02/28/2007
John Edwards Issues Statement on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
In response to the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a bill calling for the repeal of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy which was proposed by a bipartisan congressional group and Rep. Marty Meehan earlier today, Senator John Edwards released the following statement:
"It is long past time to end the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy and to allow openly gay men and women to serve in the military. It is critical to our national security that we have the best people in our military. Gay men and women have continually served our country with honor and bravery, and we should honor their commitment and never turn away anyone who is willing to serve their country because of their sexual orientation. This is an issue of fundamental fairness – and our military ought to treat everyone fairly. I applaud Congressman Meehan on his important legislation."
Also, as a follow-up to the post from this morning, gay Iraqi war veteran Eric Alva wrote up a nice piece today over at The Huffington Post.
You may have missed...
First Marine Wounded in Iraq Comes Out of the Closet, Calls for Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" [tr]
(thanks lane)
Posted 5:03 PM EST by Andy in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Election 2008, John Edwards, Military, News | Permalink
Comments
When will it be long past time that all LGBT Americans have equal rights?
Posted by: Jack! | Feb 28, 2007 5:20:46 PM
When it isn't political suicide?
Posted by: scientitian | Feb 28, 2007 5:23:11 PM
So, he thinks gays and lesbians have the right to serve and die in a useless war, but he's not sure they have the right to make sure their spouses get survivor's benefits...cuz they're not really good enough to be "spouses". How nice for him.
Posted by: FanGirlHater | Feb 28, 2007 5:24:28 PM
Retired General Wesley Clark back during the primaries 2 elections ago
100% equal enlistment and service rights for homosexuals in the millitary
and
100% full equal marriage rights for gays in america
How many of you supported Clark in the primaries all the way back then?
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 28, 2007 5:34:53 PM
So uh, Jimmy...is Wesley running for 08?
Posted by: Damon | Feb 28, 2007 5:44:33 PM
Damon, he hasn't announced yet.
The point is that we get all attiter (is that a word) about someone throwing us a crumb on the military but still going to deny us marriage rights yet years ago....years ago a man was running for the dem nom who wanted full rights for us across the board. His support from the homosexual community was very very small
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Feb 28, 2007 5:49:27 PM
Jimmy
Not that I'm not doing any searches on him right now but whats your personal opinion on why there wasn't too much support for Clark from the gay community and the U.S. in general during 04's elections?
Posted by: Damon | Feb 28, 2007 6:12:45 PM
Damon
The gay community like all communities and groups are a herd...the herd mentality went with who they percieved could win Kerry or Dean instead of supporting the person who actualy supports them. kucinich was completly against the Iraq war in 2004,while Kerry was a flip flopper.....the herd went with kerry
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Feb 28, 2007 6:18:46 PM
Go to Edwards website and tell him what you think. I find it offensive that as commander in chief he would accept gay americans laying down their lives in defense of the country and then deny us the right to marry whom we choose, among other things.
Posted by: busytimmy | Feb 28, 2007 6:19:10 PM
The word is "a-titter".
Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | Feb 28, 2007 6:40:44 PM
Why get atwitter (OE word Jimbo) over inconsistencies in Edwards' panderings? This is s.o.p. for him. As for backing a perceived winner: would you rather be right (100% true to your values, whatever they be) or would you rather win the election?
Clark does not have the financial wherewithal to mount a serious campaign. HRC is already sucking up all the financial breathing space available although many have serious doubts about her electability.
Look for Al Gore to make a serious run as the brokered candidate that emerges from a seriously fractured electorate following bruising primaries among HRC, Obama, and the also-rans.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 28, 2007 6:44:40 PM
Correction:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
a·twit·ter /əˈtwɪtər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-twit-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective excited; nervous; aflutter; twittering: They were atwitter at the prospect of meeting a Hollywood star.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1825–35; a-1 + twitter]
I agree with Busytimmy. As much as I want to like Edwards, his positions waiver and although he may not have gotten the opportunity to throw that bit about redefining marriage for everyone, he's had ample opportunity to make it a point. And I don't care what any spin doctor out there says, it's JUST as important an issue as the war, healthcare, social security and global warming.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Feb 28, 2007 6:47:31 PM
All I know is I saw a vid on xtube of two guys stationed in Iraq who taped themselves getting it on in secret, which the video says they had been almost everyday for six weeks straight, and it was hot.
Posted by: Brandon | Feb 28, 2007 7:48:59 PM
What might some have said if he came out against gays in the military?
Have Hilary's operatives taken to blog commentating?
From Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, I choose John Edwards. He's the least likely of the three to sell out the gay community. He'd make the best president of the three. And he really could kind of possibly win election!
I'm supporting John Edwards.
Posted by: John | Feb 28, 2007 7:50:30 PM
Thanks for the help gang on the word :-)
John....Hillary? bush lite in a dress
Rudy, I would rather stay true to myself and go down in flames than just back a supposed "winner" to back a "winner"
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Feb 28, 2007 8:14:23 PM
PS Rudy
AOL yesterday did a poll (aol polls do have problems in that 1 person can sign on to up to 7 screen names and vote 7 different times) about Gore. Gore won out 60+% against Hill, Obama, and Edwards in gaining the dem nom and beating whatever repub candidate.
Does anybody know gore's stand on our issues? I need to research him on that. I do totaly support his environmental initiatives and he was 100% against iraq war from the beggining (no messy vote to appologize for)
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 28, 2007 8:18:16 PM
Jimbo, Are you telling me something I do not know? I suggested in several threads previously that Gore could emerge as the nominee following a fractured primary season.
Your wish to go down in flames can be easily granted by the primary system as now structured. But what would that accomplish? Non-thinking of that strain is why we have the current administration.
