DADT: the military's decision

This Sekulow, is piece of work isn't he though. For allowing gays to openly serve in the armed forces, he wants it to be an exercise in democracy. Not the one of the rank and file, but just the leadership. According this dimwit it has to a unanimous one at that. It did not matter that rest of chiefs are OK, with it. But Gen. Amos, the last bigot, is against it so he gets to veto it. According to this joker, it does not matter that 70% of the ranks are OK with it.

But most importantly since when did in this country the armed forces have started to make the policy decisions. Is there a civilian control of the armed forces or not. Besides isn't our military an all volunteer one. To borrow the words of their champion Dick Cheney said this a volunteer army so they don't like it the don't have reenlist. Same when the gays start serving openly, the bigots need not reenlist. Additionally, what happened to the troops wishes when his lying and cheating champions took them to war against Iraq, where was this clown to protest asking to ascertain the military's opinion.

So Congress shouldn't interfere in a policy it created? Alrighty, then. What law school did this guy graduate from?

you say: the decision about whether to allow openly gay individuals to serve in the military should be made by military leaders.

If this rule had been applied for women and Blacks in the military - where would be be? Huh? Backwards. The military will and should adapt to what is right and DADT is WRONG.
I suggest that we rid the military of ALL religious Chaplins and replace them with professionally trained counselors who are a-religious. Let service member read their own sacred texts in private or seek relition off base. There is not need and no place for relition in the military.... none.

wildfyre99:

Thanks for all of that. :)

If there are generals who are bigots, they need to resign their commission. The arguments made by the opponents of equal treatment of gays are nothing but recycled arguments that were used to justify unequal treatment of blacks. Right-wing organizations with a history of intolerance are leading the charge.

It's

If there are generals who are bigots, they need to resign their commission. The arguments made by the opponents of equal treatment of gays are nothing but recycled arguments that were used to justify unequal treatment of blacks. Right-wing organizations with a history of intolerance are leading the charge.

It's a

From a Pentecostal and formally educated theologians POV (yours truly), Jordan Sekulow is possessed by/obsessed with two evil demonic spirits which in transliteration from the Greek are homophobia (fear of homosexuals) and homomisia (hatred of homosexuals).

Mr. Sekulow,

Unlike you, I did serve. In fact I served for 20 years and I can tell you with certainty that there are gays in the military today, there were gays in the military during the time I served and there have been gays in the military since the days when our country was born. Despite this our military somehow continues to function. It is my informed opinion that it will be able to perform even better once gay service members are allowed to perform their service without having to lie (thus undemining their "honor") about who they love.

Your assertion that congress should not involve themselves (and I assume you don't want the courts involved either) just because military leaders cannot agree is incredibly naive. Military leaders will never agree on this. Heck they can't agree on much of anything. Just watch a Joint Staff meeting sometime to see the squabbling that goes on between the services. If we kept the politicians out of military decisions we'd still have an all white military, because under your theory, the pols should not get involved until the military can agree. It took years before the military was fully "integrated" even after the generals were given their orders. It's important to remember, that the military is the servant of the government and by extension, of the people. And "we the people" now largely believe that gays should be allowed to serve openly and honorably. It's time for the dinasaurs that think otherwise to either grow a new brain or slink off into the swamps to die.

Retired AF MSgt.

Sekulow is a fraud who shows what's wrong with idiots who believe in god. He says religion gives one the right to discriminate. If he's right, Catholics have the right to oust Protestant "chaplains." My god says to hate you. Therefore, when I control the government, the government must hate you.

The real person deserving of hatred is Sekulow and his christian Taliban.

JamesK1 is right. The Constitution gives the civilian government control of the military, not radical extremists like Ayatollah Sekulow.

Sekulow is a pestilence on America. He needs to chemo'd.

What a load of crap. Every other major country has no problem with gays serving in the military, except us. Are we too afraid that our men aren't "real men," and may prefer to go into the bushes instead of fight a war? There will always be some who will disagree with any decision made, and many do not decide on the basis of fact, but because of prejudices and out-dated attitudes. If we wait for everyone to agree before changing any policies, we will miss opportunity after opportunity. As a pastor, I know that I have to lead with a vision, and that not everyone will agree with that vision. If this is the right thing to do, then do it!

"Let's not forget that while we debate this issue, brave Americans risk life and limb everyday in defense of our freedom. Without their service, we may not have the constitutional rights to have this discussion publicly."
-------------------------------------
And a good number of those soldiers are gay. How can you write an article like you just did here and then have the audacity to end it like this. Juast because two old cronies (who happen to be staight white males, get "icky feelings" when they think about possibly standing next to a gay man in a fox hole are absolutely no reason to hold this up. The Military does not run the country, its quite the other way around. Just like any other job around, if these guys don't like they can go find another job. Both are well past retirement age.

