Post User Polls

What is the next step in 'don't ask, don't tell'?

The Senate procedural vote to end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" practice failed Thursday. Senators came up short of the 60 votes needed to advance the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contained language ending the ban on gays in the military.

By Ryan Kellett  |  December 9, 2010; 5:08 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Should Maryland legalize same-sex marriage? | Next: Do you care whether the president smokes?


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Hilarious Dims, the president cannot override a law that was passed by Congress.

Yes, the leftist WaPo hacks have drummed it into you Dims that Don't Ask Don't Tell is just a "Pentagon policy." ... well no it is not. It is a law, and only Congress can repeal it. You tried, you failed.

You can try again in the next Congress in the House of Representatives that is Republican majority as of January the 3rd. Good luck with that, Dims.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 9, 2010 5:39 PM

Earth to Screwjob23: it's you who's dim. The current policy (NOT LAW) was enacted by President Clinton in an executive order. Obama would like it to be legislated--but if they don't pass it, he can still change the policy by another executive order. Educate yourself--if it's possible.

Posted by: commonsense101 | December 9, 2010 5:55 PM

Screwjob23, is it really necessary for you to be so consistently and profoundly hateful in your postings? You could have made precisely the same points without the childish jabs ("Dim" for Democrat--my, how original and mature!).

As to the substance of your point, you're partly right. But while the president does not have standing to repeal a law, ot is a well-established constitutional principle that he DOES have leeway to execute it more or less as he sees fit. And there is absolutely NO question that he could unilaterally suspend all stop-loss discharges under Don't Ask, Don't Tell starting today. Which I hope he does.

You're also forgetting that nearly every judge who has ruled on DADT in the past year has called for it to be struck down. So it is just a matter of time before this profoundly counterproductive, unjust law goes into the dustbin of history, one way or the other.

Posted by: DCSteve1 | December 9, 2010 6:01 PM

Just about the only thing more boring than watching paint dry is to do nothing after eye surgery.

On the other hand listening to a bunch of gay blades discuss their love life is probably pretty close to both the paint thing, and the eye thing.

Currently homosexuals can enter the military.

The only limitation is they can't talk about it or DO STUFF.

The heterosexuals are pretty much restricted in the same matters.

What the proposal here does is it immunizes homosexuals for vocalizing their passions and desires ~ and when you do that they come outta' the woodwork ~ these days it's the love that can't keep quiet.

A much more pressing need concerning sexual behavior in the military is to REMOVE the sort of deviants we found at Abu Ghraib ~ both men and women.

They need to be filtered out by recruiters, and at every stage.

Those people definitely can't be trusted around prisoners.

Now, how to differentiate between sexual sadists and your run of the mill homosexual.

Anybody got any ideas how that can be done?

Posted by: muawiyah | December 9, 2010 6:13 PM


The ban against homosexuals serving in the military is codified in Title 10, Section 654 of the U.S. Code. The law states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. It directs the Defense Dept. to discharge any individual for which there is EVIDENCE of homosexuality. It spells out what constitutes evidence under the law.

The 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy itself, is not part of Title 10, Section 654. “DADT” is the Clintonian fig leaf behind which homosexuals can serve, as long as they keep their state of moral depravity to themselves.

DADT policy is Clinton era DOD ADMINISTRATIVE policy which seeks to defy the law. The Clinton era policy says, look, we don't think this law (Title 10, Section 654) is worth the paper it is written on. So, we will not put a lot of effort into following it. We won't set any more rat traps. We won't put out any more rat poison. We will put the cats in their cages. We will allow the rodents to live in the bilges, as long as they don't come out. If they come out, only then we will grab em. After all, we must obey the law.

The Law itself (Title 10, Section 654), expresses a spirit of no-tolerance for homosexuals. On the other hand, DOD policy expresses a spirit of sympathy and respect for homosexuals.

Service members have been brainwashed to toe this sympathy and respect line since 1993.

How did this contradiction come into being? Those who supported the traditional ban against homosexuals in 1993 had only enough votes to enact the anti-homosexual wording into the law as we see it, Title 10, Section 654. But they did not have the votes to put language into the law that would have explicitly reversed the Clinton DOD “sympathy and respect” directives.

