« Groups React to Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Finance | Main | Hillary Clinton, Tim Tebow, Barack Obama Headline National Prayer Breakfast »

January 27, 2010

Obama Pledges End to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

President Obama focused on the economy in his first State of the Union address tonight, but towards the end of his speech, he briefly touched on a law that prevents openly gays from serve in the military.

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are," Obama said to shouts and applause. "It's the right thing to do." He also praised the hate crimes law passed last year.

Obama made a similar pledge while speaking to the nation's largest gay advocacy group in October.

In 1993, President Clinton signed the the law, that says if openly gay military personnel will be discharged.

The Hill reported on Monday that the White House asked Sen. Carl Levin to postpone announcing a hearing that would explore repealing the law. The hearing had been expected at the end of January, and now the target date is expected to be February 11, Roxana Tiron reports.

Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimates in a recent report that 66,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexuals (about 2 percent) are serving in the military, according to the Washington Post.

Although President Obama's top domestic policy aides insist that the president is committed to an equality agenda for gays and lesbians, many liberal and gay rights groups are unhappy that the administration has failed to act on Obama's campaign pledge to end "don't ask, don't tell."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that the issue has been "a point of discussion" among top White House aides.

Towards the end of the speech, Obama also mentioned his cooperation with Muslims. "We are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education and innovation," he said.

Update: Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell gave the Republican rebuttal, citing Scripture.

Top-down one-size fits all decision making should not replace the personal choices of free people in a free market, nor undermine the proper role of state and local governments in our system of federalism. As our Founders clearly stated, and we Governors understand, government closest to the people governs best.

And no government program can replace the actions of caring Americans freely choosing to help one another. The Scriptures say "To whom much is given, much will be required." As the most generous and prosperous nation on Earth, it is heartwarming to see Americans giving much time and money to the people of Haiti. Thank you for your ongoing compassion.


President Obama pledged to end the outdated policy of discrimination.

This is a positive pledge.

We will see if American fighting men and women can get back to the business of protecting America...and FIGHTING.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" was stupid in its conception.

Time to bury the mistakes of the past.

Thank God Almighty theyre repealing the injustice!

Thank You Mister President!


Down with the so called "Moral Majority"!
WE ARE the majority! Americans for equality and freedom forever!

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" was stupid in its conception."
Well, what did you expect from Bill Clinton?

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,"
Actually "Don't Ask Don't Tell" says this: The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from DISCLOSING (caps mine) his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. Throughout my two year stint in the army, I never once felt the need to declare that I was a heterosexual. People who are comfortable in their own skins don't feel the need to crow about their orientation - heterosexual or homosexual.

Given the Republicans' history of bigotry toward gays, I couldn't help but laugh when Gov. McDonnell said, "Republicans know that government cannot guarantee individual outcomes, but we strongly believe that it must guarantee equality of opportunity for all." What a hoot.

correction: Republican's should be Republicans'

What's the point of all of these trolls promoting homosexuality on what is supposed to be a Christian site? Young women should not be forced to shower next to men, for whom they could be an object of heterosexual interest. And men should not be forced to shower next to men, for whom they could be an object of homosexual interest. What could be simpler? As it is now, there is no ban on homosexuals having civilian military-related jobs. Sheesh!

I am glad that DADT will be repealed. I am not a homosexual troll. Maybe once it is repealed, the military can start paying attention to protecting its women from heterosexual predators instead of wasting it time throwing out homosexual that usually have no history of being predators. A recent study said that as many as 30 percent of all women in the military have been raped by someone that they served with or under. Rarely are these prosecuted. If you want something to get angry about, get angry about an actual crime that we are allowing to continue.

"Once again, we see distortion and lies about what a particular law actually does and what it actually says. I'm not sure why I keep finding this surprising."
I jus' quoted Wikipedia - a liberal! site.
(sniff, sniff) You don't have to be so mean.
"The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces."

And it was Bill Clinton's policy. Democrat Bill Clinton. I bet that really pushes buttons in the homosexual community.

But really, CL, I couldn't care less if homosexuals crow about their orientation - in the military or outside of the military. Not a big issue with me.

As for crowing (Definition of crowing - to boast in triumph; exult)Please get the context right before correcting me. Saying "she's cute" is not crowing; or this is my wife/girlfriend is not crowing (unless they are stunners! but that is tacky.) Now maybe it might be crowing to say "Hey, that baby is MY son!" Yeah, I crowed about that! But never once while in the military did I ever stand up in morning formation and say: Hey, look at me! I'm heterosexual! Nope, never did that. And in the conservative school district where I teach, we have gays bring their significant others with them to many events - nobody cares! And, gosh, we actually interact. And never once did I ever feel I had to remind them I was heterosexual.

So, Sister CL, put your ruler away. No cracking on the knuckles today.

Also, military men and women can take care of themselves. If they need to set a predator - homosexual/heterosexual straight - there are ways.


Leave it to Ms Pullian and her obsession against anything BO.

I posted something here yesterday that does not goes well with that and I see today is been deleted, go figure that one out. I'm glad this is free access because I would not spend a penny and never did, on a subscription to read such narrow minded rhetoric. There are Homosexuals and have always been Homosexuals in the US Military, nothing new about it.

What can be expected anyways of the children of a bunch of Freaks dressing funny. Who declare the absurd of the Equality of all Men. Not all Men are freaks, not all men are corrupt and perverts, not all men were created equal.

That was and still is a Big Fat Lie. That has serve the only purpose of allowing all kind of perversions, like homosexuality to thrive in a Greco-Roman culture and society. Under the guise of a "christian-nation" banner.


The military now has extensive experience with incorporating America's great diversity of people into disciplined soldiers...so there are already trained people and well honed procedures for dealing with any difficulties that may arise with the end of "DTDA."

There is also decades of private sector experience to draw upon as well. It's not, therefore, Gay men and women who could compromise military readiness just by being Gay men and women, it's the willfully ignorant, the dangerously undisciplined and the blindly bigoted.

