Google +LinkedInPinterestYouTubeInstagramTwitterFacebook

Legion to Congress: Remove DADT language

Featured in National Security
Legion to Congress: Remove DADT language
The American Legion sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, urging him and others to remove any language relating to "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” from the pending 2011 Defense Authorization Act.

The American Legion sent a letter today to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urging him “to remove any language relating to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” from the pending 2011 Defense Authorization Act.

“It is clear that this subject is very controversial, and its inclusion in the Defense Authorization could jeopardize passage of this vital legislation,” wrote American Legion National Commander Jimmie Foster. “This year, while our servicemembers are engaged with enemies throughout the world, is not a time to allow politics to hamper their fiscal requirements. Remove the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ provisions and pass the 2011 Defense Authorization before you.”

The letter was also delivered to Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Foster expressed The American Legion’s longstanding concerns that political expediency is forcing the DADT debate to a premature conclusion. He reminded Reid that “important voices” still need to be heard on the matter, including those of combat troops, military clergy and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Foster thanked Reid and his fellow senators for showing restraint over DADT policy and for waiting for the Department of Defense to complete its study on the issue that was released last week.

“Because of the findings in that report, we have a better understanding of the thoughts and feelings of some of our servicemembers, and a hint of the challenges before us should the law be repealed,” Foster wrote. “While The American Legion disagrees on whether ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ should be repealed, we definitely agree now is not the time to repeal the law.”

More in National Security

 

ltmalinski

February 4, 2011 - 7:39pm

The difference between gays and pedophiles? Really? I think it might have something to do with LEGAL CONSENT. For those of you who talk of leaving the Legion because the National Commander stands against the repeal of DADT, who will change things if you leave? In another posting, a member said that he was tired of being associated with a bunch of closed-minded, old, white-haired, white men. Some of those old white guys think the same way we do, and we are the faces that will be there as the years go by. We stand by tradition, patriotism, honor, integrity, and we bring new voices to speak for what we feel is right. If no one ever stands up and says, "This is wrong," how will things ever get better?

Skooter

December 17, 2010 - 10:40am

I want to address some of the ridiculous arguments I've seen here: "It's not natural" Two organisms interacting consensually in a way that pleases them both isn't natural? Cell phones, TV's, and reading glasses aren't "natural." What homosexuals do is perfectly natural, you just don't want to do it and that's understandable. Nobody's trying to make you do it. So, why stop someone else from doing it? "It's an abomination" Presumably you mean "...against God." The Constitution that I swore to defend prevents the government from making rules based on religion alone. To think that religious dogma should be able to influence government is UNAMERICAN. "There's no reproduction" The world is already over-populated. On top of that, why must every sexual act result in a baby? What about married couples who decide not to have children? I fought to defend FREEDOM for all Americans, not just the ones who choose the same lifestyle as mine.

Skooter

December 17, 2010 - 10:26am

To tell a brave soldier that he or she can't protect you because of the way they like to have sex is absurd. The ONLY reason people think it's so wrong and an "abomination" is because the Bible says so. There is no harm caused as long as what they do is consensual. Here are some highlights from the same book (Leviticus) that calls homosexuality an "abomination": -Baby girls are twice as dirty as baby boys (12:1-8) -Menstruating women are unclean to God (15:19-30) -Women are only worth half as much as men (27:3-7) -Don't wear cotton/poly mixed fibers (19:19) -Children who curse their parents must be killed (20:9-12) -Handicapped people must not approach the alter (21:16-23) -If a priest's daughter loses her virginity before marriage, she must be burned to death (21:9) -Instructions for buying slaves (24:45-46) People cherry-pick the homosexual part so that they can feel good about their bigotry and most have no idea what else is in that book.

Jim A

December 14, 2010 - 5:14pm

I don't understand why the Legion is taking a stand for discrimination. Because that is what it is. We all volunteered and served our country to protect everyone's rights, not just straight peoples rights. Wake up and start supporting what you fought for!

hm1wil

December 14, 2010 - 2:19am

There's one way to solve this issue once and for all. As part of the enlistment process put forward the question: Are you a homosexual, lesbian or bi-sexual? If Yes, thank you for your time but you can't serve. The other side of coin dealing with pregnancies (they do affect crew strength, ask a co-ed ship how many are left behind prior to deployment): Will you submit to contraceptive injection prior to boot camp & beyond? If you decide to get pregnant, without command approval, will you agree to BCD? If No, thank you for your time but you can't serve. Recruiters(active/retired/separated) held accountable. Get it in writing & sworn to and if they lie then automatic, immediate BCD, no matter the type of mission they are on. This will put to rest all this back & forth to repeal DADT; It's either okay to serve or not, period: If not-out; end strength be damned! Bring on the draft!

g11rb55

December 13, 2010 - 7:26pm

I was reading all these comments and I'm sure that each one believes in their convictions. I just wanted to add something for thought. I served for 22 years and during that time I never met anyone who I knew to be gay, it just never came up. I suppose that we were all more concerned with getting the job done that we didn't have time to be worried about someones sexual preference. I don't understand the arguement I guess, aren't we all there to serve our country. Right now my daughter has done a tour in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as well as where ever else she has served, do you think it ever occured to me to ask her what her preference was? I have not because whatever her preference, I'm just proud that she is doing her part.

Kevin Evans

December 11, 2010 - 12:26pm

All of you brain-washed, mentally sick, and/or perverted individuals who think that any type of sexual perversion is a right, or is "normal", are absolutley insane in your mental state. It is not homophobic, it is sexual perversion. There is no "inclusion" involved in sexual perversion. There is definitely no "tolerance" for it. You indivdiuals who push your abnormal lifestyles on the Military, and the Nation, are going to be challenged every step of the way. You can sugar-coat your wording however you think you can to get sympathy from whomever you are trying to change, but it will never work because it's an abomination. Nothing about sexual perversion makes sense. Not for our Nation, not for our Military.

hm1wil

December 14, 2010 - 1:35am

In the my 20 yrs of service: Did I ever knowingly served with gays? NO; Did I ever suspect a member as being gay? YES; Did the question ever come up? NO; Did I ever go on Liberty or Division party with someone I suspected? YES. Any problems? NO; Did they ever skirt their duty? NO; Problem on co-ed ships? YES, suspected but not proven single females get pregnant prior to deployment to not go; weather decks off limits after darken ship except for watchstanders because of past co-ed problems. Now to those of you who quote Paul's scriptures bear in mind this: Rom 2:1-Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 1Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. He also says that sex is meant to increase the population (too many now) to do otherwise is a sin. Can't obey one & not the other. Let's ask & remove all offenders from service.

afghan iraq vet

December 11, 2010 - 12:41pm

If they, progressives, gain this ground here and now, when will it stop. When will stop compromising. 100 years ago if you asked a person about homosexuality, they would tell you it was wrong, sick and twisted. Today we are told to believe that that is just how they are, they can't control who they love, they are born that way, it's a genetic difference or mutation. OK, if we buy that, what is stopping them from saying the same thing about pedophiles 50, 25 or 10 years from now. Oh that's ludicrous you say. That's what people said about homosexuals 100 years ago! When will the compromise stop. If it's not stopped here and now, we will soon bear the same fate of Sodom and Gammorah. We will become a society so twisted and perverted we will be nearly beyond salvation.

Hayek89

December 12, 2010 - 6:09pm

Since you brought up the moral argument, let’s look at your logic. Homosexuality and pedophilia are fundamentally different because one, if it is illegal, is a victimless crime. Two adults having a consensual relationship, whether moral or not, has the potential to hurt no one but those two adults. Pedophilia is a crime against defenseless children. You’ll need to do better than that false comparison. There are plenty of acts that most in our society consider to be immoral, but which remain legal. As you read the Bible, would it prohibit premarital sex and visiting strip clubs? Is the fact that some people have sex before marriage “pushing” that lifestyle on you? Should civil law ban all pre-marital sex and all strip clubs? Should UCMJ? It doesn’t now. I can recognize that based on my faith, some acts are immoral.That gives me no right to legislate against them unless I can make a RATIONAL argument that they are immoral. Citing the Bible is not a rational argument.

dman

December 11, 2010 - 11:34am

At this moment in our nation's history our military is facing a unique challenge. Our leadership from within and many from the civilian politician sector are pushing the need for inclusion of a unique group of individuals. They say it's time to step back from views of the past and to embrace new truths. They call those who oppose their goal all sorts of names, and do so in order to validate their cause, but at the same time they demand tolorance for their own beliefs. Those who measure their life through a moral compass are not to be tolorated,for they violate the rules of this cause, and are labeled and attacked for their beliefs. The basic institutions of our society are under attack, and those who are doing the attacks are challenging each of us to give up our beliefs, our moral compass of what is right and wrong. They will not stop until every element of every institution is remade in their image. As for me, I hold my compass tight, and refuse to be intimidated.

afghan iraq vet

December 11, 2010 - 12:34pm

I hope you don't mind, I liked that so much I stole it and shared it on facebook. Thank you. I don't think I could have said it so eloquently. I did however, change a few things, added some references to my faith etc. Basic message remained though. Again, very well done.

afghan iraq vet

December 11, 2010 - 10:36am

So many people are focusing on the service of homosexuals. No one is actually saying they can't serve, pull a trigger as well, throw a grenade or clear a room as good as the next person. DADT is merely a means to allow them to serve while maintaining good order and discipline. Has anyone ever thought of the logistical nightmare this would cause in order to implement this act? Think about it. Currently you have male quarters and female quarters, male latrines and female latrines, etc. If DADT is repealed and homosexuals are allowed to serve openly, the military would be forced to find a viable means to billet them and allow them to conduct personal hygiene in a non hostile environment. The purpose of having segregated facilities for males and females is so they can conduct it an environment free from someone who finds you sexually attractive. You can't have lesbian facilities as lesbians are attracted to each other, same with gay men. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Hayek89

December 12, 2010 - 6:28pm

Was it a logistic nightmare in Israel? Or do you consider them a second rate military with little wartime experience? Or are we just not as capable to do what they have?

childofGod

December 11, 2010 - 8:35am

Whether you believe in God or not, and whether you believe you came from Apes or not, you did not come from a male sticking his penis up another mans butt. Nor did you come from two women sexual act. There is only one way you entered this world. Your Mother had sex with your Father. Which is the way God planned your entrance into the world. Any other sexual activity is against the will of God and is caused by Satan. The gay lifestyle is wrong and should not be authorized or approved by any law.

