"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Reaches High Court

This is an absurd argument. Gays have been in the military for as long as there has been a military. Virtually all modern countries let openly gay individuals serve without problems. I hear the argument by some that they don’t want to take a shower with a gay. Get real, they are taking showers with closeted gays all the time. What do they expect, that one will jump them? What about when they go to an athletic club? Do they think they are showering only with straights? I seriously doubt if most members of our service care. Further, we have lost a lot of linguist (badly needed) because of this stupid policy.

This is another of a series of social issues which have no bearing on how we are or are not in this country. I for one respect the majority of our military men and women to decide what is or isn’t best to do.
.
I personally could care less either way how this would go down.
.
But let us put it into perspective, and perhaps that would make sense.
.
Does this policy if rescinded affect our fiscal responsibility at all? Would it have an affect to impact the vast majority of Americans’ tax dollars? Answer: No
.
Does this policy if rescinded affect the size and scope of our Government. Does it cause a new separate Army for example to need to be created if suspended in order for gays to be accommodated? Is there a possibility for separate housing, and such to need to be created in order for our standing army to continue as it has for many years? This is perhaps possible, if recruiting becomes difficult, and non-gays decide they no longer want to serve based on decisions to repeal DNDT.
.
We can understand and appreciate how even a small part of our society would like to be included, but how will that have an impact on the vast majority? Does it make it more difficult to recruit? Would it cause our government to re-implement a draft in order to provide for our military and security needs because of this? Would people then be required to serve simply because there are not enough people now or after this is changed? Do liberals who are the ones primarily who want this DNDT to be reversed and abolished agree to the possibility of a draft should recruiting become difficult?

Separate housing would be ridiculous. It reminds me of the time that blacks were housed separately in the military. There is no room in American society for segregation. Do gays in federal jobs present a problem? I am not aware of any. We have to become an all inclusive country when it comes to loyal Americans. I make a distinction as I obviously don’t think those whose allegiance is not in the interest of the USA should be granted the same rights, i.e, terrorists and certain criminals.

The DADT issue has been thoroughly hashed and rehashed and still remains to be resolved. What is noteworthy here is that this is a Republican organization. It would be interesting to learn more on this aspect, given the Republican religious platform. Where does this organization fit in? I appreciate some voice for equality and freedom in the lock-step Republican gangs, and would like to know more.

What is truly mind-boggling is how there are so many who cannot see how this issue is any different then that of racial, ethnic, and gender discriminations that had broad public and governmental support in the past 100 years and the inevitable decisions that were made to reverse them. The repeal of DADT is an important and necessary change for the health of our national identity, and indeed has a great bearing on who we are or are not in this country.

Many conservatives want this to end. As Alex pointed out there have been gays in armies since there have been armies. Just end it. I think Obama is handling this correctly in trying to get the military to do so voluntarily and they just might. But if they don’t just issue an executive order ending the ban. They don’t need training either unless it’s to remind them they follow the orders of the commander in chief. They have a problem with that they can resign. If they disobey there’s the brig.

I was in the Navy 3 years on a ship. It was no secret we had our own little gay community. They went their way and the rest their own. The only real problem I see is if someone gay pesters someone who isn’t. But that’s no different than a male sailor hitting on a female sailor and it not being wanted. They deal with it. Truman had to order the troops to desegregate. He didn’t ask. He issued a direct order. That was it.

Ah, it is a race between democrats and republicans. The republicans what to be the ones behind the over-turning of the unjust civil rights issues.. but the politicians can’t push it because of the their Christian base. The democrats want to be the ones that correct the wrong but need to do it in a responsible and systematic way because Obama is Commander and Chief of our armed services. Well, Obama better pushing to get it done in the next couple months. If it is a matter of the middle.. the middle will support a slower process that is systematic and met with approval by the pentagon.
Team Obama better explain his case to the middle and also explain it to his democratic base. The republican politicians will stay away from the issue and it will be only the log cabin republicans that try to whip of the left over the issue. The left better know why Obama is doing what he is doing. I know Obama does not care about his image.. but it is not just his image he must defend. It is the image of all who voted for him. The left can handle Fair.. but Obama must also be strong and set the record straight in an easy and powerful way. Intellectual contemplations are beginning to annoy the left just as much as the go over the head of the right.
The left want fact.. easy, strong facts.. and they want their President to defend himself.. and that will go a long way of him defending them.

