President Barack Obama’s national security adviser said over the weekend the president would not turn his attention toward repealing a controversial law until “the right time,” according to a Sunday AP story. The policy keeps openly gay people from being in the military.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was enacted in 1993 and prohibits people in the military from asking about another military member’s sexual orientation, as well as keeping gay people in the military from telling others about their sexual orientation.
According to the AP article, the military discharged 634 people last year for being gay.
We agree it may be in Obama’s best political interests to wait to push this issue. He has a lot on his plate, and he may not be able to afford a public defeat on an issue like repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Not to mention, if he were to lose this battle, with a Democratic Congress at his side, who knows when this issue might be brought up again?
But the U.S. is currently fighting two wars, and we question if it is in the military’s best interest to discharge those who are willing to voluntarily enlist, simply because they are gay.
Not only are they willing to enlist, but they are willing to die defending our country. Should Congress or the federal government have a right to tell them they can’t express themselves in the same way heterosexual military members can?
In the 16 years since this policy was enacted, a lot of strides have been made in favor of gay rights, and we think that’s a good thing. It’s about time the military made some strides toward anti-discrimination in this area as well.
We understand he’s busy, but we hope Obama gets to this issue sooner rather than later because we think the policy is outdated and discriminatory.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
dargus 2 years, 7 months ago
Mustafa, I'm not sure where you got your 634 number, but don't you think perhaps some of those people might have been heterosexuals who lied to get out of active duty? I don't believe you need to actually have sex with someone in front of your commanding officer to be discharged. As I recall, all you need to do it tell someone you are homosexual.
In addition, I, and I hope most other people who don't support don't ask don't tell, don't care if you see them as normal or accept their actions. Frankly, anyone familiar with your posts knows you never will. The point is they should be treated as equals, whether you like it or not.
mustafa 2 years, 7 months ago
The liberal sleeze at the Daily witheld my last two post for over thirty hours because they can't handle snide remarks from consertatives while they allow cowardly perverts like Joseph Janowiak free reign to vomit invectives at will. Print journalism is dying because of the type of intellectual lowlifes the OU school of journalism produces.
mustafa 2 years, 7 months ago
Dargus-Why should they be treated as equals, such as with race, when they do not qualify under that rubric? Neither scientifically nor legally have they been able to make that case. Even so, we don't allow black servicemen in the communications arms to use Ebonics in the performance of their duty.
Before Don't Ask servicemen could be caught in flagrant delicti by their commanding officer, and as long as they were willing to say they were not homosexual no action would be taken. Most would argue that this is really a fairer way to treat the situation. But the gay lobby would rather make a political statement which they are not entitled to, rather have an effective military.
Last time I heard, the same sexual harassment regulations that apply against heterosexuals in the corporate world, apply also in the military. Gender isn't supposed to have anything to do with job performance, and overt sexual expression has no place. Gays want to be "open" means that they wish to display affected mannerisms at all times. This would be disruptive. Even if policy is changed to make soldiers "tolerate" gays, it does not mean they have to respect them privately. It will just cause problems, but causing problems for the performance of our military is the liberal way. The idea that such change would cause great harm to our military doesn't bother the Left.
If my type of post bothers you perhaps you should plan on spending your entire life within the shadow of universities ivory towers, where you'll be safe. You appear to have no backbone for the real world.
JJanowiak 2 years, 7 months ago
"People who are natural born heterosexuals, in their hearts, are never going to be able to keep from seeing homosexuality as something strange and odd. Heterosexuals reserve this right. People like you need to figure that out."
Jesus, mustafa, does Nurse Ratched let you out of your straitjacket once a week so you can write some completely insane diatribe against homosexuals and/or liberals?
dargus 2 years, 7 months ago
Actually, mustafa, I would suggest that anyone, regardless of sexual preference, who harasses fellow soldiers should be disciplined. However, simply stating ones sexual preference should not be ground for dismissal. Please tell me how it would be reasonable to believe otherwise?
As to your "this doesn't meat the racism test" argument, so what? Should we prevent people from joining the military because they say they have sex in positions other than the missionary? How about if they say they enjoy watching pornography? Where does this sexual witch hunt end? The difference between you and I is I believe people should be judged on how they conduct themselves professionally, not the legal activities they choose to engage in privately.
mustafa 2 years, 7 months ago
At 2:00 I read a post from darius address to me which I then responded to. By 3:00 you had removed darius' post, and by 4:00, even though the counter continued to show that the Daily staff has recieved 5 posts, still only two were available for viewing.