Hayek89

December 12, 2010 - 6:32pm

I also didn't come from oral sex. Should the government ban that? I didn't come from sex with contraceptives. Are those immoral, and if so, should the government ban condoms?

lorenzow-jr

December 11, 2010 - 5:24am

America seem to be in a head-on-collision course these days.they do something then contradict it with another.On one hand they are fighting for gay rights,fighting to pass gay marriage,so what in the world is wrong with a gay soldier as long as he respects the uniform and carry out his duties according to Militay Standards.

lorenzow-jr

December 11, 2010 - 5:14am

I am not a gay person,but neither have i the right to decide who should fight for America.i am a Vietnam Vet,that entered the Military in 1969.In those days it did't matter just as long as you stayed on your side of the bunk bed.What does pulling a trigger or throwing a hand grenade has to do with one's sexual prefference?I feel that it's stupid,especially when a whole lot of the ones that are making these stupid decisions are also in the closet themselves.If you ask me the whole darm system has become a mess because we have lost our honesty,and integrity. '

lorenzow-jr

December 11, 2010 - 5:13am

I am not a gay person,but neither have i the right to decide who should fight for America.i am a Vietnam Vet,that entered the Military in 1969.In those days it did't matter just as long as you stayed on your side of the bunk bed.What does pulling a trigger or throwing a hand grenade has to do with one's sexual prefference?I feel that it's stupid,especially when a whole lot of the ones that are making these stupid decisions are also in the closet themselves.If you ask me the whole darm system has become a mess because we have lost our honesty,and integrity. '

bobajabob

December 10, 2010 - 11:55pm

I'm sorry nobody in the Legion asked my opinion before they start giving it to my elected leaders. It is long past time to get past the homophobia and institute equal rights for everybody. It does not matter if the Military want DADT to go away or not:whether they like it or not our Military IS subject to civilian rule. My kid brother was given a less than honorable discharge in 1986 after serving 5.5 years of a 6 year hitch because somebody accused him of being gay.Not for misconduct, only an accusation. He was an instructor at the Monterrey Intelligence Language institute at the time, teaching farsi, hebrew and aramaic. He was never able to access medical care or the money he was owed for his education under the new GI Bill in force at that time. It is past time for this madness to stop.

Towner

December 10, 2010 - 10:37pm

Gays are the last minority group in this country that continually get harassed and insulted. I say let the gays serve openly and discharge the homophobes if they have a problem with it. I disagree with my homophobic American Legion leadership on this issue who want to wait for the military clergy to weigh in - as if a group of religious leaders have an unbiased opinion.

grunt98

December 10, 2010 - 6:42pm

wow jimc if America suck then get the he!! out

Conster74

December 10, 2010 - 5:29pm

Military is not a democracy. It is, in effect an autocracy. So what gets decided pretty much gets foisted on all the troops. I have more respect for gay servicemembers than I do for the politicians who think its a good idea to scr-w with the most powerful Armed Forces in the world. Its not going to do a damb thing for retention. It should be based on merit and performance, which means if you're caught leering at other guys in the shower then of course you should have your culo kicked out. If however you're just there to do your job and not talk about who is warming your bedsheets, then you should be allowed to stay in. (I didn't even discuss MY private life and I am a straight female) Quite frankly DADT is beating a deceased equine, of course its going to hurt morale if there are a bunch of flouncers pony prancing up and down the barracks watering the flowers and dusting the pink flamingoes getting them ready for inspections. Gay or straight keep it professional or GTFO.

hawkeyee

December 10, 2010 - 4:40pm

You people from the extreme left and the gay critters movement need to take your perverted agendas elsewhere, Get thee gone, you make every righteous soldier sick, always have; always will....

dlmarlow

December 12, 2010 - 8:26pm

Aman brother. They should start their own GAY and Lesbo American Legion and quit trying to force their views on ever orginazation in the country.

dlmarlow

December 10, 2010 - 3:47pm

Dito Kevin

dlmarlow

December 10, 2010 - 3:45pm

Bobbypine, The AL doesn't have to tell you their stand on the repeal of DADT. That is not their mission. I'm sure they will continue to support the troops what ever the Congress or Supreme Court decides. You should be asking your Congressman and Senators what their stand in on DADT, not the American Legion.

dlmarlow

December 10, 2010 - 3:36pm

I agree with you Afghan Iraq Vet. After they get DADT repealed, what will they want next? Separate billits for Gay Men and Women? BAQ and BAS, Tricare for their partner. Stop their membership if we as AL members don't agree with their point of view? This will be a nightmare for the Officers and NCOs that "run" the army. More training so we don't hurt their feelings. Just because some liberal judge says its unconstiutional doesn't make it so. I don't think the AL has a position on this matter. They have an opinion and if some members don't like the opinion, they can withdraw their membership like they are threating to do. Its the Active members that have a position of this and thats the way it should be. The way I see it is 75 to 95% are against the repeal.

Kevin Evans

December 10, 2010 - 2:47pm

There's nothing bigoted or racist about sexual perversion. It does not now, nor has it ever, been acceptable in the Military or the Nation. Sexual perversion is not a right, it's an abomination. Like I said earlier, if this is o.k., then it just a matter of time before all forms of sexual perversion are considered acceptable. I hope for the sake of our great Nation, and our beloved Military, this reprehensibile mental sickness gets cured once and for all.

bobbypine

December 10, 2010 - 1:09pm

I want to see how the legion stands on DADT. Please tell us where the legion stands on DADT! in the next issue of THE AMERICAN LEGION...

alrkrash

December 10, 2010 - 1:05pm

This is a good example of complete stupidity....bigotry....Ignorance is involved..I'm straight and don't give a damn as long as the guy or gal next to me can shoot straight....and protect my butt. By the way, I'm a straight atheist. Bet you don't like that either.

Riethul

December 10, 2010 - 12:52pm

Absolutely. The Legion seems to have ignored the recent survey I myself responded to. The VAST majority of military members just don't care. Gays are no less courageous, committed to the Nation, nor more likely to participate in inappropriate sex than straights. Why is this still under discussion? We've got to get over this garbage, pass the Appropriations Bill and move on. The Nation has bigger fish to fry!

alrkrash

December 10, 2010 - 1:16pm

The American Legion has become too Political on too many subjects. It should get off the right and get back to the middle, where it can help it's members that need it. What happened to things that really count, such as making sure every Veteran gets the full medical help he or she needs thru the VA. You want to get rid of someone, let's get rid of the Bigots and Racists among our ranks.

Tim Foor

December 10, 2010 - 11:52am

Homosexuals Destroy a Small Combat Unit's Integrity. Simple as that ! Now, Think of it this way: You EARN a Purple Heart. Years later, find out you've contracted AIDs. By Contaminated Blood Donated through Haste & Delinquent Means of Appropriation, by a US Military Medical Unit. Blood Type very badly needed, so every soldier donates, regardless. Understand ? I served for 12 yrs. Active USMC: '83-'87. In my last unit, the ONLY Noticeable Queers were 3 US Navy Corpsman. 2 were caught naked & joined together, in the infirmary. The other was caught naked, stick in hand & with a sex toy up his rear. NO Lie !!! Just imagine what an USMC MGySgt's actions must have been ? Reservist USA, 2nd Bn 11th SF: '89-'91. There were believed to be "Closet Gays". 1 was a Captain. They were "Shunned". Especially in the Locker Room Area. Reservist Ohio ARNG, HHC 112 Med BDE: This is a Highly Regarded US Military Medical Unit. This experience Supports my comment above.

alrkrash

December 10, 2010 - 1:26pm

Tim, for your information all Donated Blood is now completely tested and has been for quite a few years. They refused my blood because I didn't have, but did have, some of the properties of Hep-C. That was over 10 years ago and I still haven't contracted Hep-C...I'll bet if you were lying on a battlefield bleeding to death, you wouldn't ask that corpsman if he were gay or not. By the way...I am a very straight man. Just don't care that someone is born gay. Yes, Born....not an optional choice.

Hank Lavery

December 10, 2010 - 11:33am

"Not at this time" is is certainly a traditional bureaucratic method of imposing delays or finding reasons to do nothing. In the political world, it is normally necessary to create some kind of motivation to show that a delay is best for the public or the nation. Thus, our motivator is possible adverse effects associated with the DAA. Good try but no cigar. DAA will pass with or without DADT. Like the buggy whip, DADT has no useful purpose and will soon die. Ask someone a year from now about DADT and they will ask what you are talking about. Leaders of the Legion should seek better ways to use their spare time for the benefit of the members. Merry Christmas!!

afghan iraq vet

December 10, 2010 - 11:29am

The repeal is not "strongly supported" amongst current service members. The key questions regarding retention when answered indicate a possible "mass exodus" from military service.

bobbypine

December 10, 2010 - 11:23am

I agree with this writer that if the American Legion doesn't change its views about DADT I will have to drop my membership next year also...I'm also a Vietnam veteran and have no trouble with gays in the military!! Wake up Legionnaires its time to smell the coffee!!Its time to embrace our bothers and sisters from the gay community. Vietnam 1968 "the year of the monkey"

ASAspook

December 10, 2010 - 11:42pm

I agree. I am a Vietnam era Army veteran who passed up a deferment because I believed we are all in this together. It saddens me, but I cannot continue membership in an organization that not only condones a practice that requires patriots to lie about who they are in order to serve their country, but includes members who are openly hostile to other service men and women who have been willing to put their lives on the line for them.

wendig

December 10, 2010 - 10:48am

I served honorably for 20 years. In silence and in the closet. As an Admin/PSNCO I saw the worst of the worst being outprocessed through my office. I watched pedophiles, adulterers, malingerers, thieves, rapists, criminals and domestic violence offenders get kicked out. Worse, I watched as Senior Leadership went to bat for most of these soldiers, writing statements on their behalf, stating what good workers they were and to lose them would be a terrible loss to the mission. Didn't these Soldiers also know the law when they enlisted? I am legally married to my same sex spouse. If it's legal in the eyes of the law, why is it illegal for me to serve openly? It doesn't make sense. The Legion needs to wake up and stop judging based on morals. Only G-d can do that. Wake up, American Legion. Change your stand on DADT. Get behind it. You're likely to gain "Legions" of new and valuable members if you do.

richkane

December 10, 2010 - 10:26am

As a 20-year, Vietnam-era Army sergeant who on occasion lived in barracks with communal showers and slept under canvas in constricted, shared spaces when deployed, my opinion is that DADT should be retained, at least in the short term. If the policy were changed, now openly gay and straight would at once tend to associate primarily with service members of the same ilk - a flashback to vividly remembered days of shoddy race relations. Now's NOT the time for this!