It’s my understanding that Obama cannot just issue an executive order to repeal it because it was originally passed as an add-on to a military appropriations bill and remains as part of the law. Therefore, it takes an act of Congress to completely remove it. A repeal bill introduced by Patrick Murphy passed the House, but was prevented for coming up for debate in the Senate by a filibuster led by John McCain in September, 2010.

I would think as Commander-in-Chief it’s his call. Truman ordered desegration, not Congress. This isn’t a funding issue. I hope McCain is just buying time for the military to make the call. Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs support repeal. Gates hasn’t hesitated to fire people who interfere with his wishes

“Intellectual contemplations are beginning to annoy the left just as much as the go over the head of the right.”

It must be so hard for you. Isn’t it just so unfair those rubes on the right get a vote? Nothing is more valuable to conservatives than liberal condescension. I wonder how smart Obama felt on Wednesday? It’s why Bush loved being misunderestimated.

Ever wonder why Gallup polls consistent show self-identified liberals at 20% or below and conservatives 2x’s that?

This is what I found Ivy.
.
“But is it true that Obama has to wait for Congress to act? Most legal experts agree that a president cannot simply change a law by fiat. “Obama is correct in the most general terms,” says Diane Mazur, a former Air Force officer who teaches law at the University of Florida. “Federal law can go away in one of two ways: Congress can repeal it or a court can find it unconstitutional.” And it would seem hypocritical for liberals, who complained during the Bush administration that the executive branch was arrogating too much power to itself, to decide suddenly that they like the unitary executive when their side controls it. “I would be unhappy to hear Obama reading his commander-in-chief power to ignore Congress,” says Robert Burt, a professor at Yale Law School.”
.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/19/is-obama-s-excuse-for-not-repealing-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-legitimate.html

Thanks, Paul. The difference with desegregation is that desegration had not been put into law by Congress.

Or, make that segregation in my comment above.

If you want an “inside” look at this issue, check out “www.dontaskdotellonline.com”

Ever wonder why Gallup polls consistent show self-identified liberals at 20% or below and conservatives 2x’s that?
.
No. I’ve never wondered about that. It’s because the word “liberal” has been demonized by right-wing conservatives since Reagan. (Well, since before then, but more systematically so since the 1980s.) As someone who used to vote Republican, I know how liberals have been described as stupid, retarded, lazy, traitorous, un-American, and even fascistic. “Liberal” has been used to mean “wrong” for years–now it’s increasingly used to mean “dead f*cking wrong, you stupid socialist.”
.
I know conservatives get bashed on this blog–not the thinking ones who engage others, like Exiled at Home/Neo–but the vitriol out there regarding liberals makes me pause whenever I identify my politics. Go to a Comcast blog about politics and read some of the comments there–there are more than a few versions of “why don’t you just go kill yourselves, libtards?” Some liberals are disgusted by the right-wing conservative agenda. Some conservatives would just as soon have all liberals die and go to hell.
.
Conservatives have an entire media organization promoting and cheerleading their ideas. Liberals get denounced as evil. So no, I don’t wonder why self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals. Many of us are in the political closet. But we don’t intend to stay in there.

Newrusty: There is such a thing in this country as protecting the rights of the minority. It has nothing to do with fiscal policy.

Oh gee, thanks for that typical reminder april2563. I guess we’ll just wait until people like you are in the majority, we will just hope that you remember what you now preach.
.
Enjoy
.
Have a nice day!! :)

“Liberal” has been savaged by a negative PR campaign for decades. “Conservative” has merely been discredited by the deeds of conservatives.

And by the way april, it has nothing to do with any rights violation in my opinion. Any gay person can join the military if they so choose. No right has been stopped. What they cannot currently do is announce to the world that they are in fact gay or lesbian. This is also true of anyone of the 29 States which do not have any legislation on workplace discrimination due to a workers sexual orientation.
.
You may be interested in this from one of YOUR fellow libtard websites.
.

