National Review editorial - PRO gays in Military

[aspergris]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODliYjkwN2RkNWExMWE5OGQxMzA2ODNlZTc5NTRhYjY=

Pretty good news when the "conservative flagship" has editorials supporting the elimination of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the author calls for the elimination of this policy and for gays to be able to serve openly.

This editorial may piss off many paleo's, but the data doesn't lie. Gays serve openly in many countries without any problems. It will work here, just like it works there.

excerpt:

In March 2007 the Navy discharged Petty Officer Stephen Benjamin, an Arabic cryptologic interpreter. Supervisors investigated him when a message he transmitted said, “That was so gay — the good gay, not the bad one.” He also mentioned his social life, thus exposing his homosexuality.

His captain previously graded him an “EXCEPTIONAL LEADER. Extremely focused on mission accomplishment. Dedicated to his personal development and that of his sailors. Takes pride in his work and promotes professionalism in his subordinates.”

Never mind. Out he went. U.S. soldiers in Iraq now have one less colleague to give them translated, real-time, operational intelligence.

Meanwhile, Benjamin’s straight co-workers, whose instant messages were profane and sexually explicit, remain in uniform. Similarly, 28 straight soldiers who had sex in Afghanistan were reprimanded, but not axed, Drew Brown reported in the May 28 Stars and Stripes. Under an updated General Order No. 1, sex among single, straight GIs is now “highly discouraged,” but not prohibited.

[Hydra]

1. It always makes me laugh that they can't reach their recruiting totals

But they reject gay volunteers.

I suspect practicality may have finally sunk their ideology.

[aspergris]

2. yup

practicality AND data. Like I said, it's not like we can't look to see what happens when gays serve openly in the military. the UK, Israel etc. have no (that I am aware of) cultural difference that would dispute the notion that if gays can serve openly THERE, they can do so here.

It's disgusting that warriors who happen to be gay, have to live in fear that they might be discovered and lose their job.

[Hydra]

3. This has never been about the facts

It's been a nod to the Fundies, IMO. Dismissing a large number of our linguists was never a good idea, for example.

I have no love for the Military(Open ended contractual obligation?!?!), but if you want to join, there should be no barrier.

[aspergris]

4. fwiw

I was agnostic about gays in the military, even though DADT put a bad taste in my mouth. Simply put, I didn't have access to the data. I suggest SOME people were against it for religious reasons (unreasonable imo), when the only rational reason for DADT would have been unit cohesion, efficiency, etc.

But I will always take data over ideology or desire.

I was always hoping the Data would support that gays can serve openly and efficiently in the military, and I'm glad the data supports my desire.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

5. Time to change the law

My favorite act of stubbornnes was by Duncan Hunter a year ago when he said that the reason to keep DADT was that "most troops are conservative Christians who would be offended by homosexuality." (this was in response to a retired openly gay general asking about it during one of the early GOP debates). That was about as cheap an argument as it gets.

[aspergris]

6. yes

That falls under the "nanny nanny boo boo" style of argumentation