And this is the situation today. The functional part of the law, Title 10, Section 654, can only be repealed by Congress. However, any President, could issue directives, at any time, that would do away with DADT, as these are, as noted, DOD policies only. That would basically allow the military to return to the hard line as set forth in Title 10, Section 654. Under the law, they could go into a pursue mode, and sweep the services clean of any suspected homosexuals as Section 654 requires.

And the infamous behavior of Private Bradley Manning, who is quickly becoming the most famous homosexual in military history, will provide fuel, at least on the Republican side, to have those DADT policies swept aside. Vote Republican in 2012. A Republican President could sweep those policies aside, and go straight into a no-nonsense execution of Title 10, Section 654, removing all homosexuals from the military on national security grounds.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 9, 2010 6:24 PM

DCSteve1 says, "You're also forgetting that nearly every judge who has ruled on DADT in the past year has called for it to be struck down."

They have all been overturned at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals level. I believe four (4) circuits have held universally that the Title 10, Section 654 is constitutional. The current case does not make any new arguments. The 9th circuit court of appeals will likely rule in harmony with the other 4 circuits. If it does not, the case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hold in favor of constitutionality, due to 4 circuits having already ruled in that direction, as the makeup of the court has 5 votes for the conservative viewpoint, which is deference to the U.S. Congress in its role to set standards for military service.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 9, 2010 6:34 PM


The system is working as the founders designed it. Populations can be reasonable in one season, and practically insane in the next. Welcome to American homosexual insanity. When the herd is being driven over the cliff of self-destruction, called by trumpets driven by the very lips of Satan himself, as it was in this case, the Senate was designed to slow things down. And they slowed things down. Democracy is not a suicide pact you know.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 9, 2010 6:41 PM

Let's see if Obama has anything close to the stature of Lincoln and issue an Executive Order banning DADT!

Posted by: Maddogg | December 9, 2010 7:22 PM

Military rules would seem to be under the auspices of the president as Commander in Chief. I don't think Congress should have a say in the matter.

Posted by: gareacy | December 9, 2010 7:33 PM

Since a Federal District Court has ruled against DADT, Obama should tell the military to prepare and then drop all legal action contesting the District Court ruling. Without the DOJ contesting the ruling, who else would have standing? It is likely unconstitutional anyway. Letting someone stay in as long as the military does not know about it is rather lame.

Posted by: chucko2 | December 9, 2010 8:19 PM

Why have a Constitution that enshrines freedoms and liberties if they are only made available to majority groups with limited access being given to minority groups.

Apparently, minorities can have these rights provided they do not exercise them.

Some of you will remember when many white people regarded all black people as dirty and as 'monkeys'. They were required to sit at the back of the bus, use different washrooms, keep out of 'whites only' restaurants and hotels, presumed guilty when involved in court cases when the other party was a white person or charges were brought against them by the police. They were deprived of opportunities and they were forced to suffer. Of course, some of them got to know the KKK at their fire burnings and beatings.

Don't Ask and Don't Tell is a cruel excuse that repeats the failures which the Civil Rights movement had to fight to ensure that all people, irrespective of their colour were treated almost equally.

Politicians often abandon individuals and minority groups when it is their duty to enforce the Constitution and ordinary concepts of fairness. If politicians acted honourably then bigotry and xenophobia would be extinguished more rapidly whenever its ugly head rises.

Today's minority groups are Moslems and homosexuals. The animosity that is directed towards them is irrational and it is driven by fear and hate.

Bigots necessarily indict themselves and they do not care. They ignore rational explanations. They rely upon their animosity to justify attacking members of the minority group. They insist the onus to prove that the minority individual is not a danger to society falls on that individual.

Like it or not, the attitudes directed towards Julian Assange and Wikileaks fall into this class. Many of you have not read the Wikileaks documents but you are convinced that Assange has done wrong and is guilty of espionage. Some of you want him executed. This merely reflects your unwillingness to hurt people that you don't like and that is what happens to people who are homosexual or Moslems.

America has many great thinkers of which it can be proud and who are admired by Americans and the rest of the world. It also has its fair share of bigots and many of them seek election to the Congress.

Until principle and the rule of law are allowed to prevail over sentiment society will remain mean spirited and abusive.

Posted by: robertjames1 | December 9, 2010 9:18 PM

Obama needs to find a pair already, stand up for what is right, and repeal DADT. If the latest tax compromise tells me anything he'll hide away again and give more vague rhetoric. What a pushover.

