Barney Frank | Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Massachusetts | Sean Avery

Republican Sean Bielat Defends DADT: 'Men Under The Height Of 5 Feet, 2 Inches Can’t Serve — I Don’t See Anybody Protesting'

Republican Sean Bielat, who is battling Barney Frank for his seat in Congress, seems a little confused by either "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," homosexuality or both. Likely both.

Sb Here's what he recently had to say about DADT to the Boston Herald:

“There’s no absolute right to serve. Men under the height of 5 feet, 2 inches can’t serve — I don’t see anybody protesting. Where are the people standing in front of the White House, the short guys standing in front of the White House? You don’t see it,” Bielat said. “We understand that there’s no absolute right to serve in all these other areas.”

The Herald puts it best in their response: "Hmm. ... On the other hand, vertically challenged people are not forced to pretend they’re tall, then drummed out once it’s discovered they’re short in spite of their service record."

Sounds like he's been taking lessons on homosexuality from Colorado GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. A Republican making an ignorant analogy? Shocking! They're all so literate, compassionate, and well versed in things like logic, sanity and even the Constitution. I just can't image one of them making a asshat remark.

    Posted by: Bart | Oct 24, 2010 3:25:09 PM


  2. So, all you guys who seem to have it out for Barney because he can be an obnoxious slob on occasion, this is your alternative: someone who is not only anti-gay but thoroughly stupid, right in line with the rest of the Republican party. I guess his wooden-puppet-like cameo in his silly and homophobic "Disco Barney" ad was no fluke. Keep this dolt out of office, MA!

    Posted by: Ernie | Oct 24, 2010 3:28:57 PM


  3. This reminds me of the "Bantam Brigades" started in Britain very early in the Great War to give shorter fellows a chance to serve.

    Within a few years, the units were all consolidated with other units.

    Full integration. Just like that.

    Oh, and as I recall, Britain was on the winning side during the war.

    Posted by: K in VA | Oct 24, 2010 3:55:08 PM


  4. One of the great thinkers of the generation has spoken. Now what are his supporters thinking, because they must understand his point?

    Posted by: Matt26 | Oct 24, 2010 3:59:46 PM


  5. Well, if a short person of 5'2" wants to protest and to fight it, I don't think nobody is stopping them. That's their choice. I guess the twerp didn't think that someone who felt left out could protest without someone's permission.

    Posted by: Mac McNeill | Oct 24, 2010 4:20:24 PM


  6. Unfortunately, the homophobes have come out in droves in the comments section of that Boston Herald article. I skimmed through the comments and it seems 8 out of every 10 comments are either outright homophobic or claiming there are more important matters to deal with than repealing DADT.

    There's also a disturbing trend of comments claiming Obama is an incompetent C-in-C but that GW Bush cared about the troops. Mind-boggling.

    Posted by: RJ | Oct 24, 2010 4:22:08 PM


  7. (Said in sing-songy voice) Somebody's got gayyyy-faaaaccce!

    Posted by: Derek Pearce | Oct 24, 2010 5:30:22 PM


  8. I agree the military can set standards for accepting an applicant, standards based on physical fitness, physical health, mental health, and the ability to take orders and learn the job. I simply disagree that being gay or lesbian categorically disqualifies a person from meeting those standards. In fact, I'm not entirely sure why a 5'1" man is disqualified from military service solely because of his height.

    I wonder if the military ever grants exceptions to the height rule for someone with a special skill, like, I don't know, understanding a foreign language. They don't seem to grant exceptions to DADT for those kinds of skills, now do they?

    Posted by: jpeckjr | Oct 24, 2010 5:54:05 PM


  9. The height issue has been adjudicated. The military, for whatever reason, was judged to have a reasonable and defensible justification for the height rule. Perhaps if shorter people continued to object to the rule, they could overturn it eventually. The most recent Federal court decision, however, found that there was no rational justification for DADT, and that it was merely a matter of discrimination.

    The problem is that job discrimination is still legal with regards to gays. Defend that position, Beilat, if you like. It is a homophobic and bigoted position, and you, sir, are a bigoted homophobe.

    Posted by: candideinnc | Oct 24, 2010 6:19:03 PM


  10. Um, Sean, honey, explain your analogy to me again? I missed your point. Maybe you can start a "shorts-rights movement"?

    Posted by: mike | Oct 24, 2010 7:13:18 PM


  11. my question is why are short people not allowed to serve?

    Posted by: johnosahon | Oct 24, 2010 10:28:53 PM


  12. That guy has stupid written all over him.

    My brother served for 14 years and is under 5'2". The air force and navy loves short guys, they fit into cockpits better. They usually totally overlook the height thing (especially if you are going to be in officer training) and nobody calls them on it.

    Posted by: johnny | Oct 24, 2010 11:35:49 PM


  13. 6 years Navy here. From personal observation there are plenty of people under 5'2" currently serving. Get your facts right before spouting off make believe.

    Posted by: Chris | Oct 25, 2010 12:16:16 AM


  14. Leaving aside any disappointments with the Democratic Party for the moment, I hope Barney Frank wipes the floor with this smug Nazi.

    Posted by: John | Oct 25, 2010 12:52:10 AM


  15. His attempt to demonstrate why the recent court ruling is wrong went completely astray. A rational basis test means that you cannot discriminate simply because you CAN. He's saying that if the army CAN discriminate in one area, then they CAN discriminate in all areas, but this is not so. However, failing an IQ test can lead to a discharge.

    Posted by: anon | Oct 25, 2010 1:07:12 AM


  16. You mean there aren't midget ninjas in the military? Damnit...midget ninjas would be sweet.

    This guy's a moron, and it's premised on the belief that homosexuality would compromise one's job performance...which is a hindenburg fail. Hope this guy dies in a fire.

    Posted by: TANK | Oct 25, 2010 1:11:37 AM


  17. There are indeed short dudes and dudettes in the armed forces. They come in handy actually.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Oct 25, 2010 1:27:06 AM


  18. Now it's official: This dude's a total douchebag.

    Posted by: justaguy | Oct 25, 2010 7:50:47 AM


  19. As a short gay man I am doubly offended by this man!!!
    ;)

    Posted by: George F | Oct 25, 2010 8:25:10 AM


  20. So this guy is saying that Dan Choi is objectively not fit to serve. Except there's nothing objective about it--it's all based on his personal politics of hate. WTF. How discouraging. Even in Massachussetts. What a monster.

    Posted by: justaguy | Oct 25, 2010 8:32:26 AM


  21. Imagine my shock that the Herald actually took a progressive stand on this issue, despite their massively homophobic and ignorant readership. Impressive.

    Posted by: wimsy | Oct 25, 2010 9:34:28 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Alan Cumming On Obama: He's Done "Diddly Squat" For Gays« «