All you get is a cheesy bumper sticker proclaiming "don't blame me, I voted for... ." That outcome is worse than a phyrric victory. Self-immolate if you choose but you forfeit your right to participate in the discussion and therefore, actually affect (and effect) change.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 28, 2007 8:39:21 PM
I just wish I could trust him. Clinton promised the world, too, and the first things he did was the DOMA policy and "Don't Ask" (meaning a vote for Hillary will be more of the same).
Edwards was SO vauge in 2004. Just would not commit to one statement or another. I jsut don't trust him.
Posted by: Rad | Feb 28, 2007 8:54:56 PM
Rudy I disagree completly.
History is full of people who refused to compromise.....people who stood true to themselves though alone and affected history afected change where as compromisers end up forgotten by the history books.
If Gore comes out in support of gay marriage then I would gladly volunteere for him. What I have read so far on the net though has him always giving the non-answer on the subject. Something with a lot of words, but no meanings and no firm support either way on the issue. A true politician. On the environment and the war though he is SPOT ON! If he enters, and he supports gay rights 100% then i will gladly vote, work for, etc for Gore.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Feb 28, 2007 9:25:32 PM
PS
I predict Gore if he is going to announce will announce after getting the Nobel peace Prize (in october I think)
He is totaly getting huge amounts of free press that the other candidates would kill for and yet via this route able to stay out of and above the whole "politics" thing....thus not getting dirty before the primaries next year
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Feb 28, 2007 9:28:00 PM
Don't ask don't tell was the result of the Clinton advisors (see George Stephanopolous) grossly underestimating the nation's homophobia.
Clinton shot himself in the foot with that one.
The times have changed...and so has the rest of the world.
Posted by: John | Feb 28, 2007 11:20:56 PM
Well I'm not going to immediately give my vote to anyone until I've seen all the contestants and have seen their credentials. And not just the one's on gay marriage.
Posted by: Damon | Mar 1, 2007 12:08:13 AM
I applaud Edwards for his support of this legislation.
As for him not supporting same-sex marriage, it is his objection to the use of 'marriage' being assigned to same-sex unions. Frankly, I agree - marriage is different (as I've posted in previous topics on this blogsite). I think the majority of homosexuals & lesbians push this too far to their own demise. Civil unions (which virtually 98% of elected federal officials support) can provide virtually the same benefits to same-sex couples. Message: Forfeit the 'marriage' tirade and support the civil union law.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 1, 2007 6:58:07 AM
It seems to me a bit too early to be debating so earnestly who we would or would not support in the 08 election. Only in America does an election go on for 2 years or more. I am an American living in Canada, and I must say that I like the system up here much better. From the time the government calls an election, be it Federal, Provincial or Civic, the campaign lasts a maximum of six weeks and then we vote. The campaigns to not get anywhere near as negative or personally destructive. The people in the country get to hear about policies and agendas, rather than just taking pot shots at each other and digging up filth or lying about a person's past. I sit here in amazement and shake my head that a year before the first primary, the candidates are already sinking into personal slurs. To me, one of the main reasons for this is the length of the campaigns in the U.S.
Posted by: Michael D. Fein | Mar 1, 2007 3:08:43 PM
Michael D.......I don't think there is a way to make the election cycle shorter in the type of Democracy we have. The nice part of a Parlimentry system is the fact that the goverment is more responsive to the opinion of the electorate once elected, and of course that nice short election cycle you mentioned.
As far as Edwards goes, he's always been a lightweight on the most important issues. He usually only comes out strong on issues that he has already polled and knows it won't hurt him.
The word **marriage** is the main sticking point in this country. When polled, 60% or higher of the public is for civil unions with all the benifits that hetro marrieds have, but when you poll and ask the same people about gay marriage, the numbers drop to less than 50%. I personally have never wanted it to be called a **marriage**....to me, thats A) a str8 instituition. B) nothing more than a religious ceremony.
I don't want str8's to *give* me the right to a word. I want my own word. I want a gay word.
Posted by: joshua | Mar 1, 2007 5:30:51 PM
I propose we divide towleroad bloggers into two categories: Posters who agree with Andy's politics can post on any thread, as many times as they like, no restrictions.
Posters who disagree with Andy's politics can still have the right to post, but we won't call them posters. Let's call them...
Civil Contributers...
but they can only post one time after all of the other VIP posters have already gone first.
Kinda the same rights, but we won't call them posters because that term is reserved for those whose presence here is welcome, harmonious, um... natural... normal...
Stephen you can be a Civil Contributor... just remember your place.
Posted by: mark m | Mar 1, 2007 7:59:40 PM
Mark M: I'd no problem with your remark up until the last two words...
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 2, 2007 12:01:17 PM
"Marriage" is a religious word. Few religions support gay marriage. Most Americans are regligious. Asking for gay "marriage" instead of for equal Rights, is blatantly begging religious people to a (misguided) "defence" of their religion.
An easy sollution is to remove the M-Word from the governments involvement altogether; leave "marriage" the word for what you do inside your Church, and Civil Union for what you, _regardless_of_orientation_, register with the government. Then you can have equal rights, and equal language, for all, without the religious conflict.
This seems like such a "duh" thing to me. Maybe its easier for me to see the sollution, because I feel the government's involvement is oppressive simple because I'm an Atheist and don't want to have to use a religious word in order to get equal rights.
So to me "gay marriage" offers to give equal rights and respect to religious homosexuals, but not to hetero Atheists.
I was a big Clark supporter, and he is the sort of person that wants anybody who feels left out in society, to be given a way back in. Edwards is nearly as good.
Go Edwards!
Posted by: Paris | Mar 2, 2007 5:27:30 PM
http://sexxearch.info x
Posted by: Zmajrlt | Jun 3, 2007 2:05:52 PM
Recent Comments