Posted by: JoeBrones | December 9, 2010 9:52 PM

You forgot a better option in your poll. Its time for the courts to press the issue and rule the law unconstitutional. At least one U.S. District Court already has. I'm pretty sure that ruling will end up being sustained by SCOTUS.

Posted by: seve2yoo | December 10, 2010 12:15 AM

As was pointed out during the committee hearing on the issue, the president can't take executive action, because there is a law preventing him from doing so (e.g. contra the situation with Truman when he was able to desegregate the military by executive order).

Not sure why the Executive order option is included since it's not feasible.

Posted by: JPRS | December 10, 2010 3:10 AM

Another option missing from the list would be to stop appealing the case in court. The problem about this is, it would only affect military personnel in the District that the ruling was in. Being openly gay would still be a violation of the law. But the law would be invalid in one small portion of the country, and valid in the rest of the country. This would make no sense and would just subject people to uneven enforcement.

Which brings us to another option: Appeal the ruling, but do so in a half-hearted fashion. The problem there is, that even with a weak argument, what's to stop our resident bigots on the high court from making up arguments on their own. They do that all the time. Just ask Clarence Thomas, he doesn't need a good argument to tell us that 1860 was the 'good old days' back before those pesky Amendments and that unconstitutional infringement on "States Rights" like... oh, applying the 14th Amendment to the States. I guess we should go back to segregated Buses and Diners....

But wait, that was SO 40 years ago! We've outgrown that, right? (At least most of us, I hope....) If we have, it is in no small part BECAUSE the courts helped FORCE us to outgrow it. It's about time for a little more judicial nudging to help make this a more perfect union.

And don't get your panties in a bunch you right wing defenders of the constitution (as you understand it -- which often seems to be at about a third grade civics level.) If popular rule was what our founders wanted, they wouldn't have written the Amendments full of clauses designed specifically to keep the passionate masses in check. Remember, "America" was founded primarily by previously persecuted folks who came here to live their lives away from the tyranny of the masses. Of course then a bunch of them decided to involuntarily bring over folks from Africa and subject them to an even worse form of Tyranny. But that's a different story.

Let's pray the courts get this one right.

Posted by: Cobalt1 | December 10, 2010 4:13 AM

For SCREWJOB23, the presidential oath does not promise anything about upholding the laws of the United States, only the Constitution.

Posted by: DGSPAMMAIL | December 10, 2010 5:18 AM

Fight DADT in the courts. The congress will never do anyhting. The Senate is one of the few delibarative bodies in the world where the majority need to get anything done is 60%. Talk about undermining democracy. No wonder these people are so incompetent on all kinds of issues.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | December 10, 2010 6:35 AM

A Great Victory has Been Won
Over the Forces of Homosexuality

With the DEFEAT of the effort to repeal the DADT policy in the U.S. Senate in the late afternoon of December 9, 2010, a Great Victory has Been Won Over the Forces of Homosexuality.

Every American who understands the mortal danger that America faces to her very survival with each advance of the homosexual agenda, they can breathe a great sigh of relief at this victory, for the thin blue line held, and the nation stepped back, for a moment, from a head long plunge into the abyss of self-destruction.

However, now is NOT the time to lay back, and bask in the afterglow of a victorious campaign. Now is the time to muster the troops anew, and to carry the battle forward, in pursuit of the retreating, cowering, and fleeing forces of darkness. Let our trumpets of victory ring out, that never again, could the forces of darkness come so close as to battering down the very gate of the American castle of truth and moral sanity. Summon now the forces of heaven, for they alone are up to the final task of delivering our nation into a new day of hope, and purity.

To that end, let this prayer be on the lips of every patriot.

O God, my Dear Heavenly Father, I Am That I Am, indeed, whose precious child I am, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, please send legions of Holy Angels now, marching triumphantly, to cast out all homosexuals from the U.S. Military, from all positions within our National Security Establishment, and from every position of responsibility in whatever department of American life they have entered with their corrupting spirit, especially throughout the educational institutions of our land, and in every department of the mass media, and throughout all government institutions, local, state and federal. Deliver our nation O God from the horror of this dark shadow of moral insanity. Fully accepting the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ, that that which I ask of you, in his name, that you will do. I therefore accept it done right now with full power. Amen.