”
Only 21 states and the District of Columbia have laws that ban discrimination in the workplace because of a person’s sexual orientation. Only eight of those states and the District of Columbia ban discrimination in the workplace because of a person’s gender identity. Because there is no federal law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, working people in 29 states are being denied employment on the basis of something that has no relationship to their ability to perform their work.
The states with laws that prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Washington also forbid gender identity discrimination. Several cities have laws banning workplace discrimination because of sexual orientation. Fifty-seven of those cities extend protections to include gender identity.
Congress is considering the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that would prohibit discrimination in hiring, firing, promotions, compensation and other employment practices because of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity by employers with 15 or more employees. For more information about ENDA, see:
The ENDA page at the Human Rights Campaign site.
ACLU: ENDA
Lamda Legal Defense and Education Fund”

.
Call them up april and send them money. I am sure they would love that “fiscal” responsibility on your part to have a law enacted.

welcome to our website === w w w ( Lttsy ) – c o m === ..The new update, a large hot ..
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT.
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

newrusty doesn’t believe in minority rights, freedom of speech, a right to privacy..anything else? Probably wants to do away with the 17th, 10th, 14th amendment and change that pestky 1st amendment.
A “real” American indeed.

apr2563, there is something about this issue that triggers strong feeling deep in The Physician.
.
Sort of like when, for many weeks on end, he would accuse Paul Dirks of being in NAMBLA.
.
The Physician would always make these accusations on Fridays and Saturdays (never during the week) which I found curious.

The “vast majority” of your posits are pointless. I think someone was absent from class the day the lesson on the use of commas was given. Did you mean “effect” or “affect”? You refer to DADT as “DNDT” throughout the blog. It seems as if someone is straining to affect an air of pseudo intellectualism and it rings hollow.The issue for the military is not a fiscal one. It’s about morale, readiness, and effecting a seamless modulation to the presence of those with a need to have the civil right to discuss different, provocative and controversial sexual preferences that includes the right to be “openly gay”. This is “code” that would allow men to behave effeminately and women to be masculine. This is not an effort to regulate bedroom behavior. Everyone in the modern military knows or can find out who is gay. This is about a first amendment right that would allow gays/lesbians to talk freely about their same-sex relationships and also to allow men to behave like females and women like men (openly gay). Civilian gays and lesbians already have this right. It does pose, however, a more complex and challenging problem to bring the modern military into alignment with open society.
The Secretary of Defense was a slow, careful transition and the appellate courts have agreed that is a wise course.

Obama may not legally be able to rescind the law on his own, but he can issue an order that the military no longer enforces it, making it a “dead law”. The are hundreds of “dead laws” on the books throughout our states and federal government. And if our service personnel can’t accept an order from their Commander in Chief, then they don’t need to be in the military.

Obama can’t issue an executive order ending DADT, because it is not a military order. It is a law, passed by Congress — so if it’s to be repealed, Congress has to do it.

I’m impressed.

2.5 – new,

“Because there is no federal law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, working people in 29 states are being denied employment on the basis of something that has no relationship to their ability to perform their work.”

That’s quite a statement. I can’t tell if you wrote it, or pasted it from someplace else. In any case, please prove that, for lack of a specific law, all the people who would be covered by such a law cannot get jobs.

To make it simpler: You say that all the gay people in 29 states are unemployed.
Prove it.

“It must be so hard for you. Isn’t it just so unfair those rubes on the right get a vote?”

No, lol. The average IQ is 100. I also know that total loss of power caused the right to go into hysterics and that many powerful people preyed upon the republican voters fear for profit and return to power. Obama is the anti-christ. Obama is a secret sand panther sleeper cell terrorist. Obama is giving all your monry to the lazy negros who are screwing all our good white women. Obama is Hitler. Obama wants to kill Grandma and toss new born babies in the trash. Obama is every evil dictator and nightmare we have been taught to fear as Americans. Obama is not really an American. I mean, at some point.. I figure people on the right will figure out the emotional manipulation and fear being used to control them.
The left did it to Bush.
The left fear stupid people. Bush went to Yale and made c’s. But you see, John Kerry went to Yale and made c-’s. However, the left only focused on Bush’s low grades.
Both sides have their emotional manipulation tactics.
I don’t find things unfair so much as predictable.

