Senator wins review of 'don't ask, don't tell'

[bemildred]

Source: S. F. Chronicle

A Senate panel, after prodding by New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, will examine the future of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy governing gays in the military.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed to a hearing on the issue after Gillibrand dropped her push for an 18-month moratorium on discharging service members under the policy.

At a meeting with Hearst editors at Hearst Tower, Gillibrand said the hearing - the first Senate review of the policy since it took effect in 1993 - would take place in September.

She called the regulation, which bars openly gay members from serving in the U.S. armed forces, "a very ineffective policy for our military."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/28/MNRJ18VSSS.DTL

[redqueen]

1. It's a start...

no idea why it took them this long.

[Soylent Brice]

6. the same reason it takes them so long to do anything.

:shrug:

[redqueen]

8. Fear (cowardice)? Profit?

Idiocy?

:shrug:

I really don't know... this issue is a winner with the public... people want it gone. So why the foot-dragging? There's no profit in keeping gays out of the military... so... it must be idiocy.

[Soylent Brice]

12. DADT, IMHO, was 2 things:

posturing - typical scared hetero alpha male BS

and further subjugation of the GLBT community. a friendly reminder from your elected rep that you need to remember where your place is. :sarcasm:

it's all a mindfuck, and if you ask me it should have been classisifed and called out for what it really was/is, mental warfare against the gay community.

[No Elephants]

15. I would say it's mental warfare against all of us. Send not to know for whom the bell tolls and

that kind of thing. It is a subtle brainwashing for all of us that gays are "less than." For gays, it's lives and careers, and shunning, etc. too. It does not only affect gays adversely. It affects all of us adversely, including the military. But it affects gays most of all.

[Soylent Brice]

21. "It is a subtle brainwashing for all of us that gays are 'less than'."

agreed.

a nation of weak-willed and narrow-minded, easily manipulated through fear of anything different than themselves.

[Vidar]

23. Excellent summary, & you're right: this policy degrades us all.

[No Elephants]

14. DADT does not keep gays out of the military. It's even worse than that.

You can be in the military, as long as you are dishonest about being gay, and good at deception.

See Sandy Tsao's letter to Obama. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/obama-dont-ask-dont-tell/

Unfortunately, Obama chose to be dishonest in his response to Tsao, conveniently "overlooking" his power under 10 USC 12305 to suspend DADT discharges. Had he done so on Inauguration Day, as Carter did with amnesty, Obama would have saved Tsao's career, along with about 300 hundred other, and counting.

[David Zephyr]

20. It took too long. But it's a big step.

It is an important start. I think it will happen now.

[redqueen]

22. Yep...

let's hope it happens quickly.

:kick:

[cslinger59]

2. Dear God in heaven this is such a stupid waste of time.

Who cares who the person wants to bang in their off time. If they can shoot straight, follow orders and fight for the guy next to them it makes no damn difference whether they want playboy or playgirl pinups.

This is a stupid rule and needs to go away but it bugs me that political time and capital needs to be wasted on it.

We really need to just leave people alone to do whatever is right for their own lives.

[redqueen]

3. ...

I thought this news would be met with a little more interest...

[TheWraith]

7. Don't you know, good news is persona non grata on DU?

Nobody want to hear about good or optimistic things. Particularly if it relates to gay rights. We must all stay in a continuous miasma of cynicism, bitterness, and paranoia. ;)

[No Elephants]

17. Is that the best post you could make on this issue? A snark against your fellow posters at DU?

Especially your fellow posters at DU who support equal rights for all humans?

Wny not comment on the issue itself, or start lots of threads showing the good things the Obama adminstration is doing, if your beef is that people criticize Obama too much? Why do ad hominem without adding anything at all of substance to the thread?

[TheWraith]

24. First, you don't know what "ad hominem" means.

Look it up. Then look up the many, many comments I've made about this and other subjects, as well as the many original threads I've posted highlighting good news--which always seem to sink like rocks, because DUers are more interested in emphasizing the negative. This same senator (my senator, as a matter of fact) did a live blog on Daily Kos a few weeks ago which included comments that she was optimistic about tackling the repeal of DOMA next year. Aside from me, it got a total of ONE commenter.

This isn't a matter of perspective: DU threads griping about anything, even things which have been completely made up out of thin air, get far more attention than threads about good and positive developments. But heaven forbid anyone point that out, or you're a "lockstepper" and an "Obamabot." :eyes:

[DarthDem]

4. Excellent!!

This is long overdue. Now let's hope that it doesn't get buried, and yields some results.

[eShirl]

5. k&r

[sakabatou]

9. Why can't Obama sign a "stop-loss" for now?

[shadowknows69]

11. He could basically. Won't apparently.

[No Elephants]

19. He could. He could also be honest about the fact that he could. He has chosen

not to stop loss and to be dishonest about that. Most poignant and ironic perhaps, was his dishonesty to Sandy Tsao, who wrote him that HER integrity required her to resign from her military career because integrity was one of the army's seven values. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/obama-dont-ask-dont-tell/

That his reply to her integrity-focused letter was deceptive was stunning.

[shadowknows69]

10. I applaud my new Senator for this.

It would be nice if same sex marraige leglislation could make it through our state senate so Gov. Patterson could sign it.

[redqueen]

13. ...

:kick:

[WriteDown]

16. Next up, coed housing for soldiers....

:evilgrin:

Maybe they'll let me join this time. :)

[No Elephants]

18. This issue has been studied and examined more than enough. It needs action and now. Good for

Gillebrand for going for immediate suspension, as well as a long range solution. Bad on everyone not going along.