"Don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise from what Pres. Clinton tried to do, which was to forbid discrimination in the military because of sexual orientation. Sometimes compromises work great, or at least adequately, but this is one that didn't. It needs to go, and Pres. Clinton's original goal should be realized.

If only because "homosexuality" is obsolete sexology theory. It's also a rejected social construct by people who, if they're fairly old, might have self identified as "homosexuals" at one time, but who now likely self-identify as "Gay," which is not just the same thing with a different name. "Homosexuality" and "Gay-GLBT" are different social constructs, different communities. The former has faded away, the latter is dynamic and international in scope.

As a social construct, "homosexuality" is now a scapegoat for people of ill will to abuse. People aren't "homosexuals" anymore, and therefore, people don't have "homosexual" relationships anymore either. The law doesn't make contemporary sense. It's archaic, obsolete...silly.

The showering with "homosexuals" thing is a non-issue. Gay men have been showering with other males for most of their lives, after gym classes if nothing else.

Gay men will also be a minority in the military, so it's unlikely that a "straight" man will find himself in a shower room surrounded by Gay men anyway...the opposite will likely be the most common situation.

Even if you do catch someone giving you a brief glance in the shower room, so what? You're likely a young man in the best shape of your life...feel confidence in yourself, instead of feeling sexually insecure. And, the glancer could be another straight men who just wants to see if his abs are as as ripped as yours. We're all males inhabiting our time and place, we're generally competitive.

Also, some men don't really think about their sexual orientation until they've left home. They've been "busy," distracted, perhaps overly sheltered, and haven't had to think about their own sexuality. Of course, they likely "know," but they haven't had to think about and understand what they "know." Having left home, they want their own life, to be their own adult...but their "heart" may have a surprise or two in store.

If so, don't "struggle with homosexuality." There are more important things attend to.

Your sexual orientation is just a given, somewhat flexible, more so with some people than others, but likely not something that needs to be completely changed. "Gay" just makes life a little more interesting." Moral people don't care if someone is Gay or not, unless they're looking for a date. What they care about is justice.

Strive to develop self integrity, to think about the Golden Rule now and then, be a highly responsible person; to yourself, to your love interest, regardless of her or his gender, to your society, to your world, to God. If you occasionally don't measure up to even your own standards, those are "learning opportunities."

Just bring back the Draft.

That is the ONLY way that the Military will have a very Large pool of all the available bodies, from which they will be able to choose the best. Even the best of the best in all aspects, therefore separating that minority chaff of the homosexuals, (affectionately called Gays by some) from the true grain and fiber.

In the old days of the Draft, all of this useless wasteful rhetoric was unnecessary. If someone was caught practicing Homosexuality was thrown out with a DD. No buts about it.

With a Draft also we'll find out for sure who really are those who admire the Military so much.

Because as it is right now, as it was then. Most of the people in this country think of the Military as SEOSEC's. They even think of them as some sort of Asexual creatures unable to reproduce. That's why in an equally aberrant way, giving also way to civilian Political correctness of Feminists. Numbers 42 and 43 showed a total absence of Scruples and sent Women into Combat. They even pulled Married Women with Children and sent them in harmways. For sure nobody in CT think nothing of that, because it fits their Politichicks.


Aside from all the DADT controversy, I was surprised by the President's statement that serving one's country in the military was a "right". More generally, I see the President and many others using "rights" to mean "wants". Once merely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rights are construed to include health insurance, financial security, and happiness. In short, rights language has shifted from limiting government's ability to take from you to empowering government to give you want you want.

So I would flip the question on DADT around from this starting point: does anyone have a right to serve in the military, or is it a privilege? And if a privilege, who has the responsibility to determine who can serve?

"Don't ask, don't tell," is the only practical solution. Why should anyone want to know about someone's sexual orientation, or want to talk about their own? On the other hand, people do; so, in my opinion, the safest path is to just keep your sexuality to yourself if you are bi or gay, or any shade in between the two. Naturally, as an Evangelical Christian, I feel that the scripture definitely calls homosexuality a sin, along with fornication and beastiality.

I think the President was talking about a right to be treated as equal in every way to other people of the same age, mental and physical abilities who are now allowed to serve without having to be "in the closet" about their relationships. The right to have a photograph of one's spouse/partner/boyfriend/girlfriend in one's wallet, to not have to pretend that one doesn't have a life, to have one's partner in life to have the same support as any other spouse, to have uncompromised self integrity.

Scripture does not call homosexuality a sin. "Homosexuality" is obsolete, morally neutral sexology theory...and a rejected social construct...except by people in need of a scapegoat.

That "homosexuality is a sin" is just what some people want scripture to say, so that's how they read it. The context of the "homosexual" clobber verses makes it fairly clear that what is being condemned are idolatrous religious rituals. The context of idolatry isn't even controversial outside of conservative Evangelical circles.

Lumping all Gay people in with fornication and beastiality is not exhibiting much in the way of good will, is it?

The obsolete science word of "Homosexuality" didn't make it into Bible translations until the last half of the 20th Century, coincidentally? the time of the Civil Rights /Women's Rights movements...So there is good reason to suspect the motives of those who translated and published "homosexual" Bibles...and those who even use the word as religious, so called "conservatives" use it.

Just bring back the Draft.

Homosexuals are being called Gay by some people affectionately and Euphemistically. The origin of both terms do not lend for its current use.

Gregory, re your comments that Obama's rights language referred to:

a right to be treated as equal in every way to other people of the same age, mental and physical abilities who are now allowed to serve without having to be "in the closet" about their relationships.While I agree that equal treatment under law is foundational to our republic and a great good, the language of "right to be treated as equal in every way" is too expansive. No two humans are equal in every way, for all are unique. Even if you only mean treating everyone with equal respect, that is too extensive. Equality beyond law is the Christian ideal, yet I would not often recommend government action very far beyond legal equality. There is more to ethics than rights, but government's role beyond protecting rights ought to be cautious lest it impinge on the rights it aught to protect.

