Free Markets, Free People

DADT repealed

The Senate voted to repeal DADT this afternoon and the bill will now go to President Obama for signature:

The final vote was 65-31, with eight Republicans crossing the aisle to support the measure.

The policy does not change overnight: Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen must first certify that lifting the ban will not adversely affect the military. Then there is a 60-day period as the Pentagon writes new rules.

Gates issued a statement saying he is pleased with the vote and vowed that the Pentagon would "carry out the change carefully and methodically, but purposefully." The effort will be led by Clifford Stanley, under secretary for personnel and readiness and a retired Marine major general.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

31 Responses to DADT repealed

  • There are so many things wrong with this that it’s hard to find a place to begin.

    The accelerated, extensive promiscuity of homosexuals; the resulting high rates of STDs; the correlated high levels of alcohol and drug abuse; the distinct moral offense of sodomy; the idea of having men who openly desire sex with other men serving in units with hundreds of men; and the large number of soldiers with their heads screwed on precisely right who understand the moral infamy of this. Political correctness finally prevails in the military, with results that will be as predictably catastrophic as they will be denied to cover for the political correctness. (See the refusal of public health officials in NYC to close gay bathhouses even as the AIDS epidemic raged on for fear of offending radical gays as the administrative exemplar.)

    The homosexual culture inside the Catholic Church, where some seminaries became unbearable for non-homosexuals, is a price the Church is still paying down. Homosexual cultures are both aggressive and ruthless, as well as unforgiving of those who resist them. Wait until still-closeted senior officers start to surround themselves with privileged homosexual staff and begin to exercise those privileges at the expense of others and dare straight personnel to cross them.

    What a pity. What a terrible, horrible, unnecessary mistake.

    • So, if I understand you correctly, your fears are that we will at best end up with a partially segregated military and at worse, a military controlled by homosexual protocols?

      • De-moralization (in both of its meanings) is an objective condition, not a fear. Because of the politically correct protocols already in place in American culture, particularly in the media and hence in the political realm, this issue was never properly examined. For the most obvious comparative, look at the failure to examine Obama and his background. That speaks to the power of political correctness in this society.

        There is never anything progressive about the Progressive agenda, of which the gay political agenda is a subset. In fact, it is wholly atavistic and always has been.

        Political correctness already had a grip on the military (see: Casey’s remarks immediately after Ft. Hood). Now it has moved in the very engine of de-moralization itself.

        • This explanation makes more sense and has plausible history to support your assertions. I as well have recently come to the conclusion this legislation has nothing to do with accommodating certain soldier’s sexual behavior or improving our national defense. Rather, it is a vehicle to deepen the foothold of Marxist ideology that has been dissolving our culture for the last fifty years.

          I think the passage of this legislation was a defeat for everyone opposed to Communism, regardless of who you like to have sex with. 

          • It is indeed another aspect of the Gramscian attack on culture and a major one. It was not for nothing that the military resisted this for so long. This will shortly be sold as “look how easily our troops get along with this new policy,” as the risks to openly opposing the policy become much greater. (Watch the transition from being restricted from openly expressing homosexual desires to being restricted from expressing opposition to the same. In fact, Mullen said those soldiers who objected could find something else to do.) This is an attack on the basic Judeo-Christian culture that underlies the U.S. and the West, and that’s been a program that the Left has been working, per Gramsci et al., for a very long time.

    • Shorter McPhillips:
      The United States military is exactly like a NYC bath house and the Catholic church – and besides, butt-sex is icky and gross and my god doesn’t like it.

      • No two things that are different are exactly alike, so the impact of gay culture, once it establishes itself, will not be exactly the same in the U.S. military as it was in the Church or in its impact on the public health protocols in New York City, but it is likely to fall in the same range of impact. The one example of a heavy gay military culture that we have from the 20th century was the SA cult in Germany, and while that would be a rather “purified” example of the phenomenon it did express some common elements of today’s gay culture in the U.S. One of those elements is a very aggressive political agenda. Those who think that the repeal of DADT is to be getting a troublesome old bugaboo out of the way don’t quite grasp that this will in reality be just the beginning of a new political platform inside the military and that there is a culture that comes with that.

    • I have to tell you that I do not think that this will happen. (not except for possibly a few very minor isolated cases).
      For a number of reasons. (1) the kind of aggressive homosexuals you describe are not attracted to the military. (2) those homosexuals that are attracted to the military are drawn to it for the same reasons that heteros are; A desire to serve, the honor and self discipline, and patriotism.
      You are in error in that you ascribe motivations based solely on a persons sexuality, and while that might describe some people, those are people who generally lack the discipline to make it in the military.

      • Then you will be at pains to explain why this was such a priority issue for the aggressive gay political agenda, if not to establish a political platform in the military. Neither the stern authority nor the devotion to Christian principles (including natural law) of the Catholic Church daunted the formation of a gay culture inside the Church. The worst of it was in the seminaries.

