Obama says yes, 70% of the troops and of America says yes, why isn't the Senate saying yes?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
DADT: Pentagon approves
The "Don't ask, don' tell" policy established by Clinton has once again been pushed closer to being repealed. Obama says it won't affect the military and that they can embrace it. The year long review claimed that 9 out of 10 troops said that their "unit's ability to work with someone they thought was gay or lesbian was very good, good, or neither good nor bad and only 30% of service members oppose its repeal. Thinking hypothetically, its repeal would only have small short lasting effects on the military. One part of the article that particularly caught my eye was when "One Special Forces operative - a part of the military with higher resistance to the change - said, 'We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay." That part of the article tops as the cherry of the approval of the repeal of the DADT.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
This is a very big win for the gay community and a giant leap for civil rights. I feel the reason why the senate is still not saying yes is because of two reasons.
One: While the senate is mostly Democratic, it is only a small lead. Liberals seem to be more associated with the democratic party and I'm pretty sure most republicans would not vote to repeal DADT.
Two: To a Senator, reelection is their first priority. They will most likely take the views expressed by their respective state. Basically if most of the state does not want to repeal DADT, then the senator will probably try to meet their demands.
This is great that more and more people are starting to support the ban on DADT. I agree with Aaron that the Senate isn't voting for it because they want to be reelected. Therefor most of them will still vote conservative, and vote to keep the law.
I think as time passes, more conservatives will join the liberals and accept gays. When this happens, the members of the Senate will also join, and big things will happen in favor of the gay community.
I heard a little about this on the radio today and I am happy that this issue is finally coming into the spotlight to some extent. It has always bothered me that this rule exists, seeing that people who are gay and lesbian can perform a military support job, fly a plane, drive a tank or shoot someone just as well as a straight person. The Senate could prove to be a problem but hopefully it will fall into line despite the reelection issue.
I think that the DADT repeal will not pass. no matter how many people are in favor of it, i think that the senate will not pass it. i am not saying that i dont want it to pass because i dont mind if it got passed or not but much like prop 19 and other marajuana propostions no matter how many people are in favor for it, it still tends not to pass. I hope that it will eventually get repealed but i still it being a long and tough road to repeal it.
Here I go...again. It seems too convenient that all studies and statistics back the idea that the repeal of the DADT policy would not have adverse affects on the military. Skewed statistics indicate that data has been finangled with. On another not, the plural for anectdote is NOT data. Simply because the liberal media can selectively find military personnel to give statements about their support of DADT repeal doesn't mean that their opinion holds any ground. Now I am biased as i support DADT policy, but I'm a firm believer that all Americans have the right to serve their country in the army despite their personal values.
Even though 9 out of 10 troops agree that their "unit's ability to work with someone they thought was gay or lesbian was very good" that is still 10% of our military that is affected by having a gay or lesbian in their unit.
Tim: It's a little hard to skew data that much to where 70%. Those numbers don't just appear out of thin air. Furthermore, may I remind you that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is a Republican, hired by Bush. If there is any partisanship or bias going on, it would be to the direction against repealing. I disagree with your claim of a slant in this study, and the slant in the liberal media. But the "liberal" media did not simply make up the statistics themselves. They're based in fact and research from the governmental department most knowledgeable about military process/procedure.
From my point of view, this is just juicy, because it just shows how full of **** McCain is. He claimed that once he saw substantial evidence that DADT's repealing would not hurt soldiers, he would support its repeal. Now he's claiming that this "study" that 9/10 say it's ok, that's not substantial evidence. Hm. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/jon-stewart-mccain-spends-a-year-on-dadt-repeal-half-an-hour-on-running-mate-video.php Watch the video at the bottom!
I also think it's funny that we still think this is up for debate. @Sandino. There will never be a time that 100% of people support something. I would venture to say that there are 10% of people who are still racist. Should we say, fine, let's not allow black in the military because 10% of people are not comfortable about it? Come on... Furthermore, sure, 10% of people may not like it, and they may be slightly uncomfortable with it, but what about the thousands of soldiers whose careers and life's goals are ruined because of this law. What would you say is more important? Someone's career and life vision or someone's comfort level. Word.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that I can safely say that the safety of this United States of America through the efficient (99%+ efficiency) of our loyal army supersedes the "career and [life] goals" of ANY American citizen. As for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, simply because he is a Republican does not mean that I would blindly follow every single piece of advice he spurts out. Additionally, I firmly believe that one rotten orange can spoil the bunch, and in this case Secretary Gates is surrounded by a whole bunch of them. Under the control of the "biggest most rotten orange", if you will, Secretary Gates has no option but to be a mouth piece for the liberal President Obama in fear of losing his job. Now, we play down the 10% figure by saying that JUST ten percent of the military (based on this questionable study) agree with the DADT policy. This 10% figure is ONLY 120,000-200,000 military personnel; these figures are probably much greater. And, although I wish that Comedy Central was a reliable source of unbiased information, besides not being a disgrace to American society, to hold either belief would just be wishful thinking. Moving on, actually, this issue is in fact up for debate, as a deliberative and Democratic nation it is our responsibility as Americans to hear opinions from all responsible citizens in our society. I'm not going to mention our respectable United States Senator John McCain in this issue, all I can say is that as an American Senator, he should be given more respect as he represents the ideals of his constituency, a group of people whose opinions greater outweigh my or your opinion for the matter. In conclusion, I am not in favor of discrimination or maltreatment of those with unpopular ideas and principles. However, I do pose the question, how does the DADT policy prevent gays from joining the military (it doesn't, for those who may argue otherwise), and how exactly is this policy discriminatory (using a previous example of blacks not being able to join the military on account of skin color, such issues are totally different, but I’ll humor my audience and say "what if the military had a DADT policy for blacks in the military?"... well, just don't say you are black when registering for the army (it's very simple))? Signing out,
I think it's great that President Obama, and the House, and the military themselves are willing to support gays rights because hopefully everyone else will start thinking things over too. Does it really matter whether someone is gay or not? No matter if we are talking about being a soldier or a salesperson, at the end of the day if they can get the job done there shouldn't be any problem.
I've read some articles online and various reasons that the Senate isn't willing to pass DADT such as reelection, or less integrity or needing more time are just excuses. In the end, its their personal prejudices that are in the way. Although I do agree with my peers that it seems the senate will not pass DADT, I believe that it will soon.
It's a great step for the gay community to be less discriminated in the military. I personally think that gays don't deserve the treatment they deserved in the past from the military. Even the statistics show that the soldiers most of the time don't even care that gays are serving with them! They provide benefits and help for the US military.
I also believe that Obama and the soldiers themselves approving of gays in their troops is a successful step closer for the concept to be more widely accepted in society. And I do agree with Aaron that although the Senate is mostly Democratic, they are primarily concerned about being reelected, and supporting the ban could very much affect their chances. Although the Senate may currently object to the repealing of DADT, these statistics prove that more people are accepting of gays in the military, and hopefully this will open the door for many more (especially the Senate) to approve of it as well.
Post a Comment