Every person, indeed every patriot, who is interested in the survival of America as a free and prosperous nation, should say this prayer every morning for the rest of their life. When your eyes open in the morning, reach for the paper that this prayer is printed on, and say it. In this way, will we never again have to face the prospect of so closely dodging such a fatal bullet, dripping with the poison of sinister intent, aimed at the very heart of our nation.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 10, 2010 8:05 AM

Don't mess around with what's right! That is if your objective is to put servicemembers in danger, specially since the muslims have no acceptance for "gaylesbians". If your intent is to diminish the population, then by all means send them over openly...they will be placed in areas where intolerance rules. Good luck!

Posted by: minuramsey | December 10, 2010 9:51 AM

Don't mess around with what's right! That is if your objective is to put servicemembers in danger, specially since the muslims have no acceptance for "gaylesbians". If your intent is to diminish the population, then by all means send them over openly...they will be placed in areas where intolerance rules. Good luck!

Posted by: minuramsey | December 10, 2010 9:52 AM

GoldenEagles, I guess I don't understand your joy. It is clear by your posting that your underlying belief is that homosexuality is 100% wrong, and I would suspect that you believe that for our nation to survive, we should eliminate it completely.

Am I wrong?

If not, why are you so happy that DADT was defeated? It does not stop gays from serving, so we know that they are there. Is that not just as big a threat in your eyes?

Ask yourself if your current glee is based on what you truly believe in, or if you are just gloating. Then ask yourself if you are truly being Christian.

Posted by: The_Rat | December 10, 2010 10:15 AM

"Since a Federal District Court has ruled against DADT, Obama should... drop all legal action contesting the District Court ruling. Without the DOJ contesting the ruling, who else would have standing?"

Unfortunately, the president, Justice Department, and the Solicitor General would be required to defend the law if it goes to the Supreme Court. As appealing as it might be just to let the law die by not defending it, the executive branch doesn't really have that option.

Posted by: RufusPlimpton | December 10, 2010 10:24 AM

Homosexual behavior is an abomination, according to the Word of God. Only homosexuals engage in that behavior. Why we as a nation would want to be attacked from within with homosexuals in the military, when we have military challenges external to our nation is not wise.

Posted by: Forward11 | December 10, 2010 11:16 AM

The_Rat says, "GoldenEagles, I guess I don't understand your joy."

When the nation is saved from falling into an abyss, at least for the moment, there is reason to be happy. But there is more work to do, as you point out.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 10, 2010 11:24 AM

Who keeps letting Screwjob in? If nothing else, he's the court jester.

Posted by: jckdoors | December 10, 2010 1:20 PM

I'm sure that our troops in Afghanistan that are there to police the local inbreds from blowing our troops or themselves up have better things to think about then if "Ray" across the courtyard is "looking at my a##." They are p[robably just glad that "Ray" is covering it right now. It's the elitist fools here who think that they are actually helping the soldiers over there by making this such a priority. I'd bet if the troops were asked about what they think priorities should be, the #1 would be shipping my gay or hetero a%% home. Yes, I believe in Gay marriage. Yes, I believe in gay partnership benefits. Yes, I believe in Gay Rights-except this once. Our troops do not need to hear about anyone's sexual preference hetero or homosexual. War is not romantic or sexy and neither is this stupid police action they are in as human targets right now. Bring the troops haome and then address this-fine. Right now let's get our priorities straight.

Posted by: stopthemadness | December 10, 2010 4:17 PM

This reminds me of the false reasons put out by Politicians for leaving the borders wide open to get the Hispanic Vote .
They all try to tell us that Legislators of the past 100 years didn't have the sense God gave an ant . There should be no Qu**rs in the Military . Letting them there to shove their hand under your blanket in a barracks , at night, is like giving a kid the key to the candy store . The rules preventing this over the years were sound. But from the day that the ACLU was allowed so much voice, America has become the " Laughing Stock " of the World. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the M.O. of the day. And while all this smudge is going on, the real issues that will sink us further into the Morass are awaiting sensible judgement. Unemployment , the useless killing of our people in the middle East , along with the Innocent over there, the Earmarks of Corruption with Lobbyists, Socialized Medicine, Imbeciles in Washington making our laws, no drilling for oil on our shores as Heating Oil goes through the roof : all these things are left on hold , as time is taken up with non-issues like this insanity . This and other things that cloud the real issues is the reason Politicians get to serve for 20 years or more. Clinton rose to power under this dictum. His plan, "If you face the Unions, tell them that the Owners of the businesses are the culprits holding you back ". If you face the Owners, tell them to buck the Unions and to keep them out wherever possible ". Polite phrase to cover this hypocracy ? Trianglae . A rose is a rose is a rose. And Clinton , nor Obama is even close to a rose . Indeed, the smell emanating from both resembles the Septic more than a rose.

