Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Military | News

'DADT' Repeal Day Extras

Road Senators held a press conference today on the repeal. Susan Collins and Kirsten Gillibrand spoke. And Levin.

Road Frank Unfriendly Fire author Nathaniel Frank on the end of 'DADT':

"One of the marks of equal citizenship is the ability not just to enjoy the benefits of one's country but to give back to it. As in any relationship, citizenship means give and take. But one of the most insidious -- and effective -- dimensions of the gay ban was that it deprived the world of witnessing gay people giving back, serving their country, exhibiting the same valor and self-sacrifice as their peers. That's why the right wing fixated on gays in the military -- because if the world could see that gay men and women were proud, effective warriors, and were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, it would shatter the careful apparatus of myths they'd spent generations creating, the fiction that said gay people were only interested in their own pleasure and not, in equal parts to everyone else, in the noble effort to serve the greater good. It would shatter the myth that gay people are incapable of self-sacrifice and unworthy of first-class citizenship.

The image of two gay soldiers who -- like straight soldiers -- may even form a happy, healthy couple, striding confidently across the grounds of a U.S. military base, causing no harm but no longer needing to hide, is bound to further retire that myth, to help bring the U.S. military and our society at-large, more fully into the twenty-first century. Two hundred and thirty-three years of having to hide who they are in order to serve ends today.

Donnelly RoadAnti-gay military activist Elaine Donnelly of the "Center for Military Readiness" is still trying to keep her day job: "It’s hard to know what the raison d’être for Elaine Donnelly’s Center for Military Effectiveness could possibly be except to hang around for a possible GOP president in 2013 who can reimpose 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' via executive order. Maybe that’s why she’s still pounding the pavement defending dead DADT."

RoadMilitary academies shrug at the end of 'DADT':

In interviews at all three academies, midshipmen and cadets tell The Associated Press that the once-thorny issue of homosexuality just doesn't create the controversy it once did. Students who weren't even in their teens at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have grown up in a nation at war. They say competence and character are what matter to them — not sexual orientation.

"The United States has been ready for a long time for them to be able to serve openly, and they deserve to serve openly," said Naval Midshipman Lorenzo Santos, of King George, Va., interviewed recently in Annapolis. "They're going to do the job, the same job, just as well as anybody else, and they're going to risk their lives besides everyone else. I mean, they should be allowed to serve honorably and have no discrimination."

RoadCNN: End of 'DADT' brings relief, and celebration.

RoadSarvis SLDN's Aubrey Sarvis on the end of 'DADT' and the HBO documentary:

"The repeal would not have happened without President Obama. He was determined to not repeat the mistakes of the Clinton Administration. He knew he would need a plan in place, and he knew he needed military buy-in....Most of the (2012 GOP) candidates say they would repeal the repeal. A new president could force the military to change the regulations, and we would go back to a post-Don't Ask, Don't Tell (when gays and lesbian were outright banned from the armed services.)"

RoadThe Good Men Project on the end of 'DADT' and the tangible impact on soldiers serving overseas: “'When you are unable to tell people who is important in your life, it prevents you from building the necessary bonds with people around you. You’re closing off this incredibly important part of your life. How are you expected to be a whole person, and wholly there, when you have to cut off an arm?' The guys on the base were supposed to rely on each other unconditionally in moments of extreme danger, but John felt like the pressure caused by hiding their relationship jeopardized Ben’s well-being. 'It’s stressful to begin with, let’s be honest, but I think it would have been a lot less stressful if we could have been open, if there was less bigotry around him.'“

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. "A new president could force the military to change the regulations, and we would go back to a post-Don't Ask, Don't Tell (when gays and lesbian were outright banned from the armed services."

    This makes no sense, unless he means go back to a PRE-DADT

    Posted by: Really? | Sep 20, 2011 6:56:39 PM

  2. I'll never vote Repug but Poor Old Aunt Aubrey fails to point out that the ONLY reasons a future Prez COULD bring the ban back in some form is because OBAMA backed the demand by the Pentagon that the nondiscrimination clause in the original repeal bill be gutted AND appealed the LCR ruling and is STILL defending the "constitutionality" of a ban.

    I want BO reelected, but Auntie can't rewrite the facts when they're still hot from the stove.

    Posted by: Michael | Sep 20, 2011 10:04:27 PM

  3. Elaine Donnelly is really a sick women and should be removed from Military service with this country. Her remarks are homophobic and treasonous. Why do we continue to allow these kinds of people to appear in the media?

    Posted by: OS2Guy | Sep 20, 2011 10:46:04 PM

  4. Me thinks Elaine Donnelly could use a good shag... and I ain't talkin' 'bout the haircut, mmmkay?

    Posted by: Carl | Sep 20, 2011 11:41:06 PM

  5. I'm very proud of my president and my country. Really, its about time. Obama gets my vote for this one.
    My only question is: Has anyone told Corporal Klinger yet?

    Posted by: Scot | Sep 21, 2011 3:59:53 AM

  6. It's really frightening to think that a Republican president in 2013 (or whenever) could reinstate DADT by executive order.

    Or even worse, a future Republican president could BAN gays/lesbians altogether from the military by executive order.

    My guess (fear) is that a Republican president WILL do one or the other. What would stop him (or her)?

    Posted by: elg/edwin | Sep 21, 2011 7:03:17 AM

  7. Since all of the social and economic ills of the country for the past 50 or so years have occurred during Republican Presidencies and Congresses, the only way to avoid them is to vote Democratic; (And NEVER vote for a third party candidate as they can NEVER win.)

    Posted by: Jerry6 | Sep 24, 2011 2:22:03 PM

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #970« «