The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: philw on October 11, 2009, 08:18:13 AM
-
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26194602-401,00.html
US President Barack Obama has promised gay and lesbian activists he will repeal a ban on gays in the US military, rebuking complaints he has not honoured his promises to fight for equal rights.
"I will end 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' That's my commitment to you," Mr Obama said at a rousing speech before some 3000 activists today.
"We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we're fighting two wars."
But he did not provide a timeline for repealing the 1993 law, which requires gays and lebians to keep quiet about their sexual orientation or face expulsion. More than 12,000 US service members have been discharged under the policy.
Obama has extended partial federal benefits to same-sex partners of US government workers but he is under pressure from activists to deliver on his campaign promise to repeal the ban, a hot-button social issue in the United States.
"This is also a time of great impatience," said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) president Joe Solmonese, noting that thousands of gay men and women are expected to descend on Washington today for a National Equality March.
His group, the nation's biggest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights organisation, organised last night's dinner.
But in a rebuke to Mr Obama's predecessor, George W Bush, Solmonese stressed: "We should not confuse the work and the progress of the past 10 months with the delays, excuses and sometimes hateful rhetoric of the past 10 years."
US National Security Adviser James Jones, a retired general, said last week that the president would take on the military's gay ban "at the appropriate time."
But he cautioned that Mr Obama has "an awful lot" on his plate, as US troops remain bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq while the young US administration faces pitched battles over health care reform and economic recovery.
"Despite the real gains that we've made, there are still laws to change and there are still hearts to open," Mr Obama acknowledged, calling "painful and heartbreaking" the bias some continue to hold against gays.
"This story, this fight continues now. And I'm here with a simple message: I'm here with you in that fight," said the president, as the crowd burst into cheers that echoed throughout the Washington Convention Centre.
Hate crimes legislation extending protection to the LGBT community has passed the House of Representatives and could reach the president's desk for signing into law in the coming weeks after it is approved by the Senate.
brings a new meaning to got your 6............
-
Why's it gotta be Navy????
Somehow I doubt he'll do anything about it. Just like everything else, "I want to change..." but its just "WORDS"
-
It's a safe bet he won't even consider doing anything with this until after the 2012 elections.
-
Why's it gotta be Navy????
Somehow I doubt he'll do anything about it. Just like everything else, "I want to change..." but its just "WORDS"
it is all the military
however that song from the Village People was in my head when I read it....
-
One of the reasons I got out when I did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw)
-
He will not do anything for the same reason BJ did nothing. No matter what they say about Homosexuals serving in the military , taking it up the pooper is still Sodomy, a criminal offense under the UCMJ.
-
Blood is Blood and with his rules of engagement why would anyone want to fight for that idiot, He is reaching out to anybody that will join the Military. No way we can win and only lose more troops with his rules. In my opinion he thinks more of the enemy than our troop or us. Vote them all out and vote Obama out in 2012 if we have any troops alive then. :'( :-X
-
Its not a decision that should be made by civilians.... or civilian leadership (The Commander in Chief/Congress). This is a decision that should be 100% left up to our high ranking career military leaders.
This is a matter of national security.... not whether or not a gay person is being discriminated against for a job at a local McDonald's. If the military feels that they need to discriminate in order to be a more effective fighting force, then let them discriminate...... I dont care who it is: gay, black, white, male, female..... I dont care. If they truly believe that having gays in the military is bad for morale and makes them less effective as a military, then I think we should just defer to their judgment here. I dont give a damn about a gay person (or what ever demographic) having their feelings hurt because a particular career path was denied to them. If it is really a detriment to the military then they should not serve.
Perhaps this issue should be revisited to evaluate if it should only be limited to combat operations and perhaps gays could be allowed to serve in support or logistics capacities or perhaps at bases here in the US, but this should not be a decision based on political ideology -- from the left or the right. This is a military decision that should be made by military commanders. They should be deciding what the requirements of their fighting force should be...... If they want to discriminate because of flat feet, near sightedness or homosexuality that should be up to them. What next...... Americans with disabilities act is gonna have to apply to front line infantry as well?
*Have you also noticed how many gay activist are outraged over this that have no desire what so ever to serve in the military, but are only fired up because it is their special interest group that is the subject of this.
-
Its not a decision that should be made by civilians.... or civilian leadership (The Commander in Chief/Congress). This is a decision that should be 100% left up to our high ranking career military leaders.
This is a matter of national security.... not whether or not a gay person is being discriminated against for a job at a local McDonald's. If the military feels that they need to discriminate in order to be a more effective fighting force, then let them discriminate...... I dont care who it is; gay, black, white, male, female..... I dont care. If they truly believe that having gays in the military is bad for morale and makes them less effective as a military, then I think we should just defer to their expertise here. I dont give a damn about a gay person (or what ever demographic) having their feelings hurt because a particular career path was denied to them. If it is really a detriment to the military then they should not serve.
Perhaps this issue should be revisited to evaluate if it should only be limited to combat operations and perhaps gays could be allowed to serve in support or logistics capacities or perhaps at bases here in the US, but this should not be a decision based on political ideology -- from the left or the right. This is a military decision that should be made by military commanders.
*Have you also noticed how many gay activist are outraged over this that have no desire what so ever to serve in the military, but are only fired up because it is their special interest group that is the subject of this.
+1 Excellent Point
-
Its not a decision that should be made by civilians.... or civilian leadership (The Commander in Chief/Congress). This is a decision that should be 100% left up to our high ranking career military leaders.
This is a matter of national security.... not whether or not a gay person is being discriminated against for a job at a local McDonald's. If the military feels that they need to discriminate in order to be a more effective fighting force, then let them discriminate...... I dont care who it is: gay, black, white, male, female..... I dont care. If they truly believe that having gays in the military is bad for morale and makes them less effective as a military, then I think we should just defer to their judgment here. I dont give a damn about a gay person (or what ever demographic) having their feelings hurt because a particular career path was denied to them. If it is really a detriment to the military then they should not serve.
Perhaps this issue should be revisited to evaluate if it should only be limited to combat operations and perhaps gays could be allowed to serve in support or logistics capacities or perhaps at bases here in the US, but this should not be a decision based on political ideology -- from the left or the right. This is a military decision that should be made by military commanders. They should be deciding what the requirements of their fighting force should be...... If they want to discriminate because of flat feet, near sightedness or homosexuality that should be up to them. What next...... Americans with disabilities act is gonna have to apply to front line infantry as well?
*Have you also noticed how many gay activist are outraged over this that have no desire what so ever to serve in the military, but are only fired up because it is their special interest group that is the subject of this.
Mostly it is a hold over from when homosexuality was a civil crime as well. At that time closet gays, such as those in the British Intelligence services were defenseless against blackmail so they were a security risk .
That situation is different now, look at Barney Frank, a mere 10 years earlier his faggotry would have destroyed his political career, and probably led him to hang himself.
-
"who gives a shit?"
I mean come come on. So your gay, good for you, keep your trap shut and act like a soldier.
Its really that simple.
For the record, I don't care about race, sex, age, what ever... if you can do the job, you can do the job. So if women want to be front line troops, more power too them, but they better be able to do the job. They also need to understand what could happen to them if they are captured.( gang rape for hours and even days strait, its sad, but it has happend)
-
Hey TAB, according to TE Lawrence it isn't just women who have to worry about that sort of thing.