And the Pentagon Survey Says ... Troops Think Being Openly Gay Isn’t That Big a Deal 10/29/10 at 09:32 AM Comment 19Comment 19Comments Back when it looked like Congress would vote on repealing "don't ask, don't tell" (before the Republicans blocked the attempt with a filibuster), the Pentagon ordered a yearlong global study to see how troops would react to serving alongside openly gay service members. When the study was first announced, gay-rights groups attacked the questions' assumption that troops wouldn't want to serve alongside soldiers who no longer had to stay in the closet. The same survey was cited as a reason to halt Judge Virginia Phillips's injunction on enforcing the unconstitutional policy. The results were supposed to be revealed December 1, along with the Pentagon's plan for the logistics of a repeal. But officials leaked the findings to NBC News' Richard Engel, who shared the results on The Rachel Maddow Show last night. And based on the early word, equal-rights advocates needn't have worried.
Engel says respondents' answers were classified into four categories: (1) it's really not that big a deal, (2) it's not a big deal, but if I'm uncomfortable with something, I'll address the source directly, (3) I'm uncomfortable, I'm going to raise the issue with my chain of command, (4) hi, I'm a member of Westboro Baptist Church. The No. 1 answer to questions like "What if your commanding officer is gay? Would you follow orders? Would you take a shower? ... What if a gay couple lived next to you on the base?" was "I don't care," says Engel." The second most popular answer was, it's not that big a deal, but if something bothered me, I'd deal with the person directly. In tandem, the responses show "an accepting outlook." So where does this leave the possibility of a repeal? The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a temporary stay on Judge Phillips's order, with full arguments on the appeal beginning in February. The Department of Justice said they were just following the mandate of their office by appealing, but even the conservative litigator Ted Olson, who's appealing the Prop 8 ruling, says that if a judge found DADT unconstitutional, the Department of Justice isn't necessarily obliged to object. It remains to be seen how quickly Secretary Gates and top military official Mike Mullen, who have both agreed that DADT unfairly discriminates, will move without potential backlash from troops as an excuse. We have to say, though, the survey's results do seem to give a little weight to Obama's position, which has seemed both cowardly and awkward at times, that an "orderly legislative process" is the right path to a repeal. There is something about hearing from the troops themselves — in a survey commissioned by the Pentagon — that this just isn't a big deal that makes the tenability of a repeal undeniable. Though if the polls are right, we're sure the Republican-led Congress will try to find a way. More: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/10/and_the_pentagon_survey_says_t.html On 10/29/10, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > THREATS TO TROOPS OPPOSED TO OPEN HOMOSEXUALITYBy lewwaters > > <http://lewwaters.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/lt-gen-bostick.jpg>By Attorney > Rees Lloyd (Cross posted with authors permission) > October 15, 2010 > *NewsWithViews.com* > > http://lewwaters.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/threats-to-troops-opposed-to-open-homosexuality/ > > > > In the midst of the national debate over the military policy of “Don’t > Ask/Don’t Tell” pertaining to homosexuals, there is now revealed an apparent > attempt by the Obama administration to impose what amounts to a reverse > “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy on heterosexual troops who speak in opposition > to open homosexuality in their ranks and by their officers. > > More particularly, active duty troops are apparently facing express or > implied threats under the regime of President Barack Hussein Obama that if > they speak out against open homosexuality in the military, they should “get > out” of the military. > *The Washington > Times*<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/16/new-gay-army/>, > which first exposed this, has called for an investigation by the Army > Inspector General. It reports in part: > > “In an August incident reported by The Washington Times but denied by the > Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, the deputy chief of Army personnel and > co-leader of the working group’s policy team, reportedly used derogatory > terms to describe service members who might resist implementation of a new > LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, and Transgender] policy. > > “According to sources *cited by the > Times*<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/23/outing-the-new-gay-army/>, > one of whom signed a *published > letter*<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/23/witness-to-bostick-comments/>(see > Page B2 for a new letter), during an open forum with 500 troops in > Stuttgart, Germany, Gen. Bostick suggested that persons disagreeing for > reasons of religious conviction would have to ‘get with the program’ or get > out. Given conflicting accounts, the Army inspector general should > investigate immediately to determine exactly what happened.” > > If Gen. Bostick did indeed make this statement, just what does it mean? Is > our nation now moving from “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” if you are a homosexual, > to “get with the program or get out” of the military > service<https://mail.google.com/mail/html/compose/static_files/blank_quirks.html#>if > you are a heterosexual who “for reasons of religious conviction” > speaks > in opposition to open homosexuality in the military? > > Whether or not those express words were spoken, active duty personnel should > be given not threats but assurances that there will be no retaliation if > they express disagreement with a policy of open homosexuality in the > military, with its attendant circumstances of limited privacy, including in > housing, sleeping quarters, latrines, showers, etc., with even less privacy > in the field. > > The issue of DA/DT is a complex one in which there is great disagreement and > debate. The most important issue is whether open homosexual activity in the > military, expressed by speech or conduct, will have a detrimental impact on > military capability. Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not agree on > the impact; members of the > House<https://mail.google.com/mail/html/compose/static_files/blank_quirks.html#>and > Senate have not been able to agree; experts in military matters have > not > been able to agree. It is an issue of extreme importance– the military > defense of the nation, the primary responsibility the Founding Fathers > imposed on the National Government which they created. > > It is an important and unfinished debate with lasting implications, and need > for continuing, serious study before imposition of a policy of open > homosexual conduct on those who serve. > > Indeed, if the policy of open homosexuality by word and deed is imposed, it > amounts to a transformation of the military from the time of General George > Washington in the War of Independence until the war being fought against > terrorism today. > > Now, it appears, the persons most impacted by the ultimate decision, the > soldiers, sailors, marines, air force and coast > guard<https://mail.google.com/mail/html/compose/static_files/blank_quirks.html#>personnel, > are to be excluded from the national debate by any speech > activity other than support of open homosexuality in their ranks, even if > their objection is based — or perhaps because their opposition is based — > upon “religious conviction.” > > This ban on speech activity would include in the particular, of course, > enlisted personnel over whom homosexual officers, commissioned and non- > commissioned, with a sexual interest in others of the same sex, have all but > total power over enlisted men and women in the lower ranks. > > Will the military now begin advertising for recruits with media messages > which include the warning: “Persons who do not support open homosexuality in > the military, particularly if based on religious conviction, need not > apply?” > > Is this policy of open homosexually in the military, with an apparent gag > order on military personnel who do not support it, a policy desired and > supported by members of the military, or by the American people — the > military defense of whom, from enemies foreign and domestic, is the primary > duty, above all other duties, of the National Government, particularly the > Presidency, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers? > > Is this apparent threat, express or implied, to military personnel to the > effect that they must silently go along with open homosexuality in the > military, or get out of the military, how Americans, who send their sons and > daughters off to serve their country, desire the American military, and the > American nation, to be “transformed?” > > President and Commander-In-Chief General George Washington forbade open > homosexuality in the Revolutionary Army, and literally “drummed out of > service” and publicly denounced an officer who made a homosexual attempt on > an enlisted soldier. Every successor President and Commander-in-Chief has > followed a policy precluding open homosexuality. > > Now, self-described “progressive” President and Commander-in-Chief Barack > Hussein Obama intends to transform the military by imposing a policy > approving of open homosexuality. And he is apparently attempting to achieve > that transformation by silencing troops who may desire to speak in > opposition. > > Obama, unlike most who serve in the enlisted ranks, has led a privileged > life, attending private not public school while young, and later attending > elite college and universities, although he has caused his records at those > elite schools sealed from inspection for reasons unexplained. > > Like so many other privileged, elitist “progressives” in his administration, > Obama never deigned to serve a day in the military to defend American > freedom. Others, most much less advantaged than Obama, who was the farthest > thing from disadvantaged, went to military service, including war. He went > to Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. > > Thus, Obama knows nothing personally of the impact of open homosexuality on > those who do serve in the military — especially the impact on enlisted men > and women over whose careers, and lives; their homosexually interested > officers have all but absolute power. > > There should be a full and detailed investigation by the Army IG, and by the > appropriate committees of House and Senate, as to whether our American > military personnel are being subjected to threats, express or implied, that > if they speak of their opposition to Obama’s policy of open homosexuality in > the military, they should “get out” of the military. > > More immediately, President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, aware of the > accusations, should expressly and publicly repudiate any attempt by those > under his command to silence troops, whether by threat or otherwise. Obama > ought to publicly pledge that he will protect troops from threats or > retaliation for expressing opposition to Obama’s policy of open > homosexuality. > > Indeed, those soldiers, sailors, marines, air force and coast guard > personnel, should have no less right to speak in opposition to open > homosexuality in the military than those who support it — even if their > opposition is based on “religious conviction.” > Most importantly, Americans should not remain silent while Obama silences > the troops who defend Americans, including with their lives. > > © 2010 Rees Lloyd – All Rights Reserved > > *REES LLOYD is a longtime civil rights attorney and veterans activist whose > work has been honored by, among others, the California Senate and Assembly, > and numerous civil rights, workers rights, and veterans’ rights > organizations. He has testified as a constitutional expert at hearings > before the U.S. House and Senate representing The American Legion. > > He has been profiled, and his work featured, by such varied print media as > the Los Angeles Times and American Legion Magazine, and such broadcast media > as ABC’s Nightline and 20/20, Fox News In The Morning, and, among others, by > Hannity. His writings have appeared in a variety of national, regional, and > local newspaper, magazine, and other publications. He is a frequent radio > commentator and a sought after speaker.* > > E-Mail: [email protected] > > Mirrored in this “Go gay at any cost” attitude permeating society from > “progressives” is the ignoring of bullying of Christian students on college > campuses by gay students, activists and faculty. Mike Adams writes about > that at *Eight Straight > Suicides*<http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2010/10/15/eight_straight_suicides/page/full/>on > Townhall.com > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. Have a great day, Tommy -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