As regards the military, to serve means voluntarily submitting to conditions producing many serious ethical dilemmas, not least of which is the unquestioning obedience to tyrannous men. To insist is such an environment upon retaining any rights whatever is impractical, if not impossible. If those tyrannous (though perhaps otherwise virtuous) men demand such a thing as keeping one's sex life to oneself, I do not consider such a demand any more degrading than the multitude of arbitrary commands the whole of which constitute military life. That any explanation should be demanded for the superior's actions undermines the very fabric of the military Code. As a civilian who has no plans to join the military, I say this without comment on its justness or unjustness, but as one who sees that the essence of soldiering is the surrender of all rights to the inviolable chain of command.

Correction: in my last post, only the first sentence in the blockquote is attributed to Gregory.

Gregory Peterson, regarding the Bible's position on homosexuality, here is a recent comment of mine from the CT Politics blog:

It is true that many if not all Old Testament references to homosexuality occur in passages denouncing idolatry (Lev. 18:21, 20:13). Yet these passages also include prohibitions against adultry, incest, bigamy and beastiality. Is it ok according to God's Word to engage in these acts as long as they are not associated with pagan religious practices? Lev. 18:21 prohibited Israel from allowing any children to "pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the NAME (caps. mine) of your God: I am the LORD." Pagans ritually worshipped the god Molech by burning their own children in fire, children were also turned into temple prostitutes as part of the worship of Molech. Other pagan religions surrounding Israel had similiar practices. The root word for "name" is shem, literally meaning branding. In Old Testament times people marked their bodies permanently to identify with the God they worshipped; the use of our bodies today also signifies whether we worship the God of the Bible or make an idol of ourselves and our bodies. That is one reason why idolatry, homosexuality and other sexual acts prohibited by God appear together in the same passages. Also, God in His Word links all sexual relations outside of marriage to idolatry. Some deny that Paul was refering to homosexuality in ICor 6:9,10, yet the Greek words he uses to denote such activity refer to passive partners in such acts (malakos) as well as active homosexuals (apsenokoitas). In 6:11, Paul uses to Greek imperfect indicative to state that for those he was addressing, those who formerly practiced such a lifestyle, they no longer lived that way. He uses the word apelousasthe to state that God had cleansed them of their sin, a complete and decisive action, they were given the desire and power to overcome their sin. This power is available to all who would repent of sin and allow the Holy Spirit to cleanse and empower them; no one need be condemned to a homosexual/lesbian lifestyle.

Concerning modern versions of the Bible, none came out during the Civil Rights Movement. The Revised Standard came out in the late 40's and early 50's. The other versions began appearing from the late 70's onward. The earliest Church documents, such as the Didache, clearly teach that homosexuality is a sin. That fact that the specific word "homosexuality" did not exist until recent times (if that is the case, I do not know) signifies nothing. The word "atheist" never existed until the 15th or 16th century, maybe even later, yet atheists have always existed. The word"homosexuality" may be of recent vintage, but its practice has always been taught as a violation of God's commands by the Church.

The RSV used a then current scientific sexology theory "homosexuality," clinical diagnostic label and social construct in its interpretation. That was wrong, I think. What other then current scientific theory terminology was used in the RSV?

In the 1940s especially, homosexuality" in theory and social construct, changed from being a category of sexual activity and a label for people who do that activity, to a "type," a "kind" of person...and an inferior type at that.

A type of person, a "homosexual," regardless of any actual sexual activity that the individual might or might not be doing or have done.

Paul is definitely not referring to a type of person like what "homosexual" was in the 1940s, but to actions with which the practice of idolatrous rituals motivate people.

Labeling a "type" of person as innately inferior in some way...well, that may have been common practice at that time, and common practice, apparently, in the religious right today, but that doesn't excuse anything.

The theory is obsolete, the clinical diagnostic label has been conclusively shown to be an artifact of selection bias (to be polite) and has been discontinued for decades now, and the "homosexuality" social construct is now just a right wing scapegoat...a scapegoat being abused in a very racist-like manner, I think. (But then, "in a racist-like manner" may be the general "nature" of the scapegoating process, and not specifically related to America's sordidly racist/racializing past.)

To me, those alone would mean that "homosexuality" should not be used in currently published Bible translations. "Homosexual" Bibles can therefore, I think, legitimately be suspected of having political motivations for continuing to be published. That, or intellectual incestuousness in the Bible publishing industry, sheer laziness and/or carelessness.

It would not likely be a coincidence that the RSV came our shortly before Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and the medicalization of "homosexuality" as a symptom of innate, pathological inferiority.

"The other versions began appearing from the late 70's onward," not coincidentally, I think, with the ever increasing visibility of the "Gay Liberation Movement."

You haven't supported your claim that "...God in His Word links all sexual relations outside of marriage to idolatry."

In any case, that would then be support to expand marriage to same sex couples, wouldn't it? Don't you want to reduce the temptation of idolatrous practices, not increase it by opposing marriage equality?

If Paul's writing on circumcision can be expanded upon...circumcision as a covenant with God...that the circumcision covenant with God can be in the heart and not on the body, then so can marriage that isn't legally recognized...it can be a covenant in the heart, not a just a legalistic covenant on a paper.

"Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts." (1 Cor 7:19)

To Paul in 1 Cor 7, marriage was a "concession," not a "command"...and therefore, not a command by God.

Simply because Paul addresses an other-sex "concession," doesn't proscribe a same-sex "concession."

That sort of argument, after all, was what the pro-slavery apologists made. Simply because the Bible regulates slavery, doesn't mean that it can't and shouldn't be regulated out of existence. The Golden Rule demanded that slavery be abolished.

Simply because the Bible regulates other-sex marriage, doesn't mean that same-sex marriage should be forever proscribed. The Golden Rule demands, at least to me, that marriage be as egalitarian as possible today.