Owl Creek Observer

December 10, 2010 - 10:24am

As a 23 year veteran, I agree with the Legion's stand on this issue. If allowing homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to serve openly in uniform is a good and honorable idea, then surely it must be debated openly. Let all senators and representatives make their positions clear to their constituents instead of hiding behind unrelated legislation like the defense budget. It's time for the congress to come out of the political closet and debate this important issue as a stand-alone piece of legislation. That is all the Legion is saying.

tkingpa

December 10, 2010 - 9:34am

It is broken! And, It has been broken for a long time! The DOD's own survey indicates that repeal is strongly supported within the military. It is time that the protectors of our freedoms truly stand up for freedom and become inclusive of all who wish to serve our country. Vietnam Era SSG

MR77

December 21, 2010 - 12:41am

We are here to serve national defense initiatives. Telling our Warriors to stand up and campaign??? In the military, you do what you're told, and behave the way your told. That's the end of it! You know this. Lastly, after reading leftist supporters of this movement, the military is not and should never be a forum for advancing any social agenda. I find this truly repugnant and dishonorable. Anyone who follows suit to this clearly doesn't understand what the military is and why it operates the way it does. Civilian issues have no place in the training/operating environment. If gays wat to serve, keep it to themselves. I don't care how it makes them feel. Thier feelings aren't what matter. In the military, the individual is never a point of focus. Its the whole. Remember? BTW, Military members actually serving in combat opposed the repeal of DADT. But the media likes to leave that little tidbit out of the report. But I guess that's to be expected.

tugbug

December 10, 2010 - 8:59am

AL....Stand Your Ground. There is no good reason, under the sun, this should be changed. If changed, it would only be used to create more problems. I say "It ain't broke, don't fix it".........leave it alone.

Kevin Evans

December 10, 2010 - 9:13am

Hey ArkansasGrizz, I'm here to tell your mentally sick perverted self that I served Honorably in the Army, and when we came across sexually demented perverts like yourself, we got them discharged under UCMJ. That's they way it should stay. I'm glad as hell I don't have to serve with the likes of your kind. Your sexually mental sickness is an abomination to the Military, and to this Nation. And on this planet called Earth that I reside on, unlike the perverted utopia your from, we have morals, ethics, and values that your mentally defective mind cannot comprehend. Don't go back in the closet, go back to the planet YOU came from, you sick individual.

FloridaVet42

December 10, 2010 - 6:50am

The Legion's position on DADT is out dated. They should be fighting for all gay and lesbian soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines and coast guard members. I will not be renewing my membership when it expires because of their position on this important matter.

Liza2000us2001

December 10, 2010 - 6:24am

I have never though that the American Legion would be so selfish to allow a defense bill pass without a repeal for DADT; what is it wrog with the American Legion?? They want the bill to pass so fast that they are willing to leave behind thousands of honorable gay men and women without justice and rights? American Legion the DADT policy is unconstitutional why are you not defending the repeal instead If you care about the Veterans well being so much?? Im so disapointed with this that I will not renew my membership, I will not recommend it to fellow veterans close to me and I will unlike and remove it from my Facebook and twitter account!!! Shame on you American Legion you need more younger members and stop supporting baby boomers only!!!

dlmarlow

December 10, 2010 - 4:43pm

The DADT policy in not unconstitutional even if a left wing judge says it is. It is not a right to join the service, its a priviledge. You should go ahead and remove it from your Facebook and twitter account. Its not a right to join and demand that we babybooners should change the rules just for a minority. Majority rules. Hello.

rnbjusn

December 10, 2010 - 4:41am

In my opinion, the Legion’s stance on DADT reinforces an outdated (I hope) stereotype of our organization. That is, that we are all a bunch of right-wing, old religious zealots. The facts are, some of us are right-wing, some are left, some are old and some are young. Some of us are super religious, some not outwardly religious at all. Some are straight, homosexual, bi-sexual or asexual. That is just life. Homosexuals use shower and toilet facilities along with straights in the work place, health clubs and public pool facilities. Society hasn’t fallen apart because of this. From everything I’ve read, homosexuals, especially in a military environment, do not want to cause problems or draw attention to their sexual orientation. They just want to live their own private lives privately, like everyone else. We all fought for freedom, and freedom is for all, not for some. R. Jones USN 1966-1969

dlmarlow

December 10, 2010 - 5:00pm

R Jones, If homosexuals don't want to cause problems or draw attention to their sexual orientation, why are they demanding that the Armed Services change the USMJ and treat them like other couples? Why are they threating the AL if they don't agree with them on repeal of DADT they will not renew their membership? Even the Navy is not a health club, public pool, or public toilet facilitie. They are there of course but they don't push it on straight people which they are trying to push on the military.

klingeng

December 10, 2010 - 2:58am

I read the 345 page report. Don't believe the phony liberal media reports that 70% of troops support open homosexual service, because that statistic included 'mixed' feelings. A closer reading of the fine print in the newly released Pentagon survey shows our troops answered as follows: Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian, 9% positive, 91% negative or mixed effect on unit's performance. Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust. Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don't know or do "something else" [including violence.] Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. [One half million troops will QUIT early, destroying national security.] For detailed analysis or to sign a petition visit (without spaces) pray in jesus name dot org

transoff

December 10, 2010 - 8:18am

Can you tell us where you were able to read the 345 page report? I retired in 2007 after 22 years in the military, and your statements don't reflect what I experienced around the world.

dlmarlow

December 10, 2010 - 2:21pm

You can find the report online, but the percentage breakdown can be found in the Army Times. If you add up all the "no" percentages, at least 75% do not want the DADT repealed. With the exception of the Navy Chief of Staff, the other Chiefs of Staff don't want the DADT repealed. It should be Active Duty deciding this not the Liberals and Gays that are not in the military. And if we do not agree with you, and you say you will stop being a member of the American Legion, go ahead, thats your right to do so. I retired from the Army as a Master Sgt. in 2005, and I can tell you that this will be more stress on the NCOs that will have to deal with this. You can bet a lot of them are afraid to answer this survey as to how they really feel. Sadly thousands of them will leave the services and their losses with their experience will be lost for good.

Hayek89

December 10, 2010 - 2:45am

By the letter of the law, you are absolutely correct. Defense spending should stand alone. On the other hand, both Republicans and Democrats have attached other riders to defense authorization for years. Has the Legion raised the issue in those cases? If the AL's only issue is that the bill is attached to defense authorization, then let's see them announce their position on DADT itself. This seems like cheap way to oppose the change without taking a firm position, and if that is the case, the AL doesn't speak for this combat vet.

Hayek89

December 10, 2010 - 2:08am

With all due respect bringuel, after multiple combat tours including command in combat in Airborne Infantry and Cavalry units, I am quite convinced that I can match my credentials up to yours. I am also quite convinced that you are wrong. I have personal moral issues with homosexuality for the same reasons that I have personal moral issues with promiscuity. With that said, UCMJ does not prevent premarital sex, and it should not prevent two consenting adults from relations. As far as a viable and professional military force, I have no doubt that I have worked with and commanded homosexual soldiers. Moreover, soldiers knew or at least had suspicions about who the homosexuals were. Unit effectiveness was not damaged in any way by the presence of homosexuals because professional soldiers and professional leaders did their jobs. If the viability of your units would have been reduced, it sounds to me like those units had an issue with sub-par leaders.

hwwatts

December 10, 2010 - 12:29am

I served 22 yrs and was in when this illogical compromise was made in the first place. Even then it was crazy---in effect--- ignore the Uniform Code OF Military Justice-the laws we all know if you ever served. Is the UCMJ in effect today? If so,what other laws do we ignore--how about Carnal Knowledge or other sexual laws,incest,or others in UCMJ. We all know some laws are enforced stronger than others but it is crazy to have a written policy to ignore the law. Change the law if you do not like it.

art_in_SF

December 9, 2010 - 11:38pm

Believe me, this stance of the "leadership" of an immature jacka$$ who is called by a little boy's name of "Jimmie" is distasteful as hell, and it would be easy for me to feel as you do - to just quit. That would mean they won. We took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from ALL enemies - both foreign AND DOMESTIC. "Jimmie" and his other immature ilk are DOMESTIC ENEMIES of the Constitution. It's not just our right to fight him and other homophobes like him - IT IS OUR DUTY. Did that oath we swore mean ANYTHING? If it did, then we need to step up to the plate & fight these traitorous sons-of-whores. We need to FIGHT them - not give in to them. I joined the military - even though gay - because I truly & idealistically believe in America & what our country stands for. I really TRULY believe in the PROMISE of liberty & freedom. You won't see me backing down from this fight. So please - do NOT quit. Join me, instead, in fighting for the Constitution.