What did I miss?
.
Anything?
.
(links to great comments, please)

Welcome back. I nominate El Vez (1.1) here:
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/04/blue-dogs-dumped/#comments
.
That Klein post, as well as his Nov. 4th column, are worth your attn.
.
Best of luck fighting the jet-lag–tis a b!tch. At least you gain an extra hour tonight, no?
.
BTW, check out Ian’s “time to primary BO” post.

@newfreedomblog
.
As someone joining the military soon, I feel your post is well, at best misguided. Personally I think that if people get “nervous” about gays in the shower with them, then they probably harbor gay thoughts they don’t want to admit.
.
Further there will not be any extra housing created for homosexual members of the armed forces. You will become part of the larger unit or you will wash out, be kicked out or having training accident. There is no room in a “society” such as the military for the “i’m different and deserve special consideration” group. You’re either in or you’re out. There’s no middle ground.
.
The whole point of military training is to make the service members understand that they are “part of something larger than the individual”. That’s what allows people to jump on a grenade for their squad members or take a bullet for one of them.
.
Allowing gays won’t undermine that.
.
Do you really think I care if the guy who jumps on grenade for me likes men more than woman? HELL no. I only care that he’s a professional soldier who cares about the people around him. Do you think he cares that I like girls better if the situation is reversed? If you do you’re a freaking moron.

So much for “reply to this post” working as advertised.

Let’s take a vote on who jumps on the grenade.

Thanks, JC.
.
Yes, I’m completely out of my mind with jet lag.
.
If this were not the case, I would be able to react appropriately to the amazing news that Joe finally admitted that there’s an ideology in the center to which those ideologues can be in extreme adherence.
.
Elvis Elvisberg FTW, you’re right.
.
Still catching up, will go back to sleep for a while now.
.
That’s a tough time zone, man.

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/workersrights/rightsatwork_e/disc_sexorient.cfm
.
Your welcome. As you can see I even pulled this information from an AFL-CIO site. However the site nor I state “You say that all the gay people in 29 states are unemployed.”
.
What it does say is that if your employer fired you, or let you go based on your sexual orientation in those States, your supposed “right” to keep your job based on that is not protected under law.

@sasquatch08:
.
Apparently reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits. But, this is what I said.
.
“I personally could care less either way how this would go down.”
.
Meaning, I personally do not care if they repeal DADT or keep it fully intact as is. I do not see this as any right that gays should expect, nor do I think they should be removed from the military should they wear a dress into their barracks on their own time.
.
What I have questioned is what will be the result financially for our country? What will be the national security implications if straights will not volunteer to join the military now if DADT is repealed? Do you support a draft? If so, great, if not then how do you recruit people to join the military who object to serving with gays?
.
That was the entirety of my comment. Nothing more, nothing less. Until extremists like april2563 wants to throw in their usual baggage of crap, and insults.

“What will be the national security implications if straights will not volunteer to join the military now if DADT is repealed?”

I often agree with you but this is preposterous. It amazes me how stereotypes about the military form and stick. There are many reasons people go into the service and very near the top of the list is to expand your horizons and meet people you’d never otherwise meet. That’s a big part of the adventure. This city slicker never met a farm boy before. I never knew anyone who knew a cow or rode a horse because they owned one. Meat and Milk came from stores. Part of the adventure, as everyone knows, is you will meet all kinds of people including gays.

If somone is so bone head they won’t sevre on the chance someone near themis gay it’s probably 90-10 they can’t pass the aptitude test to get in and even then would not make it thru boot camp.

While the stereotype is that grunts don’t like gays they really don’t like assh*les. You get all kinds. This simply isn’t a hard problem to deal with.