As with marriage, so with other contracts in American life. Only equal is actually equal.

People gave up "authority" over their bodies to the other when they married, Paul said. That's another thing that's not followed today. One might compromise one's authority over one's own body for the "needs" of one's partner, as one sees fit, but one still retains full authority, as an ideal anyway.

Marriage is nothing, and not being married is nothing...I write provocatively. "Keeping God's commands is what counts."

In order to justify injustice towards same-sex couples and Gay soldiers, the religious right is making a fetish, an idol, out of "family," family which they legalistically and exclusively define for their own greedy, self serving purposes. Which they deliberately define for the continuance of injustice, which I think goes against Jesus' "commands" to honor your parents and love your neighbor as your self - i.e - The Golden Rule.

Marriage and family is a covenant of the heart...a "concession" to both love and Eros. The religious right therefore cannot define same-sex marriage as morally invalid, just legally invalid in most states.

Just as they once had (and they certainly weren't alone) defined marriage as racial.

As I think Dorothy Parker may have said, more or less. "Heterosexuality isn't normal, just common."

Heterosexness, as the measure of all things, I think, is like whiteness as the measure of all things...an obsolete standard. If there is once standard of measurement of all things in human relations, it would be the Golden Rule, however much I don't measure up.

Marriage has already become a deracinated, individualized, egalitarian institution, apparently against this...person's...idea of "traditional" marriage.

Howard neglects one other thing about marriage as it has become defined today...informed consent of those getting married. For a long time in the past, consent of the bride and groom was not the prime thing in negotiating the marriage contract. Marriage was a contract between men, a contract to deliver a certified as "pure" product to aid in the creation of "legitimate" heirs. Slaves could have sex, apparently being enslaved was caused by idolatry, then, according to your reasoning, but enslaved men and women could not have LEGITIMATE marriages.

Even in my youth, people sometimes married because they thought "they had to." They may have signed a marriage contract, but it was not from a position of informed consent, of authority over their bodies, but from a position of powerlessness to then current social norms.

Marriage and procreation are not the most important things in the world. "Keeping God's commands is what counts." The Golden Rule, basic morality and a sense of fairness, to me anyway, demands that there also be marriage equality on paper, and equality in the service of one's country.

I am a veteran myself. I shouldn't really have served as I did...I was developing symptoms of a genetic disease that was sapping my stamina, but if I could do it, then a healthy Gay man or woman can do it better.

I was in the military...the "I was only following orders" excuse for doing something in the name of tyranny had already long been shown to be morally bankrupt.

A soldier follows orders. There certainly can be ethical conflicts as you say, but when push comes to shove, tyranny is what you push and shove, not what is "right."

You likely will suffer unfair consequences for not following an order from a wannabee tyrant, but...that's not a moral excuse for doing following a tyrannical order, just an explanation.

Protecting Gay men and women from having to deal with moral dilemmas is an odd reason to justify sexual discrimination.

The American military isn't about tyranny. That's not the oath that I took, anyway.

If a Gay soldier mentions that he, Alan, and Steve, celebrated their tenth anniversary together, just as John mentioned that he and Jane did, so what? The moral response to both is: "Congratulations!"

Not, "Here's your discharge papers, Alan." That's hardly maintaining military readiness, discharging expensively trained military personnel for such a trivial reason. That's just rank bigotry.

The RSV or any other modern version uses no scientific definition of homosexuality; they use wording that in their scholarly opinion best conforms to the ancient languages, Hebrew in the Old Testament and Greek in the New. This I demonstrated in describing the Greek terms Paul used. If these are not the correct Greek terms, tell me what they are. The same could be said for all known translations of Scripture, including the most famous translation of Scriptures in the English language, the King James Version, which is 500 years old. The same could be said for non-English versions used in countries not affected by the homosexual movement. Paul's writings on marriage must be interpreted in the context of the 1 man/1 woman command modeled in Gen. 2:24 and quoted by Jesus in Mt. 19:4-6 as well as the prohibitions against homosexual behavior in the Old Testament. As for the link between idolatry and sex outside of marriage, the acknowledging of the fact that references to idol worship in the Old Testament appear in the context of rules of sexual behavior among families and neighbors should prove the point.

Obama's desire to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" can actually help to fulfill the "days of Lot" (Luke 17, cf. Gen. 19), the fulfillment of which will hurry up the return of the Heavenly Commander-in-Chief who will make all things straight (pun intended)! Interesting Google articles include "Obama Supports Public Depravity," "Obama Avoids Bible Verses," "Separation of Raunch and State" and "David Letterman's Hate Etc." - required reading for the "Obama 101" course.
PS - You're invited to use these new pro-life slogans: "Unborn babies should have the right to keep and bear arms - and legs and ears and eyes etc.!" and "Unborn babies should have the same right to be born alive that abortionists had!"

Gregory, it's true military orders must be disobeyed sometimes on appeal to a higher morality, otherwise morality is just another word for power ("might makes right"). But that leads to three questions.

First, what is the one true standard of morality, and who or what interprets it? Second, if there is one moral standard transcending power relations, ought morally enlightened people force the powers that be to adhere to that standard, or is that just substituting one power relation with another? In other words, can morality to be forced upon other people all the time, some of the time, or none of the time? And Third, is it more important to proclaim moral truth or that truth be powerful?

This all matters because for the president, this policy stems from a conviction that "the people" determine right and the greatest good is when the progressive will of the people takes power. (Obama's progressive philosophy basically says to the first question, the standard of morality changes over time and corresponds to the progressive values of "the people"; to the second, morality may be forced upon people sometimes; and to the third, that moral truth must be powerful, for without power there is no progress.)

I tend to take more the approach of Ezekiel 3 and 33, that of the watchman: those who know moral truth are responsible to proclaim it, but not always enforce it. As Christians we must proclaim Jesus' Gospel, not force everyone to believe it.

