closet and admit to being gay! When are we going to stop listening to the American Christian-Taliban and their imams?

[n8yvn29]

*** are more than welcome to serve as cannon fodder and pay their taxes, but heaven help them should they come out of the closet and admit to being gay! When are we going to stop listening to the American Christian-Taliban and their imams?

[n8yvn29]

Homosexuals are more than welcome to serve as cannon fodder and pay their taxes, but heaven help them should they come out of the closet and admit to being gay! When are we going to stop listening to the American Christian-Taliban and their imams?

[irliberal]

OK, maybe if we spent more time trying to CURE the disease of bigotry, a known and treatable brain abnormality, then maybe we wouldn''t have to have these discussions. DUH!

[irliberal]

Homosexuals are more than welcome to serve as cannon fodder and pay their taxes, but heaven help them should they come out of the closet and admit to being gay! When are we going to stop listening to the American Christian-Taliban and their imams?

Posted by n8yvn29 at 08:14 AM

Now that is a very good question!

[irliberal]

Hmmm is toe-tapper Larry Craig still in office? Wonder why the neocons don''t call for HIS ouster hmmmm? Heh... what''s a little more a little more republican hypocrisy when we''ve been faced with so much of it the past eight years?

Time for a change!

[xmorphinex]

I really think changing the dont ask dont tell policy is a very bad thing esp for recruits going through basic training. Some people may not be aware but during this time trainees take mass showers. With 8 or more people in the same shower as you, if you feel someone is paying perticular attention to you can lower your already very small level of comfort and stress you out more then you already are. How would people who are (this is a real life example) blatenly being watched shower ie. by a peer beng the first one in out of turn and then standing in the door way brushing their teeth watching as the rest shower, be protected if this were to change? Besides the fact that there are other things going through congress that can help the people NOW as far as energy cost increase that they''re not passing like measures meant to stop oil speculation, encourage conservation and provide tax credits for renewable energy.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/23/congress.oil/index.html

[jtdev1]

Can someone explain why this is an important issue this year?

Don''t we have more important issues to discuss?

[anopinion1]

when the roman emperors constated growing numbers of christians in their midst, they created exclusively christian legions -
why not create gay brigades?
Posted by neoconRcrazy at 05:56 AM : Jul 24, 2008

Good idea!!! Then we can replace the african americans on the front lines (aka operation human shield).

[deacon20081]

They can meet to discuss *** in the military.....but Impeachment is Off The Table? How dare they waste our time and money over this rediculas nonsense.
What part of "TO Protect the Constitution of the United States" did congress FORGET?

[richzurb]

For those of you that see no harm in having *** serve in the military think about this. I was in the Navy for 20 years, for most of my carrer *** were simply not welcome in the military. Then came don''t ask don''t tell.

The problem arises in accomadating thhis new calss of people. I served on small ships my whole carrer and there were only 2 heads (rest room/shower room) on the ship. With the introduction of women to these ships one was converted into a womens faciltiy leaving the other for men. Now I am sure all of you would agree that it would be improper to have the men shower with the women (men see women as potentioal mates and vice a versa). The same holds true for *** showering with people of the same ***. So where do we put ***? Do we let the homosexual males shower with females and the homosexual females shower with the men? This would certainly not work and there is no extra facility to set aside for them.

Some of you may say do not put them on small ships but that would be unfair to heterosexuals. Life aborad these ships is very, very hard. To restrict this type of ship to only heterosexuals would be an injustice and a form of discremination.

While my post is centered on Navy life, that is because I have served only in the Navy. I am sure there are some soldiers, marines and airmen out there that could say why it would also be bad to have *** in there branch as well.

[deacon20081]

G A Y S the new four letter word blocked by CBS from their own story...what a hoot

[qt68]

Good idea!!! Then we can replace the african americans on the front lines (aka operation human shield).
--------------------------------
Posted by anopinion1

Hyphenated American Racists and Bigot. anopinion1 will forever be an angry racist and this will eventually be his/her downfall. GET OVER IT.

[johngoodnews]

I don''t think there can be any more homosexuals in today''s world as a portion of our population than there were 10,000 years ago. And I don''t think that any military throughout those millenia had a significantly different proportion within its ranks than do we today. In short, treat them like any other member of the military who has an individualized personal attribute that differentiates him/her from the majority: if it stands in the way of performance of his/her operational duties, and can be accommodated, then change the duties to match the individual. If it doesn''t stand in the way of performance of operational duties, then it doesn''t matter. Or to put it in perspective, an enemy doesn''t doesn''t know or care what the sexual orientation of the guy was who just blew him and the guy standing behind him apart with a .50 bmg cal round at 1100 meters.

[hologram5]

They are just ordinary people. Who cares what their sexual preference is? They bleed just like you do, feel the same like others and can save your life just like anyone else. Can''t we all just get along?

[darnedsocks]

WHY IS THE WORD G*A*Y starred out? Is "gay" or "***" a dirty word now?

[barbaraf4]

Haven''t we beaten this horse to death yet? Just get over it.

My greatest concern is that any number of Senators and Congressmen and Military brass who are debating this are, themselves, closet homosex*uals. Their fear of "outing" requires homophobic behavior on their part.

[darnedsocks]

*** ARE PERVERTS, CHECKING OUT WHO THEY CAN SEXUALLY HARRASS NEXT! THEY DO NOT BELONG WITH OTHER PEOPLE. THEY SHOULD JUST GO TO SOME ISLAND FAR, FAR AWAY IN THE PACIFIC SO THEY CAN STOP BOTHERING EVERYONE AND PUSHING THEIR PERVERSIONS ON EVERYONE ELSE!