Harleyman

December 9, 2010 - 11:08pm

I am proud of the American Legion for stepping up to the plate and defending morality and the sanctity of our military. When someone joins the military they agree to abide by the rules and regulations set forth. Those that are gay in the miltary knew what the rules were when they joined. If it was something that they didn't like then they shouldn't have joined. Those that have been discharged were not discharged because of their sexual orientation they were discharged for refusing to follow the rules and regulations of the military. Good ridence. The military is an organization that is seperate from the norms of society - it has to be. You do not have a constitutional right to serve in the military anymore then you have a constitiutional right to go on the next space flight. You know the rules going in - if you don't like it then DON'T JOIN!!!

art_in_SF

December 10, 2010 - 12:27am

You wrote, "When someone joins the military they agree to abide by the rules and regulations set forth." Before they do that, they SWEAR TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Don't Ask Don't Tell has been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What part of that does your limited intellect have a problem with comprehending? You prove yourself to be a traitor just like all the other traitors who've posted here. You all should be stripped of your veteran status and deported from the country. If you don't like the Constitution - LEAVE. And let the door hit you on the <b>A$$</b> on your way out.

afghan iraq vet

December 10, 2010 - 10:36am

How is DADT unconstitutional? I have read the constitution, numerous times, and it is not in the text anywhere that anyone has a right to serve in the military. No one has a constitutional right to serve in the Armed Forces. Military service is a privilege. If DADT is unconstitutional then wouldn't it also be unconstitutional to tell an overweight, too short, or physically handicapped person they cannot serve? DADT is simply a way to allow people to serve regardless of sexual orientation while at the same time maintaining good order and discipline within the military ranks.

crixell

December 9, 2010 - 10:51pm

The American Legion has been a disappointment since I started reading member comments, and most importantly because of the National Commander's lack of real knowledge and understanding. He definitely does not represent me when he writes to Congress, i.e. his letter on DADT and military appropriations bill. I have been disappointed by membership comments that sound racist, holier than thou, and lacking of compassion. How ironic would it be for those making hateful comments to find out that their trusted, best buddy was gay, or a lesbian. I am not gay, but I am thankful and respect that gays and lesbians have chosen a career in the military. How ironic for bigots to find out that thousands if not millions have served valiantly in numerous wars worldwide. There is nothing that can be said on either side to change our minds on DADT. My comment is meant to emphasize my distaste for the American Legion leadership and member's distasteful comments. I will not renew membership.

SMB

December 9, 2010 - 10:42pm

I retired a few years ago, but when I entered the service in 1983 when there was no "DADT". Recruiters were required to asked all applicants their sexual preference out-right. To me, when DADT was enacted into law, it was the military's way of taking the "middle ground", not discriminating, or taking sides. I unkowingly met and worked with a homosexual at my first duty station. We became friends, and decided move off base into a 2BR apt. Each of us had our own space. Even after I knew however, it still felt weird and uncomfortable at times when taking showers or changing at the gym. I do see problems arising, especially onboard ships and subs, if this law is repealed. The worst thing about this issue is how it has caused such hate and discontent amongst veterans. Many comments posted here are deragatory and hurtful. We are all vets with our opinions,right or wrong, agree or not, like it or not.....

williampoe777

December 9, 2010 - 10:52pm

Recognizing the prevalence of the HIV virus in the male homosexual population does not make a person a bigot. The need for battlefield transfusion often occurs. This fact alone is reason to reject homosexuals for military service.

wendig

December 10, 2010 - 8:32am

Better get your facts straight, Williampoe. HIV is more prevalent in heterosexual men and women than it is in gay men. I'd be worried about a battlefield transfusion if I were gay more so than if I were straight. Gay men are more careful about using protection than their straight counterparts. This has been proven over and in in many studies.

RightGunner

December 9, 2010 - 10:02pm

Those comments that claim veterans not on active duty have no right to speak on the homosexual-in-the-service discussion, seem to claim that there is a right to serve as a homosexual and no one of maturity and successful military team building experience should comment. Their idea that only homosexuals who have infiltrated the military should be able to speak on the subject shows an abnormal, and completely incorrect view of all of our constitutional rights, even that subset that the military retain. Our country is not a democracy and the military certainly is not since they must definitely be well disciplined and well regulated. Trying to make a radical change that mixes males with people who are sexually attractive to them should never be allowed on duty or in quarters, whether between sexes or between homosexuals. If any changes are proposed, those serving should be allowed to terminate their enlistment.

art_in_SF

December 10, 2010 - 12:26am

You idiotically said, "Our country is not a democracy" It isn't?

transoff

December 10, 2010 - 8:21am

No Art, it isn't a democracy. We have a Republic. Read American history. Son's of the Republic, Republican party, Grand ol' Republic, etc, etc. Please read definitions of both, and then you can apolgize.

Vito4260

December 10, 2010 - 12:47am

"We have given you a Republic...if you can keep it." Benjamin Franklin

pgwveteran9091

December 9, 2010 - 9:49pm

This is typical Washington POLITICS, let's throw something in the bill thats is not in line with everything else in the bill. That is why we need line item veto!!! I sympathize with our gay comrades, but lets not paint the American Legion with the devil brush and label everyone within the organization just because the AL is fighting to get the budget/act passed PROPERLY. My gay friends, WORK WITH the AL and other organizations to see your view, if you make them the enemy,then all support is lost.

pgwveteran9091

December 9, 2010 - 9:49pm

This is typical Washington POLITICS, let's throw something in the bill thats is not in line with everything else in the bill. That is why we need line item veto!!! I sympathize with our gay comrades, but lets not paint the American Legion with the devil brush and label everyone within the organization just because the AL is fighting to get the budget/act passed PROPERLY. My gay friends, WORK WITH the AL and other organizations to see your view, if you make them the enemy,then all support is lost.

pgwveteran9091

December 9, 2010 - 9:49pm

WAIT WAIT WAIT...I realize this is a sensitive issue especially to our gay comrades, but the real message here is getting drowned out by emotions. Kenny181 hit the point exactly "The Legion didn't say they were against, or for DADT that I am aware of. The said they didn't want the matter in the same Bill with all of Defense. You could be for one and against another" Kenny181 Do you not get it, not to mix a budget item with a policy item??

art_in_SF

December 9, 2010 - 11:32pm

Yes, Jimmie caved in to the National Executive Committee's demands and has officially stated that the ENTIRE LEGION is against DADT being repealed. Yes, instead of defending the Constitution of the United States - he traitorously caved in to homophobes and domestic enemies to the Constitution. And yes, I know EXACTLY of what I'm accusing him of. I hope he sees it, and I welcome the chance to throw it in his face that he's a goddamned TRAITOR.

pgwveteran9091

December 9, 2010 - 9:48pm

WAIT WAIT WAIT...I realize this is a sensitive issue especially to our gay comrades, but the real message here is getting drowned out by emotions. Kenny181 hit the point exactly "The Legion didn't say they were against, or for DADT that I am aware of. The said they didn't want the matter in the same Bill with all of Defense. You could be for one and against another" Kenny181 Do you not get it, not to mix a budget item with a policy item??

pgwveteran9091

December 9, 2010 - 9:46pm

WAIT WAIT WAIT...I realize this is a sensitive issue especially to our gay comrades, but the real message here is getting drowned out by emotions. Kenny181 hit the point exactly "The Legion didn't say they were against, or for DADT that I am aware of. The said they didn't want the matter in the same Bill with all of Defense. You could be for one and against another" Kenny181 Do you not get it, not to mix a budget item with a policy item?? This is typical Washington POLITICS, let's throw something in the bill thats is not in line with everything else in the bill. That is why we need line item veto!!! I sympathize with our gay comrades, but lets not paint the American Legion with the devil brush and label everyone within the organization just because the AL is fighting to get the budget/act passed PROPERLY. My gay friends, WORK WITH the AL and other organizations to see your view, if you make them the enemy,then all support is lost.

pgwveteran9091

December 9, 2010 - 9:46pm

WAIT WAIT WAIT...I realize this is a sensitive issue especially to our gay comrades, but the real message here is getting drowned out by emotions. Kenny181 hit the point exactly "The Legion didn't say they were against, or for DADT that I am aware of. The said they didn't want the matter in the same Bill with all of Defense. You could be for one and against another" Kenny181 Do you not get it, not to mix a budget item with a policy item?? This is typical Washington POLITICS, let's throw something in the bill thats is not in line with everything else in the bill. That is why we need line item veto!!! I sympathize with our gay comrades, but lets not paint the American Legion with the devil brush and label everyone within the organization just because the AL is fighting to get the budget/act passed PROPERLY. My gay friends, WORK WITH the AL and other organizations to see your view, if you make them the enemy,then all support is lost.

E_Larson

December 9, 2010 - 9:43pm

The article says the American Legion is urging the removal of any language relating to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell from the pending 2011 Defense Authorization Act. What's in the Defense Authorization Act that deals with Don't Ask Don't Tell? The article urges taking "it" out, but doesn't say what "it" is. It seems everyone on this board is in a pissing contest and they're not sure what they're up in arms about.

RightGunner

December 9, 2010 - 9:39pm

If it should be determined that a right has been discovered that requires the military to accept homosexual men and women, then the military should provide separate units and quarters for them, along with identifying uniforms. And in repealing DADT the first action should be a requirement for self identification of each existing service member’s sexual persuasion, so we can understand the scope of the problem. And any untruthfulness should require prison time. After having gained an accurate census of the existing infiltration of the military by homosexuals, we should be fair in our next steps. If it is decided that homosexuals have a right to serve, then the proposed next steps should be spelled out but not yet implemented. Then to be fair, all current members should be allowed to request termination of their enlistment. The answer as to whether the new rules will harm unit cohesiveness, morale and retention will be answered.

art_in_SF

December 9, 2010 - 11:34pm

We here in America follow the Constitution.

bringuel

December 9, 2010 - 9:36pm

I am a retired Army officer who has command and staff to Major Headquarters level experience and find the dialogue concerning the repeal of DADT totally kindergarten. Fact be fact = homosexuals, lesbian, gay, or just plain queers are by definition ABNORMAL. They should be seeking medical attention NOT military service. As a commander of troops you have enough on your plate with totally NORMAL and rational people serving in your command. One of the things you DO NOT need is ABNORMAL people. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell MUST remain in place and be firmly enforced to support a viable and professional Military force.

afghan iraq vet

December 11, 2010 - 10:26am

Well said.

transoff

December 10, 2010 - 8:27am

I don't know of any other NATO force restricting service as we do. I have served with officers like you with command and staff to headquarters weenies. Your head is up the general's 4th point of contact, and your views are sh*tty. Having served in command positions in line units, I strongly disagree with your view.

wademaniac

December 9, 2010 - 9:24pm

I was an MP with the 9th Division and was in country in 1967.They need to leave DADT alone,It is working.If you get a Flamer in combat with limp hands and breaks a nail,,,,,,,,,he won`t go home. Why do you think 1st louis never made it home.I had to deal with this stuff,and most of the country along with our politicians have never been in combat.It`s called the real world.