Posted by: puck-101 | December 11, 2010 7:03 AM

Five days left in the lame duck session Dims. Still no open screamers in the military. Why has Barry the inept bungler not issued an exelecutive order that so many leftist chowderheads demand? Because he lacks the constitutional authority to do so. Barry even told the public himself that he cannot repeal this law by issuing an executive order. Hilarious Dims nearly 40 percent of you still think he can even after he said so himself that he cannot.

Only votes in the Senate can repeal DADT.

Does Barry have the votes? No.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 12, 2010 7:54 AM

Hey Goldeneagles, you need to check yourself. Your use of "magic incantations", like the prayer above, is exactly what Jesus talked about in the New Testament. There are NO magic words that gets God's attention. You're coming pretty close to blasphemy with this "name it and claim it" shit.

And it's also pretty offensive.

Just thought you might like a Sunday School lesson this morning. Clearly you need to spend more time in "the fundamentals" and get over your idea that you have any power over God. "If I just say the right words, God will HAVE to listen".


Posted by: clevermoniker | December 12, 2010 7:56 AM

Embrace resources of all and defeat terror and other ism's. The hurry up and wait tactic does not help. All hands on deck.

Posted by: jobandon | December 12, 2010 8:16 AM

"Obama needs to find a pair already...."
Posted by: JoeBrones | December 9, 2010 9:52 PM

I have a pair. They produce testosterone. I hope Obama's do also. Outwardly normal testicles producing estrogens have caused all this trouble.

Posted by: qoph | December 12, 2010 9:50 AM

"Currently homosexuals can enter the military.

The only limitation is they can't talk about it or DO STUFF.

The heterosexuals are pretty much restricted in the same matters."

Bull. Heterosexuals can: get health benefits, pensions and other support for their spouses, have a picture of their spouse on their desk, talk openly about what they did with their family over the weekend, write letters or make telephone calls openly to their spouse from Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever without having to hide what they're doing, etc.
Unmarried heterosexuals can have a date on Saturday night when off duty, can hold hands with their date in public, can carry a picture of their beloved in a wallet or locket, etc., etc., etc.

And for those of you preaching that homosexuals are evil and will destroy America, I have this to say to you. Anyone who believes in or observes any being, even a god, burning and torturing their fellow human beings for eternity because they fell in love with the wrong person (or believed the wrong religion, or any of the myriad of reasons your god burns people), and continues to flatter, fawn on, and praise that god as all good, is as evil as their murderous, sadistic bully of a deity. When you have lost contact with morality sufficiently to believe that God Godself is a vicious, bullying monster and that that's GOOD, you have no grounds whatsoever for calling someone else evil.

Posted by: Catken1 | December 12, 2010 10:41 AM

There will always be the bigots. And in America, slowly but surely, we are moving towards more and more equality. DADT will fade away, whether in two weeks or two years. And then the bigots will have to find somebody else to hate.

Posted by: Keesvan | December 12, 2010 10:48 AM

"Our troops do not need to hear about anyone's sexual preference hetero or homosexual."

Then, to be fair, you really ought to speak out against those blatantly sexual heteros who advertise their sexual preference by having openly-acknowledged marriages, posting pictures of their spouse on their cubicle walls or desks, talking about their families openly (as if being married with kids - and thus being a KNOWN S-E-X haver! - isn't a shameful thing!) and worse yet, demanding that taxpayers give their spouses health benefits, pensions, and other family support! How dare hardworking, selflessly-supportive military spouses demand acknowledgement and support for their difficult role, when to do so would be to acknowledge that their spouse had *gasp* S-E-X! And a known sexual preference! Aaaaack! The horror!

All our gay troops want is the same respect for their right to a loving, human, family life.

And if you want "Ray" to keep covering your a$$, as you say, you won't want him sent home in disgrace because he had the gall to have a family that differed from yours only in the genitals of his spouse.