Todays AVA is 7 to 8 times more expensive than in the days of the Draft. Just Google Military pay scales for 1973 and for 2007, then just do 3rd grade Arithmetic, and that is just as far as pay is concerned. Then add all the Bonuses necessary just to entice enough "Volunteers" who never made up the numbers.

That's also why the unscrupulous numbers 41-43, resorted to even pull out married Women with children from their homes. Under the pretense that they have also "Volunteer", and sent them on harm ways. This to me, is also an aberration of natures way, and is against God's Laws and against the most basic and elementary Human sense. Almost as muchs as Homosexuality is.

As has been posted already. Homosexuals are a minority not only in the general Population but also as a percentage of the total Military Personnel/troops.

A Military Draft will resolve the undesirable situation, argued about some of these Homosexuals having so called "critical skills". In the spcific case of the Army, almost everybody in the Army goes thru the same Basic Combat Training, exception made for CO's. So everybody basically is an Infantry man, and that is the REAL "Critical skill".

Aiming and then Pulling the Trigger of a weapon to fire it at a target, (whatever it is) can be done by anyone. Hey even 8 year olds are doing it in some places, so can a Woman do it. The questions to ask are then; Does the USA wants to do that?? Is that the kind of Army a country like the good old USA wants to have??

This is imho the fundamental issue that gives rise to the whole issue of the Homosexuals in the Military and their supposedly "critical, expensively acquired skills". That argument has a hole so big that an Aircraft carrier can go thru it.

A call or return to the Draft will provide the Military in general, and the Army specifically, with ALL the numbers/bodies needed to fulfill ALL "Critical" and "non-critical" skills needed. If there is such a thing as "non-critical", in an emergency situation. Like an ALL OUT War! I hope and Pray we'll never have to face China.

There is some gayness in calling Homosexuals Gay. The Grammatical roots, meaning and origins of both terms, do not lend to the way is being used since the late 60's early 70's.

After Richard von Krafft-Ebing "Psychopathia Sexualis" in 1886, "homosexuality" was very much a scientific word. Especially in 1946, rejected as a social construct by the nascent Gay community in the Seventies...and a now it's mostly just a word to use in the scapegoating a minority community.

There was/is no excuse in using it in Bible translations, in 1946, in the Seventies, and at this very late date, now. Simply saying that it wasn't used in a scientific manner is no excuse, it was a science word. The translators' judgment was wrong, because their sexual education was wrong, their morality was wrong, and so their motives for using "homosexuality" were wrong.

The "homosexual" Bibles being published at this very late date, are nothing but hate literature aimed at a encouraging bigotry and the scapegoating of a minority community.

Gen 2:24 doesn't prohibit full citizen equality anymore than the verses on slavery, including the Ten Commandments, prohibited abolishing slavery. You're following in the footsteps of slavery apologists, not in the footsteps of a higher morality.

As the 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery points out, morality is about the Golden Rule.

If you don't read the Bible with good will, I think, you will read the Bible to oppress your neighbor. I seldom see much good will in so called "conservative" hermeneutics.

At this very late date, the opposition to "homosexuality" looks to be mostly about greed and bigotry. It can't be excused and condoned anymore. And I do mean greed. Greed to keep Gay people from competing for jobs, greed to drive out Gay neighbors to take their properties and businesses, greed to keep them from positions of leadership...especially in so called "conservative" churches.

Oh, GP, you're so...so...what's the word - omnisciently postmodern (or is it postmodernly omniscient. Which is an oxymoron.) Sigh, it doesn't matter. Postmodernism, according to some, is already over. And just when I started to get a handle on it. What are you going to do when "construct" is no longer in vogue? By the by, what is the latest phiolosophical system since last Wednesday? I hear tell it is called "critical realism." Uh huh, Critical Realism. Sounds so intelligentia, so profound, so French, so John Kerry. Oooohhhh! Just the very pronunciation of the phrase sends a tingling up my leg. Or maybe that is sciatica? Maybe DADT isn't such a bad policy after all - for all involved in the military. Wouldn't be a bad policy for the civilian world either. B/c what happens in Vegas should stay in Vegas.

So, I guess nobody wants to bring back the Draft. I meant the Military Draft. Not even those who ADMIRE the Military soo much,:-O that they would not even think for a second to Join them.;-)

That's exactly where their Admiration and Fascination with everything Military ends.

Salero21: The draft? I agree. Let's bring it back. I was #46 in 1972. Had I been born 16 minutes sooner or 24 hours later, I would not have been drafted. I went to Germany - 19 months in Neu Ulm and served in the 1st and the 81St FA, Pershing Missles. Oh, the nostalgia - makes me want to break out in song...ahem...ahem..."Those were the days my friend/I thought they'd nev...etc. etc."


Yes Dan: Those were the days.../

For we were young and sure to have our way!..

/..For in our hearts, the dreams are still the same.

Those were the days also, when one was either for or against, whatever it was that in our ways. No middle grounds were accepted.

The Draft will also cure the SEOSEC Syndrome. Because in those days a Soldier was not just the kid down the street or maybe even the girl 3 blocks away. In those days a Soldier was almost always: the Son, the Brother, the Husband, the Boyfriend and the Lifelong Friend.

I was drafted a little earlier than you. Missed Nam by the skin of my teeth in Ordnance, and the last 3 months were the longest of my Life.


Salero21: I believe Pres. Nixon signed an executive order(?) in May of '72 that said as of June of '72 no more draftees would be sent to Nam. All I remember is that I breathed a big sigh of relief when I found out that I wouldn't be going to Nam. (Too hot an humid for my taste. ;-p) I was drafted in July of 1972. As you remember, Nixon was winding the war down.- oh, sorry; I mean "police action". Incidently, I converted to Christ in Aug. of '73 while in Germany. I was driving back to Neu Ulm and was half-way between Neu Ulm and Hanover. Life was good, then. Even with all of the military silliness we endured. Not everything was silly, tho - some was important - but so much was just nonsense.