jimc

December 9, 2010 - 8:41pm

Kenny 181 You're a pussy yourself. Feminine gay guys aren't the ones in the military- are you a moron? Speaking of feminine types- did you mean cheney, rove and dumbya too? Who's more feminine than them? Rummy? Some moron suggested a separate branch for gays- how is that different than what we did to blacks in WWII? America sucks- always has, always will.

transoff

December 10, 2010 - 8:29am

Kenny, America doesn't suck, it is the people with the bigoted views. Exactly right on concerning our racism toward minorities in WWII. Good enough to fight but just not by me? Bunch of losers who think that way.

jimc

December 9, 2010 - 8:32pm

I retired in 1975 but never joined any veterans organization because they were usually repugnants, smokers and drunks. Earlier this year I joined the American Legion but I still haven't gone to a legion hall for the same reasons- most veterans seem like righty assholes to me- not very bright as evidenced by their smoking and hate for others. Now with their opposition to DADT i'm sure I wasted $25. Unless DADT is repealed i won't make that mistake again. I don't smoke, I'm not a repugnant and I can drink at other places. 20 years of service and I'm ashamed of my country- the racists came out of the closet 2 years ago and they embarass me on a daily basis. They should be shot for treason.

transoff

December 10, 2010 - 8:31am

I am sorry for your experience. I too joined two years ago with the same thoughts. People like us are the new generation and we can make a difference. Hang in there.

ruspert

December 9, 2010 - 8:27pm

All the talk about equality in the military. Have these people forgot the Officer and Enlisted system that the military has engrained in it.. As for open homosexual members of the military, it is not advisable with the present make up of the services, perhaps a separate branch may be acceptable. There may have been a study of this consideration, but to my knowledge, no one has mentioned it.

jimc

December 9, 2010 - 8:25pm

It's hard to tell who the faggots are- they seem to be the old timers in this asshole organization. We're all Americans. I did 20 and I'm sure there were gay men serving during that time. I never felt threatened but then I've never been a shitbird Republican either. The homophobic- still in the closet -righties need to leave my country. I hate you repugnants- you ruin America. Get out.

ArmySergeant71

December 9, 2010 - 8:24pm

Equality for all under the United States Constitution! The allies of our nation, including Israel, the UK, and multiple other nations have opening gay service personnel serving within their ranks, and in hostile/combat areas. Why should we encourage our gay service men and women to lie? Where is the honor in telling and living a lie? I served in combat operations with two ( known to me ) gay men. It was never an issue and in fact, one of them was a hero, saving the lives of 7 men pinned down under hostile fire. This is 2010, not the dark ages. I won't be renewing my American Legion Membership in 2011.

James Henderson USMC

December 9, 2010 - 8:21pm

It alarmed me when I first heard that , the government that seems to be doing far less governing than it use to,and more story telling than truths, decided that it would be OK if any man or woman can come into any branch of service and openly expose their sexuality or preference of sexual orientation. In short I was in the Corps and we had Gays and Lesbians and I vaguely remebered that anyone that was the opposite straight usually crossed the fence and was found out and the put out ouf the Corps, I was happy to be honest, when you are a male in the Marines, most all of us may have not been gorgeous but we were sure buff and the thought of some guy staring at my keester and then me finding out later he had been ,sure would have fired me up and dirtied what I thought we stood for , as team, If i was to stand around staring at a females behind in, it would most assuredly been trouble for me.

art_in_SF

December 10, 2010 - 12:12am

See? THAT is how immature you sound. You seem to be stuck at that level of intellect, as well. Too bad that so many in the military is as stupid and immature as you are.

sbwilliams71

December 9, 2010 - 8:09pm

For those who claim that this country is a Christian country--yes it is. But you also conveniently forget the first immigrants here from Europe came to escape religious persecution. DADT is simply discrimination. Homosexuals have been serving covertly in our nation's armed forces for years. To think they can't defend or fight our enemies is so narrow minded. I will not be renewing my membership next year.

LTCMike

December 9, 2010 - 8:05pm

I joined the American Legeon as a young Captain in Vietnam in 1965 as soon as Congress authorized it. I have been a member for over fifty years.. I am also GAY. I retired in 1986 as a Lieutenant Colonel. I can not believe that the Legeon would openly discriminate against Soldiers like me. I served honorably and so do many other GAY Soldiers. However, we had to worry about our private lives coming out and thus being discharged. I am sorry now I was an Early Bird in renewing my membership for 2011. It hurts me to want to quit the American Legion after more than fifty years. We are just an orghanization of OLD FUDDY DUDDIES now, who cannot accept the current USA. It looks like we want to live in the past. Should we also discriminate against BLACK members. MUSLIM Members. NO of course not. So do not discriminate against me and other GAY soldiers. Get into the Twenty-First Century. I am seventy-two years old now. Mike, LTC, US Army, Retired

oasisob1

December 9, 2010 - 8:01pm

As a Navy Chief with over 20 years of Service, I once worked in an environment where men & women shared the facilities and showered in adjacent stalls. The doors fell a foot short of the ground & the top edge was just over six feet high. It would have been trivial for anyone to get a look, if they wanted, but the men were not 'in hog heaven'. Any man caught looking would have been beaten within an inch of his life (or closer). We were team members who developed respect & trust in each other. Nothing untoward ever happened. We of the US Military are professionals, whether straight or gay. We will continue to be professionals when DADT is repealed, just as we have always done in the face of change. We will lead the change, & see to it that every Servicemember is treated fairly & with respect. We'll handle the misfits, straight or gay, who break that trust. It's what we do, you can count on it. Times change, we have a choice, serve with Honor or pack up and go home. Go Navy! Beat Army

transoff

December 10, 2010 - 8:35am

First of all, GO ARMY, BEAT NAVY. You had it reversed so I am helping you. Other than your little faux pau, the rest is right on target.

Sulo H Wainio

December 9, 2010 - 8:00pm

Enough about the Policy, what about the cost of implementing a new openly gay military? Would the military now be required to create a new housing requirement IE: separate floors, suits, or buildings for openly gay men and women. What about the family housing areas? I think our legislators are again putting the cart before of the horse to pay off campaign promises at the military expense. Someone needs to think out all the potential problems and recommend fixes for them before we even talk about the Policy.

transoff

December 10, 2010 - 8:38am

Quarters are based on gender, not sexuality. There are now co-ed living areas. Yep, the military today is full of gays, living and working side by side with straight comrades. Guess what, we all know it too and we are stronger than ever. Those of you who served more than 20 years ago, thank you, but stay out of this fight because times have changed, but you haven't.

art_in_SF

December 10, 2010 - 12:16am

Is that REALLY how our Constitution reads? That everyone is free and equal AS LONG AS THEY HAVE MONEY OR DON'T COST TOO MUCH? If these people were straight, they'd have access to family housing, wouldn't they? Your argument isn't logical.

BBB

December 9, 2010 - 7:52pm

People sometimes miss the big picture. This country is and will be till the end of time founded on Christian Values and Morales. Until this country comes to grip with this it will fall like all other Great Nation of the past that gave rights to every crying person just to gain thier support so they could have the power and Wealth. The Romans and Greeks both tryed this concept, and were destroyed. This country needs to get back to values that are Decent. I am no bible thumper, but I know what is right for this country and the people of this great nation. If you are gay, so be it, you have no right as a married couple...sorry, and if you are gay an single I don't care, keep your opinions and life style to yourself. It is time for the people to stand up for what is right and Morally sound. Politicians take heed to this, you too will fall with them if you follow the path of the Romans and Greeks.

art_in_SF

December 10, 2010 - 12:17am

I sure wish we hung people like you. THAT is where the country needs to go back to: hanging traitors to the Constitution.

lechlite

December 9, 2010 - 7:50pm

I am a 61 year old Vietnam Era Veteran. I am old school and a Christian and very happily married heterosexual. The last time I checked homosexual acts were an abomination unto the Lord. So don't try to say that homosexuals are as normal as heterosexuals. It is a sin! I have a couple of very good friends that are gay but they keep it to themselves. I think all this current bluster by gays is just an attempt to shove it into our heterosexual faces! Nothing more. How we feel doesn't change what you as a homosexual are going to do so what's the BFD??!! BTW, my homo friends don't kiss or anything else in my presence as they know it bo6thers me. So DADT as far as I am concerned is perfect, so stop with all the false indignance. Dan L.

mawellj72

December 9, 2010 - 7:32pm

I will not be renewing my membership in the Legion next year. Any organization that does not wish to represent the value of equality does not represent me. I am a gay member of the American Legion, who served under DADT during Operation Desert Storm. I served proudly and, until today, was honored to be associated with the Legion. The leadership of this organization should be ashamed of themselves. Max Andrews Atlanta, Georgia

kjrunaas

December 9, 2010 - 8:19pm

As the wife of an active duty military officer with 17 years of service, I wanted to let you know Max and all of the LBGTs out there - you are not alone. This is strictly a CIVIL rights issue - nothing more, nothing less. Afro-Americans had their fight, women as well, unfortunately the fight for equal rights continues. There are already LBGTs serving in the US Military. For me, it is strange to think that you are supposed to trust your fellow soliders/sailors, but yet hide such a big part of yourself. Over 10% of this country is LGBT. Discrimination in any form is WRONG! DADT will be repealed, it might not happen this month or next year, but it will be repealed. Shame on the American Legion for taking the wrong side of this issue. Jennifer Runaas

Back_Home_in_Indiana

December 9, 2010 - 7:28pm

I am USN-20yr Ret. They way I see this issue is that when deployed, Military members are housed/berthing/showering in separate places by gender. Now we seem to have Heterosexual, Homosexual, and Bisexual people housed/berthing/showering in separate places by gender. So, if one is looking but no touch, how do we keep the focus on work and off of who looks good to whom. Give everybody blinders? Don't LOOK and Never Tell? Put the lights out and hope the person who bumps into you did not do so intentionally? Stop separating by gender [housed/berthing/showering] and SHOOT any ONE who touches anyone else? Remember that Military policy is not to have a relationship with anyone you work with. I guess NO MAN or WOMAN will ever be truly equal until we stop celebrating the wonderful differences. One last word; If you want to act different, then don't be surprised if you are treated different. That is one reason why we have Uniforms.

art_in_SF

December 10, 2010 - 12:19am

Gays don't have that problem - why do immature straight people?

tepeckins

December 9, 2010 - 7:14pm

Whether or not the repeal of DADT should be a part of the Defense Appropriations Bill is a debateable issue. What is important is the fact that congress must address DADT, address it soon, and REPEAL IT. Whether they do it through the appropriations bill or by some other means is irrelavent Homosexuals have been serving honorably in the armed forces since the very inception of the armed forces. They need to be able to contunue to do so without fear of discrimination or reprisal. Homosexuality is a normal state of being; as normal as heterosexuality. It is not immoral, nor an aboration nor a perversionj. Neither is it criminal. Anyone who believes otherwise is just plain ignorant. To discriminate against people because of their state of being is immoral, an aboration, and should be illegal. This is why DADT must be repealed. I am a Vietnam veteran and served 30 months there. If the American Legion is against the repeal of DADT I will happily resign my membership and support.

