Jump to content

Obama Officially Ends Dadt


california boy

Recommended Posts

Today Obama officially signed the legal documents ending DADT. Here is the link.

Some of the things said by those signing the document:

Obama:

Today, we have taken the final major step toward ending the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law that undermines our military readiness and violates American principles of fairness and equality. In accordance with the legislation that I signed into law last December, I have certified and notified Congress that the requirements for repeal have been met. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will end, once and for all, in 60 days—on September 20, 2011.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta

"

All men and women who serve this nation in uniform -- no matter their race, color, creed, religion, or sexual orientation -- do so with great dignity, bravery, and dedication. As secretary of defense, I am committed to promoting an environment free from personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility that their talents and capabilities warrant. They put their lives on the line for America, and that's what really matters. Thanks to the professionalism and leadership of the U.S. military, we are closer to achieving the goal that is at the foundation of America -- equality and dignity for all."

Are you in favor of repealing DADT? Do you think that by having equality in the military, it will be a help for equality in marriage as well? After all if a person is good enough to die for our country he is good enough to marry the person he loves. Do you think public opinion for gay marriage and equality for gays will continue to move forward? Do those that oppose gay marriage feel they are loosing the battle? If so, what would change the direction this country seems to be heading?

Gay marriage doesn't have to win every battle, they just have to win the war. Now with NY having gay marriage, and statements like Maryland's Governor Martin O'Malley announced his support for a marriage equality bill in Maryland today at a press conference.

O’Malley (D), a Catholic who supported civil unions earlier in his political career, said a gay nuptials bill would be “one of the handful of bills that will be an administration priority” in January.

“At the end of the day, I think all of us need to look at this issue from the eyes of children of gay, committed couples and ask ourselves how one family could be protected less in the eyes of the law than another family,” O’Malley said at a news conference in Annapolis. “I don’t think that’s an injustice that can be allowed to stand.”

Is it just a matter of time before there will be equality for gays to marry? If you think not, what do you think will change this direction?

Link to comment

Today Obama officially signed the legal documents ending DADT. Here is the link.

Unfortunately, I think that there will be a certain amount of confusion, chaos and even violence against gays erupting in the military among the "grunts". The officer corps will be different, but NCO's will have some severe difficulties with it. To seek social engineering of this kind in an arm of the government that heretofore has work well is to invite real problems.

Link to comment

Good for Obama! It's about time they ended DADT. I'm not saying they should allow soldiers to go into battle in drag, but gay soldiers shouldn't have to hide their orientation for fear of being booted out of the military. Their sacrifice for our country is just as real as anybody else's, and should be respected.

About "social engineering," I like this quote from Wikipedia:

For various reasons, the term has been imbued with negative connotations. However, virtually all law and governance has the effect of changing behavior and can be considered "social engineering" to some extent. Prohibitions on murder, rape, suicide and littering are all policies aimed at discouraging undesirable behaviors. In British and Canadian jurisprudence, changing public attitudes about a behaviour is accepted as one of the key functions of laws prohibiting it. Governments also influence behavior more subtly through incentives and disincentives built into economic policy and tax policy, for instance, and have done so for centuries.

There may indeed be some problems implementing the policy at first, but I think eventually the armed forces will get used to the idea of gays serving among them, just as they got used to the idea of blacks serving in the military in integrated units. Just because there may be some difficulties doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do what's right, or that it won't work.

Link to comment

Long overdue in my estimation. What does sexual orientation have to do with ability to fight wars (which isn't to say morality doesn't, but the military hasn't been big on morality overall for a very long time, if ever, and ssa attraction by itself is not immoral anyway)?

Link to comment

I have no opinion on the matter given that anyone who does not break the law can be in the military regardless of their sexual proclivity or lifestyle. We aren't being asked to change the definition of militry, fight, defense or anything else. The policy question is whether or not men will serve or not if they feel that their commanding officer is learing at them. It is an issue faced by female soldiers all the time.

Link to comment

Long overdue in my estimation. What does sexual orientation have to do with ability to fight wars (which isn't to say morality doesn't, but the military hasn't been big on morality overall for a very long time, if ever, and ssa attraction by itself is not immoral anyway)?

Have you been in the military?

Link to comment

This isn't like any other job. You don't go to work and then go to your own private home. You share sleeping quarters, you have no privacy when showering, and I visited some barracks that didn't even have doors on the bathroom stalls. Men and women have separate quarters for a reason.

Link to comment

I think it is problematic when sexual orientation is involved. We think it is wrong when a man and woman shower together. How is it less wrong when one man looks upon another as if he were a woman? This can cause problems and I am not sure how the military will deal with it. You are also going to see heightened tension in already tense situations.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...