At my age, Dan, I can be anything I want, post-post modern...lol. I won't claim omniscience, just that I've always had a sense of curiosity, was raised in a largish family, a small town, Methodist upbringing for which I'm grateful, a well used, from an early age, library card, and six decades to process what I've discovered.

I had enlisted rather than waited to be drafted. I was already a graphics designer, though inexperienced, and in need of a bit of adventure. I was also sent to Germany, instead of Vietnam...perhaps because of my nearsightedness. I think the draft diluted professionalism somewhat. I had no intention of being a career soldier, and therefore was uninterested in studying for promotions, as an example. But, the draft decreased "group think" somewhat because of the diversity of people that also did as I did, which was a good thing. A friend, for instance, a fellow one term enlisted man, had a degree from MIT, and was still of drafted age. I outranked him, though we both enlisted about the same time.

Best regards fellow Vets. Dan & GP.


@GP: Several men in my platoon were college grads whose deferments had expired. One was an engineer and one a biology major who wanted to go to med school. Neither made it past Sp4. And I didn't want "to be all I could be in the army" either. And I think you are correct: "... the draft decreased "group think" somewhat because of the diversity of people..." I was glad when I had served my 2 years and got out. Later, after college, I looked into going back in, but it didn't work out. I don't regret it. And glad to hear you eschew omniscience. And yes, at your age, you can be post-post mod or anything else you want to be. And me too, for that matter. Let's see what shall I be.....how about a conservative, traditional, paleo-evangelical. Is this a "construct" or what? ;-)

For an argument in favor of a Military draft, see this link. http://www.johntreed.com/militarydraft.html


Sen. McCain has apparently changed his mind on "Don't ask, don't tell." He now has an obligation to explain why.

In late 2006, John McCain told a live audience that he supported "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexuality a secret. "But the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it, because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.

That day came on Tuesday, and McCain did not budge—just one reason a full repeal of the DADT policy may be further off than you think..."


So let me get this straight! We'll have cross-dressing drill sregeants? I'm putting my money on the Talibantomage

There likely are already cross-dressing sergeants. They're likely "heterosexual," are married, and have children.


There likely are already cross-dressing sergeants. They're likely "heterosexual," are married, and have children.
Posted by: Gregory Peterson at February 2, 2010

But of course there maybe one here or there GP. It does not require the increase in "group think" of an AVA. Neither the "diluted professionalism" of draftees to be/do something of the sort. All it takes for such an Anti-natural behavior, (Which BTW also goes against God's Laws and Spirit as much as Homosexuality) is a twisted mind, a corrupt Soul.

That type of behavior, conduct and Lifestyle against Nature, against God's Laws and Creation is what is called SIN.

It does happens also because they [soldiers], are a reflection of the very society they come from. They're no better or worst, than anybody else in the Culture and Society where they grew up or come from. No matter how "diverse" or homogeneous that group or society is or maybe.

All of that could be one more argument in favor of a Draft. Because a Draft, would provide sufficient bodies/numbers of Men. That would ideally allow the Military to weed out these, and replace them with readily available others without these traits.

best regards


I don't see how you can call cross-dressing "unnatural. I don't "get" cross-dressing, but there is no reason to think that it's "unnatural." It's clear by now that "natural law" is: "If it's not impossible, it's mandatory." Cross dressing isn't impossible...some people will do it.

I picked up that "natural law" from an entomologist who's name I've forgotten. He called it "The Totalitarian Law of Nature.

“Anything that is not impossible, is mandatory!” Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku has picked it up for his popular audience book, "Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel." I should buy it. Sounds fun.

So,there has to be a standard on what that is possible can be condoned, or at least to be accepted with resigned bemusement.

The standard of what can't be condoned I guess is: When it's a danger to oneself and to others.

Cross-dressing does not meet that standard of concern. The only danger to cross-dressers are violent bigots. The dangers to society by cross-dressers is: I can't think of any. I don't care if a man dresses in a dress. A little eccentricity makes life a little more interesting.

A fun thing about having a degree in sociology is that it's a license to meet people you might not otherwise.

I've known some transgender people, who strike me as, in general, inspiringly brave, but I haven't really known any cross-dressers well enough to get a feeling for where they're coming from. And it doesn't matter. What do I care if a man likes to dress in a dress on occasion? Cross-dressing is much to0 high maintenance for me...lol.

The morality one extracts from the “Anything that is not impossible, is mandatory” law, is pretty much the morality one brings to it. To call a person "unnatural" is to deny his humanity, his human dignity. To do that, is to deny your own better nature.

I wonder why we Americans apparently can't do that "resigned bemusement" thing very well. It makes life much less stressful.

One of my security words is "trumpery." That's a word I haven't used much, but maybe I should use more?


DT 22:5 A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. NIV

Dt. 22:5 "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. NASB

Dt. 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord your God. The Amplified version

The above quotes are not Trumped-up, but the Theory of Natural Law may be a "trumpery".

Now isn't weird, strange and against the most basic common sense for a Man to wear a brassiere. The Fact that the Law of Gravity, like any other Law (Human or Divine) is broken every second; Does not makes it consequence free. There have been many tragic consequences to braking the Laws of Physics and Nature's Laws. In the case of God's Laws the ultimate consequence was Death. It was so back then in Eden lost and is so today also. God is the Creator of Physic's and Nature's Law, as well He is the Creator of ALL MATTER.


Brendan, it's only gay people in the military who have to keep their sex lives to themselves. Straight military folks don't have to talk about their "orientation." All they have to do is mention a "wife" or "husband" or "girlfriend" or "boyfriend." Gay people aren't asking for the right to "flaunt" their sexuality or cross-dress when they're supposed to be in uniform. All they want is relief from the obligation to affirmatively conceal who they are. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs testifed: "It's about integrity. Theirs as individuals, and ours, as an institution."