ArkansasGrizz

December 9, 2010 - 7:00pm

Keven Evans what planet are you from, you don't sound like you're from this one. Where do you come up with all that dribble? If you were ever in the service, you served with gays and evidently you lived through it. I served in the Navy aboard destroyers and I'm pretty sure there may have been gays on those ships. In 64-67 if they were on board they kept that to themselves. My question is "why are a bunch of old Veterans involved with something that doesn't concern us?" If you're serving now it is your issue but if you are a WWII, Korean War or Vietnam Vet it's not your issue. The DADT was stupid when enacted and is still stupid. I'm sure we all know a hero from our respected branch of service that touched our life or possibly even saved it that that may be gay. They are still heros, and if the latter, you owe them your life. Lets get rid of that stupid law.

art_in_SF

December 10, 2010 - 12:20am

"why are a bunch of old Veterans involved with something that doesn't concern us?" 1. I'm not that old. 2. I swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Didn't you?

phoenician88

December 9, 2010 - 6:52pm

Bottom line: gays in the military is no big deal for most of the western world, except socially backward places. So, decide for yourself if America means equality or not. If our country does stand for equality, then we ought to just integrate and get on with it. If not, then just stop the bullshit about "all men are created equal" and admit that we are in some pretty sorry company on this issue, meaning we are hanging with the most repressive societies in the world.

joe_helle

December 9, 2010 - 6:44pm

As an Active Duty Airborne Infantry Sergeant, I am appalled by all of this. While I agree that people should live their lives as they want, I do not agree with the push for open homosexual service in the military. Why would the President push for this, when quite frankly, it still isn't politically, or socially acceptable in regular everyday civilian life? It still grosses me out, and just about everyone I know when they see two men groping in public. Whether this is a statement to the world, or a statement of love and kindness, it really shouldn't matter. Beyond holding hands on base, public displays of affection outside of closed doors is still unacceptable. As an NCO, I enforce in my Soldiers to leave what happens at home at home, no matter what race, creed, religion, or sexual preference they are. I don't want to know about it, nor do I want it broadcasted all over the workplace. When it comes to work, it becomes a problem. That is all this DADT has become. A problem.

art_in_SF

December 10, 2010 - 12:22am

Damn it! Why should we have to listen to that piece of paper, anyway? OH YEAH - BECAUSE WE SWORE A FRIGGING OATH TO DO SO.

cw5mgs

December 9, 2010 - 6:36pm

Homosexuality (notice I didn't say gay, which is an adverb not a state of being) is an aberration. Homosexuality does not fit in the same category as equality for race, religion, gender, etc. I am not a homophobe because I do not accept homosexuality as normal behavior. Homosexuals can currently serve under DADT. The repeal of DADT is about acceptance and affirmation. Tolerance should be expected and is under DADT, but not acceptance and affirmation. The combat troops overwhelmingly do not want repeal of DADT. The rear echelon pogues can live in their separate rooms and showers and not have to deal with it, big difference. CW5 US Army Retired, Iraq Sgt USMC Viet Nam

Hayek89

December 10, 2010 - 2:31am

You think homosexuality is immoral? So do I. For all the same reasons homosexuality is immoral, so is pre-marital sex and frequenting the strip club. Do you think UCMJ ought to ban those aberrations? DADT institutionalizes lying and half-truths, and dishonesty is the ultimate moral threat to a military organization. Homosexuals can serve until someone else finds out and outs them, of which there are plenty of documented cases. Check your numbers. First of all, the numbers are hardly “overwhelming.” More importantly, when combat troops who know that they have actually served with a homosexual, they overwhelming feel that repeal of DADT would have no effect or positive effect on their units. Given that they are the ones with both combat experience and experience with homosexual soldiers, that is the most relevant statistic.

cptken152

December 9, 2010 - 6:31pm

You are absolutely correct Jim_in_MI . As a retired Infantry officer, I am ready to give up my membership to the American Legion. Their policy stand, expecially on DADT, makes no sense. It indicates to me that the leadership of this organization never led men in combat, or if they did, had no clue of what they were doing. It is sad that a national veterans organizations tries to use statistics concerning DADT that are not factual. It is sad that we have to rely on this organiztion to properly represent veterans.

dtk1952

December 9, 2010 - 7:00pm

I disagreed with DADT when Clinton signed it. But, it is better than letting homosexuals be open about their twisted fate. If I don't know that you are homsexual all is well. But, if I know that you are one and you so much as lay a hand on me you are liable to lose it. Back in the pre-Clinton days I helped get a homosexual medic booted out of the military. I had suspicions because of the way he conducted himself with me when I went on sick call. When I reported him an investigation was done and he found his happy rear end back on the street. Senator Reid and his ilk are wrong to tie this and the stupid DREAM Act to the Defense Bill.

bobbypine

December 10, 2010 - 12:10pm

you are a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gbachelor

December 9, 2010 - 6:23pm

The Legion does not speak for me on DADT. Let them serve openly. The military has had enough time to debate this. If it has to be attached to the defense appropriations bill to get passed - then let it! I'm a 67 year old Navy vet.

pdonahue22

December 9, 2010 - 6:21pm

Oh no! Please don't repeal DADT! Then I'll know who was checkin out my junk in the shower! Lol.. On a serious note, Congress should listen to our current soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coasties FIRST. Who cares what veterans such as myself think? The policy won't affect our morale, so sllow the troops in the boots to make the decision.

tomf

December 9, 2010 - 6:19pm

OEF vet and current Army reservist. Society has changed let the Military change to reflect it. I'm a straight white male who works daily with people of all race's, beliefs, and sexual orientations. And feel the richer for it. My service for my country should be no different. I'd say let them in, let them serve, and let them be who they are , but I'd rather just say let them stay as gays are already serving. Judge them on the work they do and not what they do on their off time, same as we would do for any servicemember not doing something immoral or breaking a law.

romymouse

December 9, 2010 - 6:15pm

As long as anyone follows orders and does not violate the UCMJ they should be allowed to be a member of the armed foreces. Jarhead Vietnam May 68-December 69

TheDeSotoKid

December 9, 2010 - 6:10pm

Regardless of what Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton told you Legionaires, Gay Rights has nothing in common with people who were enslaved and denied rights guaranteed in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I am highly offended by those who use this argument to justify their support of a twisted Liberal/Progressive agenda. Dogs are in the Military, so why is America discriminating against Cats???

WhiteLake01

December 9, 2010 - 6:01pm

Homosexuals simply want money and acceptance and they really have no concerns how they achieve either. One joins the Armed Forces to serve the country not to push a social agenda. Unfortunately homosexuals are unable to distinguish between the two as being a homosexual comes before country. If it did not then this would not be an issue. The same is true in civil society. Adulters and fornicators are not out in the streets asking to be recognized. Homosexuals are the only group that makes their sexual practices an issue. The congress has more important issues to deal with like getting rid of mangy, miserable, stinking taxes.

gregjohnson1711

December 9, 2010 - 5:49pm

When I enlisted, it was regular practice of MEPS and my recruter to ask. If you answered yes you were disquallified from service. I think that is the way it should be. I am not against those of same gender attraction, however I am sure that it should be the last thing on someones mind in a combat or training situationes. It is important to remember that if you are disqualified from the service for medical issues, criminal issues, or educatinal issues, it should be a factor as well.

vbonvental1

December 9, 2010 - 5:43pm

I'm very disappointed that the American Legion is taking the same backward and bigoted position as was taken by many against Afican-Americans and women serving with white men in the military. This is just the latest of countless struggles to end baseless and ignorant discrimination.

brentrn

December 9, 2010 - 9:39pm

Well said. Does anyone think in 40 years our society will still cling to an obviously bigoted belief about who is fit to serve? So why wait? Let all who have skills to offer in our national defense serve with honor. Our military would be poorer today if it was only made up of white men. Blacks and women have made it better. Since we know gay men and women already have served well there seems little reason to throw them out. Those who opposed blacks and women said they weren't bigoted but "it just wasn't the time" to let them in. It is the same argument being used by the American Legion today. It was not a valid argument then, and it is not a valid argument now.

grunt98

December 9, 2010 - 5:40pm

they are not being ask to lie about who they are they are being ask to keep it to themselves. I serve today and I'm glad the legion has sent this letter. For those of you who want it repealed why are you all so hell bent on shoving perversion down every ones throat.

mtboy

December 9, 2010 - 5:29pm

Thanks AL for expressing the majority view to our congress. Sorry for those whose sexual orientation is confused and has made their path difficult. Never the less we must consider what will be best for the 97% serving in the military as well as the wishes of the majority of citizens that are depending on and paying the tab for our military.

Jim_in_MI

December 9, 2010 - 5:28pm

As a retired officer (I retired seven years ago) I can't believe the crap I am reading today. Obviously a lot of you simply don't have a clue. Let me clear this up for you: You are not arguing over whether gays should be in the military or not. THEY ARE. THEY HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS. What is being debated today is the DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL policy which requires those soldiers to LIE about their orientation. Any policy that requires soldiers to LIE is wrong. Period. Soldiers are gay, and are serving, and some of them are really, really big guys, whose marksmanship is pretty damn good. I can't believe the Legion is interfering in this issue. I want them to lobby FOR repeal of DADT. So do many, many other current members. Grow up, guys. Women are now part of the armed forces. We can't live without them being there. Blacks are now part of the armed forces, we can't live without them being there. And gays are now part of the armed forces. Deal with it.

dtk1952

December 9, 2010 - 7:18pm

DADT does not require homosexuals to lie. As it reads, I won't ask you if you're homosexual, you don't tell me that you're homosexual. There is no comparison between homosexuals and the black issue. Yes, gays have been in the military for a long time. That's fine as long as they don't blatantly show their twisted fate out in the open as a medic did with me in the '70's. A question for you. If DADT is repealed, is the military going to have to build separate billets for homosexuals? I definitely wouldn't want a known homosexual in my billeting area.