        This is a triumph for the gay political agenda, and to think that it will not be taken advantage of is wishful thinking. That’s the secondary problem, but it will probably become the worst part of it. The primary problem will be with straight troops who understand homosexualityas a moral wrong; they will be alternately silenced or driven out for expressing their understanding of moral right and wrong.

        DADT worked because it tolerated a private individual reckoning with homosexual desire, very much an American approach, but doomed to becoming the intermediate predicate for this latest move. Key to this is the gay political propaganda that a requirement to maintain this privacy while in the military was somehow an oppressive thing and a civil rights issue. It was a reasonable if doomed policy, doomed because the camel’s nose was under the tent, and the politics behind it will always take the advantage offered. Your assumption that it stops here is at odds with the history of gay politics which, again, are a subset of Left politics.

  • I take it you have zero faith in the ability of our military to regulate and enforce codes of behavior, as well as the ability of homosexual soldiers to control themselves?

    • That’s the least of it. It will take a few years before the PC protocols fully develop and those will control only the attitudes, speech, and behavior of straight soldiers vis a vis gay soldiers. Think of George Casey’s early statement after Ft. Hood that nothing that happened will affect the Army’s commitment to diversity. Major Hasan did everything but file a report in advance of his murders giving the time and the place. Likewise, gay politics never stop advancing, and diversity never stops leading institutional retreat.

      • Look, you have shown some of the negatives, but what about some of the positives? For every legal eagle looking for a law suit, there may be 5 who are just good soldiers and feel better about serving now. Also, if a Pfc. Manning v 2.0 decides to leak, he can’t cover his BS by claiming some kind of discrimination.
        I suspect also that there are plenty of gays already serving who will take aside any casual complainers and tell them to shut up. You can’t stop the professional trouble makers and they will soon peter out once its less sensational. Hell, look at that aspiring writer who joined the Army to get some street cred later on and ended up writing a bunch of BS about running over dogs in Iraq. Heteros make up a huge percentage of the population and they cause trouble, too.I think the whole gay thing will blow over.
        Most “super” gay activists won’t like the military. So we might see a couple years of excitement, followed by nothing at all, as those people move on to the next political battlefield.
        Personally, I am not conservative on this issue, but I almost would suggest ignoring this, and focusing on the incest case and the coming polygamous marriage cases. The gays claimed it wouldn’t be a slippery slope, but of course it will be. Those cases are much more likely to create true ambivalence, because I think most people now simply equate gay marriage to being like straight marriage. i.e. 2 people.

        • Your analysis is too narrow. For instance, in your final statement about marriage being just about “two people,” you assume that once the one man-one woman standard (i.e. actual marriage) is done away with that the “two person” standard retains some special status. That’s just wishful thinking. I don’t think that you realize that gay politics is not a struggle for civil rights but a struggle for power, and it’s an angry, revanchist struggle, where gay politics serves as the shock force in a larger Kulturkampf from the Left.

          • No, I KNOW that after gay marriage comes polygamy. Personally, since many religions allow for that, and we have freedom of religion, I don’t think you can stop it. However, I think that will give cause to some of the moderates who may rethink the plans to burn down the culture.
            Culture is separate from politics – it takes thousands of years to create and does not rely on voting. The key for the socons is not to attempt to “ban” progress but to allow their views to at least be kept alive (libertarianism) and to win via culture not politics, i.e. there is no reason incest should be illegal, except that it its completely WRONG on some gut level. We need to get back to that gut level on many issues – say single mothers is not good – but we can’t do that via politics.

  • “the PC protocols fully develop and those will control only the attitudes, speech, and behavior of straight soldiers vis a vis gay soldiers.”
    That is the problem with this.Gay warriors will be able to talk to anyone non-stop about their preference .Straight warriors will  lose rank or worse if they dare to say they do not like the gay way.It will go from gays not being able to talk about their choice (upon fear of punishment) to straights being punished for saying they disagree with the gays.

    • No. Dollars to donuts there are more gay soldiers and officers who have quietly served for years who will squelch any such BS. We are an all volunteer force, and military discipline is understood to be key by those who serve.
      You have to consider this issue like this: imagine a bunch of far-left progressive journalists from the East Coast demanded to serve in the armed forces. Ezra Klein comes to mind. The minute this guy pulls any of his usual BS, he will be shut down by people who may share his politics but know better. Oh, sure, maybe he could wreak some havoc in some rear-echelon unit for a while, but that’s the rarity. If somehow, Ezra got into a trigger puller unit, he’d probably end up self-disciplining once in combat. Because that’s real, where you fight for your buddies and not for universal healthcare or whatever.
      Two quick notes:
      1) In WW II enough people were drafted or volunteered that we know many were gay. Did we have any serious problems? No. Well, that one actress was a Marine truck driver and got an STD…big whoop.
      2) There were enough average run of the mill troublemakers in service WW II that probably dwarfed the percentage we will get from DADT. Hell, didn’t McQ post a story about the 1970’s army in Germany? We made it through that didn’t we?
      3) In Korea, the first units we through up against the North Koreans were basically wiped out and would flee at the sound of gunfire. This is where the termed “bug out” came from. Several of these units were black units. Now, we could have “learned a lesson” from this and said blacks couldn’t serve because they like to “bug out” but that was not done and rightly so. Anyone thrown in against horrible odds to slow the Norks might have done this. I think you need to  give gays the chance to serve openly before imagining problems that might (or might not happen.)