Inappropriate behavior, fraternization, harassment, etc. will all still be violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and can and will likely be prosecuted. When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs (Powell and Shalikashvili), and so many other top brass agree, I think they can figure out whether changing the policy will harm the military or not.

Of course not everyone has the "right" to serve in the military. The military establishes standards for who can be accepted. But, it it would be nice if the standards the military set bore some relationship to the mission at hand. Long ago it was decided that restricting military service based on race made no operational sense. President Obama is only saying that once someone meets all of the physical, mental, emotional standards required of the all-volunteer army, they should have the "right" to serve regardless of "who" they are.

Do you really want to quote Deuteronomy 22 as a list of unbreakable absolutes applicable to everyone? Go read the entire chapter.

Usually when something in the Bible is an "abomination," it's condemning something that has to do with fertility cult rituals, real or maybe even imagined. It's likely that few cross-dressers today do so to worship a fertility god or goddess.

Deuteronomy 22 doesn't tell us what to do today, but it does challenge us to think about serving God, in the here and the now, by living the Golden Rule as best we can, don't you think?

What does the Golden Rule suggest to you about today's cross-dressers then? It suggest to me: "Don't care." There are a lot of things that one should care about, so why bother with caring about cross-dressing?

If you think that men shouldn't cross dress, don't do it, not even on Halloween.

But, if today, it's just some little eccentricity ...? Why care? Should you care if I prefer no iron, cotton/poly blend shirts? I guess it could be thought of as a moral failing, but I'm easily fatigued and I'd rather use my limited store of energy on things other than ironing shirts.


If adulterers and fornicators, rapists, murderers,
thieves and robbers, idolaters, all unbelievers and the Faithless among others, are NOT going to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

What then, can possible make anyone think that affeminates and sodomites will?


Since God created Adam and Eve until the recent past, marriage has been between men and women. Jesus said so, too. For the past 2000 years the church has said marriage is between men and women, as well. Proglibpostmods come along and decide all of that is hooey! They can only justify their erroneous beliefs by using hermeneutical hocus pocus and biblical/theological slash and burn. Their famous line is "you don't take in consideration the context". What a hoot!
No matter how accurate your exegesis is, they will discount it by quoting some ivory tower wack job and demand you interact with their research. When you don't you become "The Hater". Of course they will never do actual exegesis themselves and interact with the text or with conservative/traditional research. They just dismiss it as biased and unworthy of their consideration. We just don't understand that it is a justice issue. Waaaaaa!

Despite its common usage, not ALL people are "God's children". It's just another way to push universalism. But the Bible defines it for us in John 1:12-13

"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."

God GAVE the RIGHT to be called "children of God" to those who received Him and believed. Not to all people.

Also, in Luke 20:34 Jesus was asked if there was marriage in heaven. Funny thing, they were talking about a MAN and a WOMAN being married too, not a homosecual union. Anyway, Jesus said, regarding those in heaven, that they are "children of God" , since they are children of the resurrection.

As for those who twist Scripture and even mock it, why bother replying to them. It is obvious that some who post do not even believe in God or believe the Bible, they are here to hurt others and promote their activities, twisting Scripture, thinking they will convince those who are new believers. But they won't fool God, and there is a God, and He gave us His Word, which is all inspired.

2Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

Someday every knee will be bowed before Jesus. I also noticed that nobody quotes Jesus from Revelation. It is the Revelation of Jesus TO John and then written for the church.

Revelation certainly refers to the lake of fire and God's wrath. As for all the phoney arguments such as "well it's not written about in Acts", etc, what a joke. ALL SCRIPTURE is God-breathed. It doesn't matter if it is Matthew, Mark, Paul, or the "red words". You either accept the Bible or you don't.

Jesus believed the Scripture and quoted from all of the books except for one. Jesus talked about Adam and Eve, and NOT in a mocking way. That is satan that does that. One who mocks the Bible on these posts is obviously following satan.

Several of you must sit there with a black magic marker and wipe out all the MANY verses that contradict your beliefs. Well, in the end, God wins. Not satan. You're either with God or with satan. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against His church. God wins at the end. It's not too late to repent and become a believer. But I wouldn't delay.

Name calling - the last resort of an empty suit. S'matter? Can't you explain your heretical theology with the Bible? Go consult your voodoo theologians and their hocus pocus research. 2 Timothy 3:7 "...always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Now you say: "Go meet some nice spirit-filled homosexuals." Funny. What will it be next? Spirit filled pederasts? Or maybe, spirit filled buggers? Pure proglib theological putrefaction and counterfeit intellectualism. I'm not impressed and neither was Jesus. He gives me a much more biblical challenge. Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'" This by the way, He quoted from Deuteronomy 8:3 "He humbled you and let you be hungry...that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD." (Can't do this, can you? B/c you don't know what IS scripture and what ISN"T. Do your proglib prophets know? They'll probably tell you this: It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.)
By the by! If I do run into some homosexual
"chrisitans" I will be only to happy to share the gospel - the "real" good news - with them. And I mean that sincerely. "Rescue the perishing, care for the dying, Jesus is merciful, Jesus will save."

"Hillel couldn't think of not-slavery in his time and place (around 110BCE-10CE.)"
Nor, could he not think of Lev. 18's prohibitions.
Ironic, isn't it?

"From them, [Quakers] the abolitionist movement grew until it finally prevailed...but not before a grotesque bloodbath largely, but not exclusively, started by plutocratic minded American Evangelicals."
And I wonder where the Quakers got their abolitionists ideas from. The Bible? Ya think? Funny, too, b/c some Quakers owned slaves. So, we must conclude (using your logic that you demonstrate time after time)that all Quakers suck.

Like on so much else you provide only a one sided view.
See here: "Abolitionism was a movement in western Europe and the Americas to end the slave trade and emancipate slaves. The slave system aroused little protest until the 18th century, when rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment criticized it for violating the rights of man, and Quaker and other evangelical religious groups condemned it as un-Christian." (Quote from Wikipedia, topic "Abolition")
O' you are such a reliable resource.