Kenny181

December 9, 2010 - 6:21pm

If they aren't being asked and they aren't telling where is the lying? Military service has historically been avoided, hence the draft. Gay people aren't going to like what they get. If they can sucessfully make the case that they are just as good as straights they will no longer be exempted from a future draft -- that is if logic and fairness are the criteria. The legion's position is that the politics of DADT shouldn't be wraped up in the whole Defense Bill. It should be it's own bill. Obama could just sign an Exective Order if he had the guts. I just don't see the killer/warrior persona in a gay man. They seem awfully feminine. What kind of esprit de corps are you going to have in a combat unit when straight and gay men have to serve together? Women don't serve in combat units. Straight black men aren't anymore feminine that straight white men. Most police departments give tests to applicants, that among other things, measure their suitability via psycological profile

GJPyne

December 9, 2010 - 5:22pm

DADT needs to go. It's time to put an end to this discriminatory practice that has ruined the lives of many men and women. Extending the time to make it happen will not make it any easier. Repeal DADT NOW! If you do not do it in the bill , the courts will do it. It is the right thing to do.

rickb

December 9, 2010 - 5:20pm

I cannot believe that DADT is being held up by a few old guys in the Senate. Namely one, Sen. McCain, who was for repeal in 2006. I recently retired and I can say anecdotally and it is confirmed with the recent Pentagon study that no one under the age of 40 cares if gays serve openly in the military. Yes, gays have been serving for a long time too. Facts are that most NATO armies let gays serve openly, the American public supports repeal and the military leadership wants repreal - what more do you opponents want? The American Legion needs to get with reality and realize that their is a new generation of veterans who didn't serve in a racially segregated military with women serving in the WACs. It is sad that Lady Gaga is doing more to help veterans in this matter with the SDLN than what the Legion is doing. Maybe she should run the Legion.

smyers1945

December 9, 2010 - 5:18pm

I served from 01/63 to 10/67, and there were gays in the military at that time. When I went through Hospital Corp School, I had a gay classmate who one guy was always picking on. I offered to fight him in the gays place. Offer not taken. A bigot is a bigot, is a bigot. All the arguments used against gays were used against blacks. Gays should be able to fight, die or be scarred like anyone else.

Kenny181

December 9, 2010 - 6:29pm

It's not bigotry. The feminine nature of gay men does not make them ideal warriors. Straight men won't want to serve in combat units with feminine-acting gay men. If police departments can test applicants psychological profile as to their suitability, I don't know why the military can't.

bob kovitz

December 9, 2010 - 5:17pm

Nonsense. DADT needs to go away.

Kenny181

December 9, 2010 - 6:46pm

I agree. Do away with DADT. We should ask and reject those who are gay.

shotgun1635

December 9, 2010 - 5:15pm

When we took the oath, we swore to defend the U.S. Constitution. This means defending the rights of others even when we don't agree or like them (defending them to the death if need be). This also means that YOU do NOT have the right to force your religious or social views on anyone - and that's exactly what you're doing here. Just because you're not on active duty doesn't mean you shouldn't still hold to the oath we took to defend that "damn piece of paper." Do the world and yourself a favor, and keep your bigoted homophobia to yourself.

Kenny181

December 9, 2010 - 6:38pm

It's quite possible that you could be against gay men serving in the military and it has nothing to do with religous or social views. I don't think that the feminine nature of gay men makes them ideal combat warriors. I don't think straight guys in combat units feel too okay serving along side of these feminine types. Nothing personal or bigoted. The nature and psyche of some people make them ideal for different things.

jonjossick

December 9, 2010 - 7:07pm

Most gay people aren't feminine, despite what the media teaches. Do we ban them fron being combat warriors?

TrueAmerican

December 9, 2010 - 5:14pm

I can't believe there are still people in this country that believe the President wasn't born here. That is frightening. I guess the world is flat and the white man was meant to rule the world. I thought we got rid of that after WW2. Very sad. I don't care who sleeps with who, who marries who, or who believes in what. A real American believes in letting people live in peace; not telling them who to love, what to believe, or what they can think. I am ashamed of you.

bob kovitz

December 9, 2010 - 5:13pm

The American Legion does not represent me when it asks that the DAB be held up until this "issue" is resolved. It is past time for this policy to be tossed out. The American Legion is out of step with mainstream society and the current military force. As a result, this once powerful voice will lose membership and credibility. It's time for the older veterans to move aside and allow the younger ones to help to establish policy. BK Regular Army Vietnam

RedLeg2

December 9, 2010 - 5:18pm

It's time for the older veterans to move aside and allow the younger ones to help to establish policy. Thank you. We promise to leave the service better than we entered it.

RedLeg2

December 9, 2010 - 5:06pm

Dear Legion, Why are you so against DADT? Didn't you read the survey that said an overwhelming number of our active duty service people care less if a person is gay? I am active duty, and I can care less what my privates do with their privates. I guess I can give up on the legion and stick to the IAVA.org for my vets group. Shame on you all.

Kenny181

December 9, 2010 - 6:52pm

The Legion didn't say they were against, or for DADT that I am aware of. The said they didn't want the matter in the same Bill with all of Defense. You could be for one and against another.

cyberdad

December 9, 2010 - 5:04pm

I am a WWII vet. Not being a joiner by nature I joined no veteran's organization until now. Because my father, a WWI vet was a member of the American Legion I joined it and have been a member for about a half hour. Reading the official statement on DADT I am beginning to wonder if I joined the wrong organization. In '44 the only thing that concerned me about the GI next to me was his backbone not his sexual orientation. I'm still not concerned about anyone's sexual orientation and to make it an issue is absurd. If gays want to marry gays it's not my business. If invited I would attend a gay wedding. I can marry who I please, why cant others?

jonjossick

December 9, 2010 - 5:08pm

What happened? WWII veternas like yourself said that many people were gay in the ranks. We were united to fight a war, not to let stilted religious values tear the country apart!

pilotdavems

December 9, 2010 - 4:49pm

Sorry, but people like Harry Reid, and Obama have no respect from me, or my family. This current government is the worst of my lifetime. Unbelievable. I will contend to my grave that Obama is not an American citizen, and therefore not qualified to hold an office of the U.S. government. I don't care if you disagree or not. Prove it, and show it. It's not there. Why do you suppose Kagan was nominated for Supreme Court, for example ? She was Obama's lawyer who stayed fast on hiding this fact during his campaign. So, he owed her big time. It's all a crooked scam. And again, I could care less if you disagree with me. Thanks, and Happy Holidays.

bobbypine

December 10, 2010 - 12:38pm

NO!!! you'er just an a--hole!!!

bob kovitz

December 9, 2010 - 5:19pm

How in G-d's name does the question of the President's birthplace enter into this issue? This is for the Congress to decide, or didn't you attend high school civics class? Happy holidays, indeed, but only for people who think and appear like you do.

RedLeg2

December 9, 2010 - 5:11pm

the president was born in hawaii. STFU you crazy birther

RedLeg2

December 9, 2010 - 5:07pm

Guess old Bush 43 was the best president ever right?

jonjossick

December 9, 2010 - 5:07pm

I feel worse for the soldiers that might not get body armor because somebody is so scared that if a gay man shakes their hand, it will turn them gay...

Skip46

December 9, 2010 - 4:48pm

This whole concept is nonsense. I long ago decided there is no correct answer, therefore not an issue for me. If it is a time of war and Gays are forbidden I am angry they do not have the same chance to die as do I. If it is a time of peace, I'd just as soon not have them around.

jonjossick

December 9, 2010 - 4:45pm

Where did you get this stuff? I'm gay and I don't think I've ever had the desire to make love to a tree, tailpipe of a car, or anything other than other gay males.

pilotdavems

December 9, 2010 - 4:40pm

I think Kevin E. said it best so far. It is a sickness and a perversion. If you don't agree with, so what ? I will still think you are ignorant.

jonjossick

December 9, 2010 - 4:54pm

I can say that you are right, if you were reading a textbook from 1964....

john72

December 9, 2010 - 4:43pm

I showered, used the toliet, and changed clothes in front of other men during my time in service. I should not have to worry about their sexual preferences. Many people forget that in the military there is no privacy, no personal space, no private bathroom. This is why I believe women and homosexuals do not belong in combat related positions. What are we going to have individual battalions of straight men, straight women, gay men, gay women, and bi-sexuals? Should we have seperate bathrooms for each group? Do you pair the gays together in gay only foxholes? If you can reasaonably solve the privacy issue, I wouldn't care who was fighting along side me as long as they could perform their job.

jonjossick

December 9, 2010 - 5:01pm

They're already there doing it, and doing a hell of a job. Did you know that the young soldier who rescued Private Lynch and was a big deal was discharged for being gay? Is that a good enough reason to take his purple heart?

Lightmsngr

December 9, 2010 - 4:37pm

It is not a question of ability/qualification but rather is it a desirable life style for our country? Stop being intimidated. In the first place homosexuality is not normal to our design (Male & Female), secondly it is an unhealthy practice (you only have to imagine how they have physical sexual relationships to realize why so many have STD's), and thirdly it is fundamentally harmful to our species (procreation). Besides, just because every other nation is doing it is no reason to follow. Why do you compare us to them? We are the best! Military service is still a voluntary. You do not have to join. What's next? Full Military benefits for same sex partners? Why not Legalize Polygamy, Incest, Prostitution? MCPO USN(Ret)

TrueAmerican

December 9, 2010 - 5:25pm

First: Being homosexual is not a choice or a lifesyle, so climb out of your tree. Second: It is only unhealthy because of bigots like you being a threat to their safety. Also, the vast majority of STDs are the result of heterosexual conduct, not homosexual. Third: Really? Procreation is the reason we exist? Our species is doing just fine and we have no shortage of people to replace the ones we lose. I don't think those that are gay will cause a huge down-turn. Just to cut you off, I am not gay, but I have a problem with bigots. I am sure you would have justified not allowing blacks to serve or women to vote. Accept the fact that we are all the same - just people trying to live our lives in peace. I was proud to serve my country and sacrificed much in that service. I would be honored to serve with anyone willing to make those same sacrifices. Equating homosexuality with incest and prostitution just shows how ignorant and afraid you are.

jonjossick

December 9, 2010 - 4:56pm

People are gay whether they have benefits or not. Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's not gonna happen. Ever meet a prostitute?