[barbaraf4]

Actually, I believe ALL homophobics are closet homosex*uals.

[qt68]

STRAIGHT MILITARY PERSONNEL DO NOT WANT TO BE SEXUALLY HARRASSED BY ***! KEEP THE *** OUT. THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDER THE STRESS AND THREATS OF CONSTANT DANGER IN A WARTIME SITUATION ANYWAY. *** DO NOT BELONG IN THE MILITARY PERIOD!
-----------------------
Posted by darnedsocks

LMAO. Years ago this was the same arguement made why BLACKS and WOMEN should not serve in the military.

[berkshirerez]

The ignorance surrounding this policy is incredibly antiquated! The *** unable to serve openly are already serving...anyone that thinks an open policy would change sexual activity is an idiot. If someone in service is going to engage in homosexual relations they''re going to do it with or without a specific policy/law. This law implies that we are not all of equal worth and that *** are immoral people. If morality is the question then we have to kick out all the service members having *** with prostitutes, getting drunk, swearing...geez...there''d be no one left to protect our country!

[observer2020]

darnedsocks:
You are obviously a man. I am a woman (and can hear your testosterone dripping through your keyboard) and I was in the military and was s3xually harrassed by men (more than likely JUST LIKE YOU) and was laughed at when I reported it to my superiors...and their superiors...I''m such a fan of EEO now. What difference does it make what your s3xual orientation is?...when the fighting starts, you have your mission and job to worry about and everything else gets put aside. If you are a man (or a woman) and you don''t think you are ever getting oggled at by a person that is the same gender as you, think again. It happens to women all the time and we''re told to "get over it" (by men in command)...so GET OVER IT! Just because someone has a different s3xual orientation than you, doesn''t mean that person doesn''t have the right to serve in the military and protect their country if they want to.

[parrot123-2009]

Actually, I believe ALL homophobics are closet homosex*uals.
Posted by barbaraf4 at 09:44 AM : Jul 24, 2008

You may be right - I''ve never understood why Repugs who claim to be straight have all their BS thoughts - I''m straight and could care less, long as there''s no Harrassment going on - But leave it to the Repugs to think up every despicable sexual fantasy they can come up with - Besides, Larry Craig''s still insisting he''s a straight Repug and his other Repugs aren''t talking about him. Cheers!

[payasyougo]

"Actually, I believe ALL homophobics are closet homosex*uals."
-----
I looked at the definition of homophobic. It does not apply to me.

I look for the appropriate definition of what applies to me but I could not find a word that describes my disgust and disdain for homosexuals.

I feel the same way about beastiality, disgust and disdain, but I couldn''t find a definition that matches that criteria either. Also, there is no such word as beastaphobe or some similar such nonsense.

[honestabe8]

"For those of you that see no harm in having *** serve in the military think about this. I was in the Navy for 20 years, for most of my carrer *** were simply not welcome in the military"...Rich, where do they get the Rear Admirals?

[honestabe8]

darnedsocks: same thing could be said about the vatican

[honestabe8]

payasyougo: perhaps if you looked up "bigot"

[payasyougo]

payasyougo: perhaps if you looked up "bigot"
-----
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Thank you. Good point. Looks like I fall under the definition as it applies to opinion and intolorance toward beastiality and any other perverted s_xual behavior but not the prejudice or hatred parts. Just becuase a group of people practice the perverted behaviors does not make them right (in my opinion, which is protected by the 1st amendment, smae as your''s). And I don''t have tolorate it. In the workplace or elsewhere it is not an issue of tolorance because there are workplace guidelines and public laws restricting practice of perverted s_xual behavior in public. I am just not allowed to discriminate based on it, anymore than with other protected classes. But...

It will always be a devoted opinion.
It will forever be a lack of tolorance.

Perverted s_xual behavior will never be other than what it is. It''s in the category of someone that picks their nose and eats it. It''s neither hatred or prejudice but more a feeling of "how can someone do that".

[honestabe8]

payasyougo: i can appreciate the "how can anyone do that" thought. i feel the same regarding why homosexuals do what they do. on the other hand, i feel the same about christians. but, that''s another issue. as far as "perverted ***ual behavior" goes, it is likely not perverted to them. and, unlike bestiality of child rape, there is consent,

[honestabe8]

payasyougo: that should have read "beastiality or child rape"...*** fingers

[uradum1]

What a joke...why aren''t they worried about the impact of adultery and the use of prositutes on morale????

[uradum1]

AIDS is brought into the military FAR more often by male sailors having unprotected s e x with prostitues and random extramartital affairs...

[aldon61]

While Obana is not really my favorite, I don''''t want him to get killed by Bush death squads.

let''''s learn lessons from Robert Kenedy in 1968''''s killed by R.Nixon and Bhutto in Pakistan killed by G.Bush.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by lambor59 at 04:09 AM : Jul 24, 2008

First, congress should not be wasting our tax money debating this issue. I was in the army 44 years ago. Homosexuals were not allowed and the basic reason given was that they posed a security risk. They could be compromised and blackmailed. Don''t ask and don''t tell should never have been passed in the first place. We either allow homosexuals to serve, or we don''t. If we do allow them to serve, I would suggest separate housing, as I''m afraid the straight men could easily become violent towards them. I''ve worked with gay people and got along with them on a professional basis, and I''m sure the military can do the same. Remove the stigma of being gay, and the original objection (security risk) goes away. Message to congress: ***** or get off the pot, then go do something constructive for a change!