NYT Editorial: The Ban on Gays in the Military

[FreeState]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/opinion/10wed2.html?_r=2

... Unfortunately, neither President Obama nor Congress shows much appetite for moving to end a ban that is not only unfair to gay men and lesbians but damaging to the military as well.

...snip...

The ostensible rationale was that the known presence of gay men and lesbians would undermine morale and unit cohesion, but as it turned out, the policy caused its own kind of damage to military readiness. Thousands of service members have been discharged from duty at a time when the military is stretched by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The loss of highly skilled interpreters and intelligence analysts has been especially damaging.

President Obama said during the campaign that he would work to overturn the ban, but he has made no move beyond asking the Pentagon to assess the implications. Military leaders seem cool to lifting the ban, but we hope they do a fair and honest job. Members of the military and of the general public are much more receptive to the notion of accepting gays than they were in 1993.

Advocates for gay soldiers believe that the administration, on its own, has the authority to prevent the discharge of gay people, perhaps by issuing “stop-loss” orders such as those used to keep troops serving past their original commitments in Iraq — many unwillingly. How much better to use the power to prevent the loss of gay service members eager to keep serving.

President Obama should see if there is indeed any action he could take on his own while awaiting the military’s assessment. In the end, it will be up to Congress to root out “don’t ask, don’t tell” by overturning the law that brought it about.

[Debi]

1. Error: You've already recommended that thread. n/t

[slay]

2. I get the same thing!

:hug:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

4. Well fiddle dee dee! All this talk of DADT and politics and ponies.

Why can't we talk about the things nature intended for us to discuss, like shoes and parties and anonymous sex and how lucky we are that so many nice straight people care enough to tell us how we should behave?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

6. Can we talk about movie stars? Gloria Swanson, maybe? n/t

[Duncan Grant]

7. And Mae West! And Judy Garland, too. I miss the good old days. (nt)

[QC]

8. Oh yes, Judy. She is very precious to me.

Sometimes I like to pretend that I am Judy.

[donheld]

9. And it makes Barack Obama a

bald faced liar.