Hey Navy-Ret

December 9, 2010 - 4:36pm

I have been, and continue to wonder where and who did these DOD Reports that say that 95% of the military personnel do not care if they serve with gays and homosexuals in their branch(s) of the military. All the people I've talked to while I am a member of the American Legion, VFW, FRA, NERA and NG-NCO in military organizations granted most are discharged, but not the National Guard NCO's, who have been there on recent deployments, it's still 95% against them in the military. Of course, it makes me wonder about all these Pro comments in this file so far are given by gays/homosexuals who have not been in the military. I know you don't have to be military (past and present)to post comments here. Nuff said.

RedLeg2

December 9, 2010 - 5:16pm

I am on active duty. I serve with gays and lesbians. I shower with them. I deployed to Iraq with them. I completely could care less if they are straight, gay, or abstinent! Guess what? If you were in the military for more than a day you also served with them! In an organization that values integrity so highly, why do we force our servicemen and women to lie about who they are?

fclacher

December 9, 2010 - 4:33pm

This is not 1950 when homophobia was widespread. We need to repeal DADT ASAP. Whether in the authorization bill or not, it has to go. If we can force its repeal in a money bill, so much the better. How can anyone feel good asking a military person to conceal their sexual identity and perhaps die for this country? It's beyond me.

Joe V

December 9, 2010 - 4:27pm

As anyone can easily see, the AL membership itself is very divided on this issue. Given that, it is curious why TAL leadership is calling on Congress not to repeal the DADT provision. With our own membership so divided, how can that purport to speak for our organization? This matter has been vetted, discussed, debated. And yet our TAL leaders are asking for more? How much debate and discussion went into consideration when DADT was passed? Enough is enough? If Congress chooses not to repeal the law, the Courts will. Senior civilian and military leadership know this, and they also know they will be given more latitude and time to implement the change if the law was repealed rather than having it struck down as unconstitutional. The Courts often defer to the military in cases like this, but the military's own study shows it would not be harmful for our defense posture.

Hey Navy-Ret

December 9, 2010 - 4:26pm

Judging by the pro-con comments so far, I'm glad I retired in 1981 with 20 years. I am totally against even the DADT Policy. Being in the Navy, with over 11 years sea duty in Destroyer-type ships, we lived in close quarters with everyone, sleep, eating, showering, sitting on a toilet and washing up in close proximity to each other. Back in my day (ya, I guess I'm an "old fart") we'd drum the homosexuals out if we had inkling of their preference. This was more for our safety for communicable disease(s) than for how they acted. Other branches do not live in such close quarters as we did/do. The individual can do an excellent job, fighting or whatever, but now with the advent of more gays having the disease AIDS, the risk is greater than when I was in (1961-1981). Sorry guys and gals, I am a member of the American Legion, VFW, FRA, NERA and NG NCO for military organizations. And to a man (and woman) this is discussed in public and 95% are against having them on active duty also.

jonjossick

December 9, 2010 - 4:51pm

Do you know how many straight people have STD's?

jonjossick

December 9, 2010 - 4:47pm

Where did you get those statistics?

Glad to be an American

December 9, 2010 - 4:15pm

It amazes me that you would think that the American Legion would be all over support for gays serving openly in the military. They are a voice of the majority and you need to open up your eyes and your ears to realize that DADT is supported by the majority. I am sorry that your life choices are not considered mainstream, but they are not and especially in the realm of war. You have every right to serve in the military but keep your mouth shut about your sex life. I do agree, however, that if you are injured, you should be allowed to have WHOMEVER YOU WANT to come by your side and support you. No one can ask you who that is by your bedside and you don't have to tell.

Kevin Evans

December 9, 2010 - 4:14pm

What has this country turned into? How can we as a nation accept sexual perversion as "normal"? If we allow this sickness to prosper, what's next? Is sexual perversion with animals o.k.? How about sexual perversion with children? Or how about sexual perversion with inadimate objects, (trees, telephone poles, etc.) This is the reason that the nation is under attack by radicals from other countries. They don't want these "freedoms" in their backyard. While I don't condone their tactics by which they fight this sickness, I do agree that if we as a nation accept this or any other type of sexual perversion as "normal", we are risking everything that every veteran fought and died for in this country. Where are our leaders on this issue? I guess they have been bought off by special interests. No American should have to be subjected to this reprehensible perversion, especially our men and women who serve so honorably.

npk

December 9, 2010 - 4:08pm

The Defense Authorization Act should not be combined with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". One has nothing to do with the other. Let the "Parties" on the Hill slug it out! My son is in harms way, and I do not want any funds to be held up while different social attitudes bicker over what should and shouldn't be! Keep the seperate! Because of this, I vote remove DADT from DFA! My son's life depends on it!

jonjossick

December 9, 2010 - 5:04pm

I think it's pretty pitiful that people's fear of homosexuals can cause demise of the reauthorization bills. OMG, what about the loss of lives of the great straights of our military!

bpnorr

December 9, 2010 - 4:04pm

Having served at sea in the Navy and on land, I am confused as to how this all works. We do not allow women and men to sleep together or shower together. I would have a hard time sleeping or showering with a gay man knowing his preferences. Why is this different from the restrictions placed on women and men. I personally would not shower with a known gay man, period. This whole thing needs to be thought out. What would be the difference with this man showering with the women. Would that not be the better place. A lot of questions here gentelmen.

cwe100-AL

December 9, 2010 - 4:03pm

That is such a lame cop-out! Anyone who doesn't agree with you is Homophobic! Just like anyone who stands up for the rights of white people is a RACIST (as opposed to black people standing up for their rights exactly the same ways).

gweber3

December 9, 2010 - 3:53pm

I don't believe one should be discharged just for their sexual orientation, or a particular belief, by the same token I don't believe an individual has a need to openly state their orientation and beliefs if they desire to serve their country. DADT allows everyone to judge someone and choose his close commrades based on another persons insterests and actions. If I don't know your sexual orientation and don't like you and don't care to associate with you, you can't cry I'm discriminating you or knocking you because of it. The majority think the gay life style is repulsive and choose not to associate with it, given that why do they want their life style to be known? I served 8 years, I don't know if I served with a gay man, I don't believe I did, maybe I did and he was just one of the people I didn't associate with because we had nothung in common.

bobbuch123

December 9, 2010 - 3:37pm

Homophobia is very ugly!

cib18ev

December 9, 2010 - 3:31pm

I can see a black soldier. I can see a female soldier. I cannot see what a soldier does in his most intimate moments unless he tells me. That goes for straight or otherwise. It is about regulation of disruptive behavior plain and simple. The military regulates all sorts of behaviors that are less disruptive to the overall health of a military organization. The real reason to push this? MONEY The groups pushing this see the ability to set precedent via the military. SO when gays are authorized BAS and BAH and allowed to "Marry" in the service it will transfer over into civil law. Social security benifits, taxes, you name it. Follow the money. The military is being used to push a social agenda and social politics.

cib18ev

December 9, 2010 - 3:31pm

I can see a black soldier. I can see a female soldier. I cannot see what a soldier does in his most intimate moments unless he tells me. That goes for straight or otherwise. It is about regulation of disruptive behavior plain and simple. The military regulates all sorts of behaviors that are less disruptive to the overall health of a military organization. The real reason to push this? MONEY The groups pushing this see the ability to set precedent via the military. SO when gays are authorized BAS and BAH and allowed to "Marry" in the service it will transfer over into civil law. Social security benifits, taxes, you name it. Follow the money. The military is being used to push a social agenda and social politics.

jonjossick

December 9, 2010 - 4:49pm

And I can see that having a disasterous affect on you!

Charles H Nadler

December 9, 2010 - 3:27pm

Repeal DADT. The greatest general who ever lived was Alexander The Great. He was either gay or bi-sexual. When I served as an officer in the Navy, there was an Electronics Technician on board who kept our WWII DE going and who had worked for NSA. He was a cross dresser. I am sure anyone who has ever served knows great officers and enlisted men who were gay. Those who want to keep them out have a hangup. Maybe they suspect that they are gay. Well let them man up and face who they are instead of keeping out patriots who want to and have served their country well! DenverChuck

cwe100-AL

December 9, 2010 - 3:24pm

I have complete confidence in the abilities of G/L service members to serve with equal competence, dedication, courage, and patriotism as any straight person. However, I really see no difference with having a Gay member in a communal shower or barracks with straight men, versus a straight man in communal shower or barracks with straight women. While that person may never make any overt or inappropriate comments or actions, it is an invasion of privacy either way. That person is in "hog heaven" so to speak - a dream come true. What straight guy would deny that he would love to be in the womens shower. But of course a G/L will deny that such would be of any interest or arousal to them. How do you determine billeting arrangements? Two Gay men rooming together? A Gay man rooming with a straight man? A Gay man rooming with a "L"? And then of course there is the (FALSE) claim that Gay's have "signals" for each other so they NEVER come on to anyone else.

Captain Ron

December 9, 2010 - 3:10pm

It's time to put an end to this discriminatory practice that has ruined the lives of many men and women. Extending the time to make it happen will not make it any easier. Repeal DADT NOW!

bobo325

December 9, 2010 - 3:06pm

DADT should be repealled. It is the only fair way to treat our service personnel regardless of sexual orientation. The time has come to recognize our service men and women for their service and not penalize them for being human beings with personal preferences. Remove DADT now.

jessilaurn

December 9, 2010 - 2:25pm

All of the same arguments against repeal of DADT have been used before. They were used in the '40s in opposition to desegregation of race in the service. They were used in the '70s against allowing women to serve in many positions. They were wrong then. They're wrong now. It's time to pull the plug on DADT.

mtboy

December 9, 2010 - 5:35pm

I don't know where you get that the same arguements are being used regarding dadt. It's not the same issues and and it's not that simple.

Add new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Tell us what you think