Just posing the question is all rdw56. Not advocating for or against.
.
The gay population makes up approximately 10%, and that is very generous, of our total population in the US. If you then take the 90%, and let’s even say that 10 or even 20% would not volunteer anymore for the military based on their objection to serving with openly gay or lesbian troops.
.
That is a major impact on recruitment.
.
Again, do you support a draft if there are not enough people to volunteer? This is where this will all come down to in the end.

I often agree with you

If anyone had any questions regarding your complete and total idiocy, let them ask no more. Rustyblogwhore is a cretinous idiot so you’re in good company.

New US Commandant of the Marine Corp has his say:
.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/11/ap-commandant-on-gays-in-military-110610/
.
SAN DIEGO — The new commandant of the Marines Corps said Saturday that now is the wrong time to overturn the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military, as U.S. troops remain in the thick of war in Afghanistan.
.
“There’s risk involved; I’m trying to determine how to measure that risk,” Gen. James Amos said. “This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness. That’s what the country pays its Marines to do.”
.
Last month, the Pentagon was forced to lift its ban on openly serving gays for eight days after a federal judge in California ordered the military to do so. The Justice Department has appealed, and a federal appeals court granted a temporary stay of the injunction.
.
Amos said the policy’s repeal may have unique consequences for the Marines, which is exempt from a Defense Department rule for troops to have private living quarters. The Corps puts two or more people in each room to promote a sense of unity.
.
“There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we’re talking our young men — laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers,” he said. “I don’t know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that’s what we’re looking at. It’s unit cohesion, it’s combat effectiveness.”

Oh thanks ladydiecash. All your comments come down to are attacks, slurs and basic a$$wipe delusional and idiotic statements. It is why I come here so often because I know how badly my being here pi$$es people like you off.
.
:)
.
Enjoy!!

Actually the 10% is probably more than double the real number but it doesn’t matter. Gays are everywhere. So what if there are are gays in the military? What is your option? Let’s assume you have this person who hates gays and refuses to work with them, so much so they won’t join the services. Where exactly is the gay free zone they’re going to find comfort? Where will they go to work where they can be assured they won’t have to deal with someone gay?

They can’t go to college. They can’t go to work for a corporation and and small to medium sized company. They can’t work for some who sells a product or service. Gays buy products and services.

Your concept simply doesn’t stand up in to any review. It just doesn’t make any sense. You can’t go anywhere or do anything without coming in contact with gays and everyone who has ever served knows this.

It will have zero impact on recruitment except to improve it. What do you think happens now to those few, who you think won’t join because they might come into contact with a gay, when they get into the service and find out there are gays there? If they are that rigid they don’t belong in the service anyway.

For you want to ban a group, ban libs.

Those directly in charge of the troops won’t want it because it will create more problems on a certain level. It will be easier on them in the short term to keep the status quo because it always is. It’s not his call. Do doubt segregation generated the same resistance. It’s our call.

“and let’s even say that 10 or even 20% would not volunteer anymore for the military based on their objection to serving with openly gay or lesbian troops.”
.
Sorry, Rusty, I really do think you’re overestimating. There are much, much more important things to worry about when considering a military career. I highly doubt there is anyone whose make or break condition on joining the military is whether or not they might meet someone in the military who finds the opposite sex unattractive.

You are describing the fringe on the right. The MSM made repeated references to Bush as a fascist and in other nasty ways. The left made a huge mistake labeling the Tea Party as racist. The race card is the default when you can’t make an argument. It’s worse than useless, it’s very counter-productive. it’s just one reason Newsweeks sold for $1 and Oreilly kills Olbermann.

The worst that is said about Obama is that he is a socialists. He isn’t but that’s a lot better than being called a Nazi and Bush got that far worse than Obama. It’s almost comical that the folks at MsNBC play that card to try to freeze criticism of Obama.

It’s a very logical argument conservatives are opposing Obama on tax increases because we were always for tax increases until he came along. I’m not sure on what planet that’s logical but it’s not this one.