"When I was a teenager, religious conservatives were also flinging Bible "proof texts" about, which somehow proved that God hated "unnatural" "mixed race" marriage..."
Therefore, all religious conservatives did the same thing. Ho Hum!

"A living Islamic scholar...has pointed out that the morality that you extract from your reading of sacred text, depends upon the morality you bring to your reading of sacred text..."
Maybe - but then the morality you extract from your reading of CT will depend upon the morality you bring to your reading of CT.

"I think I know CT's morality."
Omniscience Alert!! Of course you will never demonstrate your accusations with actual quotes from CT articles. In typical proglib fashion, you talk at people, never to them.

"I'm unimpressed, as I was with all of CT's main founding fathers."
Ok, let's take a survey. Everyone who cares, raise your hand. Survey says "no one cares."

We are commanded that "by their fruits shall ye know them." I guess you doubt God's word if you're too afraid to see for yourself a gay Christian who is, in fact, exhibiting the Fruits of the Spirit. A pedophile, a pederast, an adulterer, a hater, etc. could not be filled with the Spirit because their lives are all about the lies they have to tell in order to get what they want. Gay Christians, living their lives openly, in loving and committed relationships, or in responsible singleness, don't have their lives run by hate and lies. You would see this if you weren't so afraid. You can never prove me wrong if you're too afraid to even see the evidence. All your texts are for naught when flesh and blood and Spirit evidence exists. Just like fossils disproved the 6-24-hr day creation that once appeared to be the literal Word of God.

Fortunately, God gets to decide who God's children are and not Barbara. I wouldn't want to be standing next to her in a thunder storm if she's claiming the right to decide for God who's worthy of being called a child of God.


So let's stick to the issue at hand. In a reversal of fortunes Mr. Colin Powell in interview with Fareed Zakaria is quoted as saying that the DADT Policy should be re-evaluated. Now let me see if I can remember well. Isn't this the very same Colin Powell who as Secretary of State went to the General Assembly of the UN and Lied to the whole wide world about WMD's in Saddam's Iraq.

If I remember well. In the former days of the Draft, there were 3 questions asked at the AFEES. If one was a Communist, a homosexual, or a member of any organization that advocated to overthrown the US Government. I don't know if they still do that. In other words; the Draft system gave the Military the convenience to reject Communists, Homosexuals and Anarquists.

Of course if anyone really wanted to avoid being drafted, all he had to do was answers Yes to all 3. Or in the other hand, do like this guy I knew who went as far as cutting the 2 front phalanges of his right index finger. That was the most extreme thing ever to me.

Adm. Mike Mullen said the other day in hearing at the Senate. That he had seen "gays" in the Military since 1968. Therefore he favors a repeal of the Policy.

Now, one of the gimmicks of the current Military is the unproven claim that Military training and service builds character. Well, that depends of what's the definition of Character in the Military. Because as I stated in my first post (that was deleted). There has always been Homosexuals in the US Military and in any Military for that matter. It is said by some that the ancient Greek and Roman armies had entire units of them.

Now, what kind of character the Military really can build. If Men who made the Military their careers cannot stand up for what is true, and time and again engage in mental and moral Flip Flops. The building of character is a gargantuan Myth on the part of the Military. If one's character is ambivalent it will be ambivalent with or without Military training or experience. If somebody is a thief, a liar, an Anarquist (remember Timothy McVeigh) Military training or service is Not going to change him/her.

Only the Power of the Gospel of Jesuschrist can do that.


I'm a veteran, though my one enlistment term was uneventful. I think that military training can strengthen one's character, give it discipline and direction. Same with higher education and religion. But you're right Salero21...if one just doesn't have it, it likely can't be made. The above can also warp one's character into the an immoral direction.

People who were once against Gay people in the military, but now oppose DADT policies and bans, didn't necessarily "flip-flop." They just became aware that people of good will simply don't care if someone is Gay, unless they're looking for a date.


People who were once against Gay people in the military, but now oppose DADT policies and bans, didn't necessarily "flip-flop." They just became aware that people of good will simply don't care if someone is Gay, unless they're looking for a date.
Posted by: Gregory Peterson at February 7, 2010

Beg to disagree on that point GP. Actually people of Good will, do care and people who do care, are actually the people of good will.

Yes is flip-flop not Flip Flop like I posted, thanks.


Here's from an article published on February 14, 2010:
Obama's national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, said on CNN's "State of the Union" that the policy "has to evolve with the social norms of what is acceptable and what is not."
It is precisely this type of ignorance of history--this type of ignorance of how President Truman DEFIED the existing "social norms" of racist 1950s American society--this type of ignorance that so characteristically defines the bumbling, stumbling, and clueless Obama administration. Sad state of affairs.

President Obama, enough is enough. Put up or shut up. Dilly-dally is only going to end up with you being shown the door when your first term is up. Then, the collective American public will bid you goodbye and advise you--in the old Southern saying--to not let the door knob hit you where the good Lord split you.


I often wonder if the Anachronisms in speech and writings of old southerners is a cultural trait, or is it that they trying so hard to re-write History.


Why are there so many "pro-gay" comments on this, a site that is supposed to be a "Christian" site? Any comments that are not in line with God's Holy Word, should be refused a posting by this site's administrators. Is this site really Christian? I'm thinking it may not be. If God says homosexuality is a detestable abomination to Him, then why would any so-called "Christian" site post pro-gay comments that obviously come from people who defy God's law? Christianity Today, you need to seriously examine your motives and see if you are doing the will of God!

I don't see how you can call cross-dressing "unnatural. I don't "get" cross-dressing, but there is no reason to think that it's "unnatural." It's clear by now that "natural law" is: "If it's not impossible, it's mandatory." Cross dressing isn't impossible...some people will do it.