  • About time DADT was repealed.  The military men and women are professionals; they will make this work just fine.
    And Martin, chill out.  Do you want me to come over and give you a back rub? 😉

    • If the answer to this problem was “military men and women are professionals; they will make this work out just fine,” then DADT should have worked out just fine, because the common thread of professionalism would have been sufficient with the caveat that homosexual desires remain private. But recall that the repeal of DADT became a prime objective of gay politics, and opposition to the repeal then became politically incorrect. To think that the politics behind that will suddenly stop at successful repeal, and that “professionalism” will be the normative state now that the policy has been changed is to grossly underestimate where the politics come from and where they they see themselves as going.

      • Nah. I think the professional gay protestors will find the military a dead end and boring. Nope. What they really want is gay marriage to the end that they can then veto churches and stop free speech from the pulpit. “This church won’t marry gays so it should be shut down.”
        Note this is not the goal of many gays who may simply wish to marry or have the same rights as married people.

  • Fragging.
    In Viet Nam when nothing else worked, fragging resolved the problem.
    I think we’ll see a resurgence of this sort of behavior. And morale will suffer.

    • Oh that is fantastic Greybeard.
      Let’s murder our own people risking their lives to defend our freedoms because they are gay.  Gay people don’t get the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, or the right to defend it.  They are just a problem, and we need to resolve that problem somehow.  If only there was a solution…a final solution, eh?
      I mean, the worst thing about that whole scenario is morale will suffer, right?  Frankly, I would rather have a thousand gay soldiers who actually understand what they are fighting for next to me than to have an an evil and total hypocrite like you.

    • Fragging is sort of an urban legend, but I guess it did occur. One of the classic reasons to frag an officer was that he was inept and putting his troops at risk. Not because he was gay. How is a competent gay officer going to be fragged any more than a het one?
      It is far more likely to have fragging incidents with Musllim soldiers (which we have actually seen.) I’d like to see some stats on that though.  How many Muslims serve and how many incidents? Seriously, I’d suppose this would be a bigger issues than gay soldiers.
      Oh, you think maybe a gay officer will hit on his soldiers and they will frag him. I doubt it. We all know about sexual harassment now. I bet the military has the same seminars as the any big organization has.

      • Thanks Tez.
        It’s nice to see you read my post and the terrible threat I made there. And as always, it’s fun to see how quickly someone resorts to name calling when they’ve run out of ammo.
        My point is to agree with others that think it will have an effect on our troops… they’ve said as much.
        If they begin to think it is having a negative impact on the mission, and they have no other way to control the situation, do you not think fragging, or some other form of “accident” could happen? My opinion is that it could, and probably will.

        • There are already gay soldiers they just don’t “tell.” So where are the fragging incidents now?

          • We don’t yet have a situation where an openly gay commander surrounds himself with openly gay subs and writes optimistic efficiency reports on his “chosen”. Think that won’t happen? Think again. I’ve seen it happen via religious sub-groups.
            If/when we begin to have troops failing promotions or getting crap assignments while butt-buddies get the gravy, all bets are off. No good will come from this.

  • Now there is one less reason to avoid the draft

    • … and one less way to get out of military service, once enlisted

      • Anyone else thinks this helps the GOP in 2012? One less Socon issue that is “out of the way.”
        Hell, I would guess abortion would be a better issue than gays in the military for the Socons.
        Seriously, these guys are going into harms way for their nation on a a volunteer basis.

  • Not well thought out. Tons of unintended consequences and major disruption. For instance. This repeal will open the door for “Trans Gendered” soldiers. What barracks will they be assigned? Also, what about the partially trans gendered? Women who have had their breast removed and take hormones to be male but still have female genitial? Or men who take hormones and have breast implants but still have male genitial? Keep in mind that poor hormone maintenance dictates that when the artificial hormones wear off the previous chacracteristics return. Where will these creatures shower? Will female solders stay in the same baracks as “Chaz Bono”? Or would he/she shower with the men? I don’t believe Chaz has the full male toolset. He/she could claim discrimination. This will eventually end up at the supreme court.