The liberal left isn’t just elitist it’s clueless. Opposition to Obama is based on policy. He’s far left in a center-right nation. Despite his reputation as a great speaker he is a rotten communicator. He can feed red meat to a liberal audience but he can’t sell his programs. To the extent you call those who disagree with him a racist, a vile charge, you lose them. Joe Klein seethe’s over the state of the media clueless regarding his role. He thinks Time is rigidly objective and balanced. I think it’s an adjunct of the DNC.

Again, and I’ll keep repeating it because you seem to not to be able to read my comment in context. I am not against gays in the military. I am merely pointing out that there are a number of people who will chose to not join because of this possibility that they will indeed as the Commandant of the Marines has said he fears will cause problems with “unit cohesiveness”.
.
You apparently do not know the difference between a job where I can go to work, but I do not have to live, sleep, eat, breath, etc everyday of my working life with someone who is an avowed homosexual. Someone who I may in fact have to eat, sleep, and live with in very cramped quarters for long and extended periods of time. A HUGE difference than someone who merely goes to work to shuffle paper or make widgets in a factory. As a rule you are correct, it would be hard to find a job where I would not encounter someone who is gay in the workplace. I do however have the choice to work there or not.
.
With that said, I have also reviewed many of the military websites which discuss this issue, and it appears to be a non-issue so far as a majority of them have responded in comments. After having done that, I do feel better that a repeal of DADT will not have much effect on much of anything. I do however believe there will be a certain percentage of people who would have volunteered to go into the military, now will not do so. Time will only tell how many that number will be. I believe it will be fairly significant, especially in the first few years this is in the news.
.
We are in the middle of a war. To do this now only puts more pressure on our military. But, as we have seen in the past, liberals will not forgo anything like this in the best interests of everyone. Once they have an issue like this they will not let go no matter what the reason or rationale. Patriotism indeed.

rusty, just to reinforce your message, I see clearly that you don’t care in the least about the policy, despite repeated implications by others that you do.
.
But, in answer to your question about whether we would want to reinstate the draft, I for one, have always believed in universal service. Not only on principle, but also I believe it would help on an economic basis. I won’t even begin to get into reducing the benefits for the current voluntary mercenary military we now have. By the way, back when there were respectable Republicans with some sense of integrity, a strong proponent of my view was Dwight Eisenhower, and he knew things military.

newfreedom,

not questioning your own position on gays. Just pointing out your thinking isn’t logical. Let’s just assume you are 18, 20 or 26 and considering your career options, your future. And apparently in your mind there are many who prefer not to be around gays. This is so intense it’s a show stopper for them. Exactly how many options would they have? In addition to the service they would also rule out banking, the medical profession, education, law enforcement, the trades, any sort of office work, etc. What’s left?

I went in the service as an 18-yr old and had a dozen different reasons. I have never ever heard of anyone even asking if there were gays in the military. OF COURSE THERE ARE. I say this as a person who also had a difficult time making the call but for a different . I had to accept the fact there would be liberals there. How did they pass the test?

No, we can read just fine. And I have no problem with your personal stance. I haven’t seen anyone take issue with it.
.
What I do question is why you think a significant number of people will suddenly not want to pursue a military career.
.
No, I don’t have personal experience in living conditions like you describe. At home, I live off-base. My co-workers who don’t qualify for this live in single-person dorms on-base. Where I am now, we live three to a room. It is not spacious, but I would not call it ‘cramped’ either. We’re out here to do our jobs, and keep our spirits up so the time passes that much faster. I can only imagine that those working more dangerous jobs than I have the same sentiments.
.
I’m curious, what are you expecting to happen following the allowing of gays to serve? I just want to understand your point of view on the possible loss of new recruits.

Ash, you mention a relevant point which I just recently learned, about barracks living arrangements. The article about the Marine chief of staff coming out against repeal of DADT stated that all services except the Marines require single living accommodations for all soldiers. That was new to me and I cannot even imagine how that works, having only known open bays. I didn’t get into it because I know nothing about it, but it would certainly be relevant to the DADT debate.