No doubt there are many homosexuals and wantabes on the Daily staff, but that is no reason to surpress debate. We are obeying the rules. Do your jobs or find new ones at a bath house.
mustafa 2 years, 7 months ago
Your slightly convoluted over this, aren’t you? You say that homosexuals are willing to serve and die, yet 634 use their status to bail out of the fight. You think this is an issue Obama needs to get on soon, yet you recognize that even the lame-duck Democrat majorities will still defeat him.
You can find ways to punish people for intolerance in hiring and telling jokes in public about homosexuals but you can’t force people to accept them or their weak intellectual argument.
People who are natural born heterosexuals, in their hearts, are never going to be able to keep from seeing homosexuality as something strange and odd. Heterosexuals reserve this right. People like you need to figure that out.
bruenig 2 years, 7 months ago
This article seems to imply that Obama can be defeated on this issue. Don't ask don't tell is an executive order. Obama, being the commander-in-chief, can with one stroke of his pen be done with it. He does not even need to run it through any houses. So any defeat Obama has on this issue would necessarily be self-imposed.
mustafa 2 years, 7 months ago
In that case I predict he will wait until his presidency is irretrevably in the toilet, which could come as earily as next summer.
dio 2 years, 7 months ago
@dargus
"Frankly, anyone familiar with your [mustafa's] posts knows you never will."
Hmmm, not everyone might be familiar with this headcase. To play safe, I will vaccinate the readers against the mustaflu, by using a selection of his best quotes:
"Like the church of Satan, Islam rewards evil."
"the political interest of all atheists is represented by the ACLU which is always found defending the strip bar or whatever the case is."
"Why should they [gays] be treated as equals, such as with race, when they do not qualify under that rubric?"
"If Blacks refuse clean up their act, then they deserve to fail and remain on the bottom of society."
"Gays want to be "open" means that they wish to display affected mannerisms at all times."
"No doubt there are many homosexuals and wantabes on the Daily staff, but that is no reason to surpress debate. We are obeying the rules. Do your jobs or find new ones at a bath house."
mustafa 2 years, 7 months ago
to JJanowiak I doubt that you really know anything about the homosexual political so I’ll just tell you about something that happened here a couple years back. An OU co-ed, a member of the Pride, was expressing her self-serving liberalism by volunteering to work with poor Blacks at an OKC recreation center. She was up there alone, showing off her pretty white skin, not really trying help others but mainly proving how wonderful she was for lowering herself to associate with the rabble. Unfortunately someone failed to be impressed with her slumming and she was soon found with her throat cut. Her liberalism got her killed. Her mother was so proud. To me it was just one less liberal.
Hey Daily Staff - since its OK by you to use the name of the Christian prophet as a derogatory curse word, the way JJanowiak did, them perhaps we can do the same with Islam’s Mohammad, hollow be his name. Christians love to sing songs about how their Jesus loved the little children. But he was nothing compared to Mohammad, hollow be his name, just look at all the ones he married, not to mention the ones he raped.
mustafa 2 years, 7 months ago
dargus-I don’t care if a man sexual preference is urinating into an open light socket; it is none of my business. When a homosexual tells me what he is, he makes it my business, because he puts me on the spot to show approval or disapproval. Don’t Tell protects me from that. Without it, if I show disapproval, I’m the one who has committed an offense, possibly even a “hate crime, which the homosexuals also are demanding. Thus I’m forced by the State to profess what I don’t believe.
Effeminate voice and mannerisms are conscious behaviors which are used solely to advertize the sexuality. Heterosexual men are not allowed such overt expression. If I’m calling in for landing instructions or some other official action I don’t want to have to listen to some guy's constant proclamation about how he shoots his wad. Such voluntary behavior has no place in military operations. Heterosexual servicemen are not allowed to share close living space with the objects of their sexual desire, it would be considered an invasion of privacy by the majority of them. Yet open homosexuals would be allowed to invade the privacy of heterosexuals. How is that fair?
“As to your "this doesn't meet the racism test" argument, so what?”
The homosexual movement’s entire case is built on the notion that their condition is an immutable characteristic like race and gender. But so what if it is not? But so what if it is all a lie? These people want access to the minds of grade schoolers. Yet like most advocates for “gay rights,” you admit, that it doesn’t really matter if it is a choice or not. The homosexual movement lies in order to befoul the society that it hates, and that is Ok with you. But then you and they wonder why so many people hate them.
BTW - A “witch hunt” is a search for something that does not exist. .