Posted by: Catken1 | December 12, 2010 10:48 AM

I made an earlier posting and someone must have sent an e-mail thinking it was "offensive" to apply reasoning power to the problem. So, here it is again, with the specific reasons:

1) Obama should issue an Executive Order (he has the authority to do it)

2) The least amount of impact to unit cohesion would occur if gays and lesbians were subject to the same restrictions that women are now; i.e., no women in combat units and no women on submarines. It's not perfect, but it's an existing policy with rules already in place that could be adapted with only minor modifications.

3) Rather than suggesting that the military permit gay marriage or partnerships, I would suggest that recognition of these marriages or partnerships be allowed only after a gay or lesbian has served one enlistment term. Otherwise, many single servicemen and women, intent on serving only one term so that they can get the educational benefits and/or VA loans, would claim to be gay or lesbian - with a partner- in an attempt to have the government pay for married housing off-base instead of having to live in barracks with other single people. Most of this problem would be cleaned up after the first termers were gone, and those that remain should be able to have their relationships recognized.

And finally, it will not be possible to maintain unit cohesion if a man chooses to wear makeup or dress in women's clothing, even on his own time off-duty.

These are relatively simple restrictions which can be easily enforced, given a clear and consistently applied policy. Only someone who is a gay rights zealot without thinking of consequences to the military would want to ramrod a policy into place without thinking of the consequences.

Posted by: armyofone | December 12, 2010 12:46 PM

I was deep in the proverbial homosexual closet when I was in the US Army. But, when I was in Vietnam and later at Ft. Bragg, NC, I wish the Uniform Code of Military Justice had a "If You Were Not Asked, Keep Your Filthy Mouth Shut!" when it came to the married men, men with fiancees and men with girlfriends back home who chose to go on R&R in places where prostitution was legal.

Many of them not only volunteered information about their sexual exploits on R&R they bragged about it. And they also had pornographic proof of themselves doing it. They shoved those in my face.

I did go on one date on R&R in Hawaii and it was with a woman whom I met in church. Sexual activity wasn't expected in that situation. It was just a fun date.

And, when I was in Ft. Bragg, a guy from Florida dated a woman in Fayetteville, NC. Every night after a date, he would stand in the middle of the barracks floor and complain about her not putting out.

I worked with a NCO who had a room in the Barracks; but, he lived in town with his girlfriend. He publicly talked about his relationship with her, too.

DADT needs to be repealed since it's really unconstitutional. It is no longer illegal to be openly gay in public like it never was illegal to be openly heterosexual in public. Peoples' sex lives need to be kept private anyway.

Posted by: joe_allen_doty | December 12, 2010 2:11 PM

"therwise, many single servicemen and women, intent on serving only one term so that they can get the educational benefits and/or VA loans, would claim to be gay or lesbian - with a partner- in an attempt to have the government pay for married housing off-base instead of having to live in barracks with other single people."

Why would this only be a problem for gay single servicepeople?

"And finally, it will not be possible to maintain unit cohesion if a man chooses to wear makeup or dress in women's clothing, even on his own time off-duty."

Because Gods forbid we expect our servicepeople to be adults about transgender folks. "Waaaah! I can't POSSIBLY let him guard my rear! He wears GIRL CLOTHES off duty!"

How come it's OK for a woman to wear pants and a suit off duty, maybe even a tie, but not OK for a guy to wear a skirt?

Oh, right, because women are _inferior_, lesser people, and a man who dresses like one is willingly accepting inferior status, and is therefore a Threat to your masculinity.

What a fellow soldier does or how they dress off duty is None Of Your Business. If you worry too much about it, maybe it's you who are the problem.

Posted by: Catken1 | December 12, 2010 2:11 PM

People who are so afraid of homosexuals are afraid they are homosexuals.

Well, there's the religious fanatics too ... hmm, looks they're in that first group.

Posted by: eezmamata | December 12, 2010 5:44 PM

Wrong, GoldenEagle. Every federal court of appeals has rejected your claim that the Clinton policy conflicts with 10 U.S.C. section 654. That cockamamie claim is a favorite of right-wing bigots like you.

Posted by: uh_huhh | December 16, 2010 4:56 AM

The Senate needs to pass DADT as a distinct bill. That way, these Senators who are trying to have it both ways by saying they support DADT but can't vote for colture have to put up or shut up. These folks need to understand. They can't have it both ways. This is one of those issues where you cast your vote and then are held accountable for it on both sides.

Pass DADT.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | December 16, 2010 7:28 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company