Should there be JUSTICE in the military?

Should it abide by the Equal Rights Provisions
of the
United States Constitution???

Gee. This is hard.

"I also strongly object to the "deference to the military" argument on Constitutional grounds. The Framers deliberately put the military under the control of civilian leadership."

Thanks, JamesK1. I quite agree.

If we had left decisions like this to the military in the past, the armed forces would still be exclusively white and male.

SEX iS NOt-LOVE! {LiFE is LOVE}. The rest is Pleasure,Fantasy, Hormones etc.

i[WE] are not too sure if DADT should be repealed. There is an "inherent Danger" for being too open in the military via "Gay" personal.

RECOMMENDATION: They Should Be Separated. Yes "G" Units should then be Segregated from "S"traight Brigades.

AS a Cub-Scout, Boy-Scout, Military High School'r, Merchant Marine. And via Mercenary work & as an ex-International Smuggler and experience of many but Master
of None and now;

Talkin about "F" TROOP" or "A" TEAM etc.. So lets think here about the "G"-TROOP" mentality or perspective which 'DADT' shall apply.. We shall today ask, "DO WE CLOSE the MILITARYs Revolving Door (a "Volunteer" Army entirely to ALL GAYS for fear that they will be too-open to the unscrupulous?

This ? should be left to The Generals & Rule-Makers, not to Theocrats nor Gay's advocates. They both want ATTENTION & Want to Make Money over this Moral? or
iMORAL ??. So,

The PENTAGON and da Congress must Think NATIONAL-SECURITY 1st, Not SEX Preference
or Sex Orientation-Security 1st! sorry.

See, The History of our Almighty U.S. military is rife with "Segregation" or "Discrimination" of some ethnic "Outfit"
or "Special group" etc.. EXAMPLE:

America, in the Beginning of Colonization has had it's "MINUTE MEN" [i.e., Sons of Liberty, Paul Revere {pbuh et al}], TUSKEGEE AIRMEN [Negro Pilots of WW2]", "CODE TALKERS [Navajo/Comanche Unit of WW2]" et al: AND

Since "G" TEAM"s or "G" TROOPS or their Advocates 'Equate' [Demeaning] a "G"ay or its ORIENTATION or 'Preference' as being tantamount to RACISM? or demeaning of "G" platoon/Unit folks is equated with
HUMAN-RIGHTS violations etc.. OYE...!

Think about This: The most "DANGEROUS" part about Repealing DADT can have a open "HONEY-TRAP" effect on unsuspecting "G" Military Personnel via unsuspecting Encounters via "G" Romances with "THE-ENEMY". Example:

IFa Openly Gay Airman Goes to a Gay Bar in Christopher Street, N.Y. C. or Even in KARACHi that he or she can spill secrets if picked-up by a Foreign Gay-Agent and gets Satisfied beyond Fantasyiation. OR

A Russian male None-STRAIGHT'r [secret Agent, SPY] or a Chinese or Ishlami agents etc. can have a 13" Tool (or like a Weapon) between his/her legs. And of course using their experienced Tongues etc TO INFILTRATE, let alone PENETRATE or Compromise...

RECOMMENDATION: DON't Fix What Is Not Broken and Leave "D A D Tell" as is! There is only 2-Options:

1) Best to Utilize, take Advantage of "G" TROOPS at hand to Infiltrate other Foreign Enemy "G" AGENTS or Nationals or Locals. Note: ARABS, Irani's, Afghani's military are the Best to Infiltrate, since they are into Big Tools & Sexual Fantasy. OR

2) ELIMINATE "G"ays into the Military Altogether. Note: Training Them can always back fire if they wanted to set-up their own private armys against Straights.

PS: There's a Saying "NEVER VOLUNTEER" [In the Army].

The simple answer is that since Don't Ask Don't Tell was IMPLEMENTED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, it will ultimately have to be undone BY CONGRESS. Was it also a failure to "give deference to the military leaders" when Congress first enacted DADT? I guess not, since the ACLJ agrees with that decision.

Frankly, the military was just as resistant to and the leadership just as conflicted over desegregation. Yet President Truman did it, during the Berlin Airlift (how's that for timing?), despite the naysayery. And it's rightly remembered as one of the best decisions of his Presidency.

I also strongly object to the "deference to the military" argument on Constitutional grounds. The Framers deliberately put the military under the control of civilian leadership. The deep concerns about standing armies expressed by Jefferson et al. led to the compromise in Article I, Section 8 that requires all of the appropriations of money for the military last no more than two years. Congress has power to "make rules for teh government and regulation of the land and naval forces". Article II, Section 2 makes the civilian President, not a high ranking general or admiral, the Commander in Chief.

I honor the service of our men and women in uniform. The Constitution they swore to protect and defend puts their leadership squarely under the control of We the People. We are a constitutional republic, not a junta.