It really, really should not be relevant. Even in an open bay situation. Nothing should happen that doesn’t already happen now. We’re supposed to be disciplined and professional. The ridiculous, over-the-top scenarios put out by some are just that. Ridiculous.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/11/07/2010-11-07_defense_secretary_robert_gates_tells_congress_to_repeal_dont_ask_dont_tell_befor.html
.
Gates asking congress to repeal DADT during lame duck session when it might have a chance of passing.

“The liberal left isn’t just elitist it’s clueless. Opposition to Obama is based on policy.”
.
No it isn’t. It’s based on fearmongering and labeling. Socialist, communist marxist, fascist etc from a bunch of people who can’t even articulate what that means including yourself. You keep saying that socialism and fascism is on the left and about control. And we’re clueless? You’re there with brilliant (your word) Sarah Palin and the death panels. You fall for these things because it’s all emotional, not rational.
.
So nice projection there bob – we’re the elitists because we happen to know sh!t. You’re just the regular true American that find the palm reader genius.

Once again we have a prime example of the morally bankrupt Obama and his hypocritical defenders. They jump like piranha to question and impugn conservatives over the most minute and silly issues but provide pathetic excuses and cover for their own. Yes the lack of integrity and morals shines through
.
He campaigned on ending it. Nothing was done He is still talking about ending it while at the same time he orders his DOJ to continue the policy. and file an appeal with the courts.
.
And we should listen to liberals why????

We are not surprised by the government’s action, as it repeats the broken promises and empty words from President Obama avowing to end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ while at the same directing his Justice Department to defend this unconstitutional policy,” said Dan Woods, a lawyer representing the group. “Now that the government has filed a request for a stay, we will oppose it vigorously because brave, patriotic gays and lesbians are serving in our armed forces to fight for all of our constitutional rights while the government is denying them theirs.”
Mr. Obama campaigned against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law and has asked Congress to repeal it. But his efforts have been criticized by supporters of equal rights for gay men and lesbians as too slow and insufficient, and the lawsuit has put his administration in an awkward political position.
At a town-hall-style meeting with young adults on Thursday, Mr. Obama noted that he had been working on getting the law repealed and that a court had recently struck it down as unconstitutional, although he did not specifically address his administration’s appeal of the ruling.
“I agree with the basic principle that anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces and make sacrifices on our behalf, on behalf of our national security — anybody should be able to serve, and they shouldn’t have to lie about who they are in order to serve. And so we are moving in the direction of ending this policy,” he said.

“I’m curious, what are you expecting to happen following the allowing of gays to serve? I just want to understand your point of view on the possible loss of new recruits.”

.
It is not a point of view but merely my opinion. I believe once DADT is repealed and gays can openly (keyword) serve in the military, then straights who are vehemently against homosexuality will not want to volunteer for military service. Just my opinion.
.
If that is the case, and my suspicions are founded, then you can expect a 10 -20% decrease in new recruits. Can our military in the time of war afford a 10 – 20% decrease in the number of recruits?

“He campaigned on ending it. Nothing was done He is still talking about ending it while at the same time he orders his DOJ to continue the policy. and file an appeal with the courts.”

Nothing was done?
Given that the gNOp position in both the House & Senate, was NO!!!!!, there was little chance of legislation ending DADT passing in the House, and none in the Senate. (Remember that little rule that one Senator could stop a bill from coming to the floor for consideration, so effectively employed by Repubs?)
He has DOD surveying military personnel to see if repeal would harm the mission. Its report is due by the end of the year; most of the commanders have indicated that repeal is doable, with no appreciable impact on unit cohesiveness. If the report supports repeal, as expected, it will take away the major argument of the gNAYp that a law to repeal DADT will irreparably harm recruitment and troop morale.
Meantime, the decision process for discharging troops because they are gay has been pushed up the line: now only senior commanders can say yes or no, after review of the “evidence” with consideration of the troop’s importance to the unit’s mission.
As for the appeal on one judge’s decision, DOJ doesn’t want just this one to go up the line to the Supreme Court, whose majority would gladly shoot it down. They would be better able to defend the repeal if there was a pro-repeal report & a federal law.