CNN Poll: 69% OK with gays in the military

[Midnight Mike]

23-Feb

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey indicates that 69 percent of the public favors allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military, with 27 percent opposed.

"That's a dramatic turnaround from the early 1990s, when the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was first being implemented," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "In 1994, only a bare 53 percent majority felt that gays and lesbians should be allowed to openly serve in the military."

Support for allowing gays in the military is much higher among Democrats than Republicans, but the policy wins support from a majority of Republicans as well. More than eight in ten Democrats say that gays should be allowed to serve; 62 of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents agree with that view.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... l%2BTicker)&fbid=4L1z7LlghAl

[PhilDernerJr]

Had to be 69, huh?

[Midnight Mike]

Had to be 69, huh?

Great catch, can't believe that I missed that

[cancidas]

i for one still don't understand what's wrong with don't ask don't tell.

[PhilDernerJr]

It's because sometimes even if they don't say anything...you can still "tell". haha

[NIKV69]

i for one still don't understand what's wrong with don't ask don't tell

The far left wants it gone and it's in play thanks to Obama's endless list of empty campaign rhetoric. I for one could care less who I serve with but not everyone feels that way. You get in a unit with a homosexual and a guy who is anti-gay and it's an instant moral issue and divides the unit. Which when it comes to the military is the last thing you want. Especially in war time which we are now.

[T-Bird76]

i for one still don't understand what's wrong with don't ask don't tell

The far left wants it gone and it's in play thanks to Obama's endless list of empty campaign rhetoric. I for one could care less who I serve with but not everyone feels that way. You get in a unit with a homosexual and a guyi who is anti-gay and it's an instant moral issue and divides the unit. Which when it comes to the military is the last thing you want. Especially in war time which we are now.

Same thing can be said about a white guy serving with a black guy in the same unit. As long as each solider follows their orders, and obeys policy and procedure it should rather transparent who you're serving with...black, white, gay, jew, asian, female...w/e.

[NIKV69]

Same thing can be said about a white guy serving with a black guy in the same unit. As long as each solider follows their orders, and obeys policy and procedure it should rather transparent who you're serving with

Key phrase in your post is "it should" your trying to put an ideal situation to a situation that won't always be ideal. 99 times out of a hundred it will be but you never want any animosity in a unit at any time. Unfortunately few out there will still hate homosexuals and not be able to supress these feelings. Which is why DADT exists.

[PhilDernerJr]

... get a unit with a homosexual...

Nick, let's clean it up, hah? haha *snicker*

[wunaladreamin]

Please, when the situation is life or death, nobody has the time to care who is who. Nobody is thinking they're going to let the gay guy die. First off, there's no time to even process that thought. Second, it may be the gay person that saves your life.

[hiss srq]

Frankly, this issue is completely stupid. At this point who gives a crap? Why is it an issue. Just because a soilder is not strait doesnt mean they cannot shoot that way. Let's just get it over with already and end the don't ask don't tell. Not every gay guy is a total Perez Hilton in the world.

[USAF Pilot 07]

I had an interesting discussion about this with someone the other day at work...

According to him (I haven't checked this out), the UCMJ (military law) says nothing about not having "homosexual relationships". What it alludes to in one article is that a member in the Armed Forces is prohibited in engaging in acts of sodomy. Therefore the argument was that even in today's military, one could come out and say they are gay but claim that they do not engage in any type of sexual activity with someone of the same sex and theoretically not be breaking any rules under the UCMJ (although there are always "catch-alls" such as conduct unbecoming etc...). If this is the case, there's no little chance of Pres. Obama's administration overturning this law, as it takes a lot to overturn military laws. What would most likely happen, is that people wouldn't be prosecuted or kicked out of the military for violating it (just like how hetero-sexual couples aren't today for engaging in stuff like oral and anal)...

I personally could care less about the sexual orientation of a member in the military. There are all guys and girls we "know" (or highly suspect) of being gay, and guess what, the mission and job still gets done... The majority of people I work with and know evaluate others on their job performance, not on their way of life. And those that do judge and rate those based on their personal lifestyles are generally ignorant and out of touch of what it means to be in today's military.

I think the sentiment is similar among many of my "peers" (younger, officer, college graduates) who not only have been around gay people, but may have gay friends or family members. Most say they aren't opposed to the idea of getting rid of the DADT (because in reality, it's really not going to change much from what it is today). Granted, this is coming from the branch of service that is generally regarded as the "smartest" one, with a lot more "liberal" and open minded people. I think if you start talking about the Army and Marines the sentiments may be different...

[moose135]

i for one still don't understand what's wrong with don't ask don't tell.

What's wrong with it? It doesn't work. For starters, most people forget the second half - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass". Unfortunately, service members are still (often inappropriately) questioned about their sexual preferences, and many still face harassement over it. Since DADT became law, over 13,000 service members have been discharged under its provisions. Many of them did not do or say things to publicly announce their sexual preference - often it was the result of someone else reporting it to a commander, who then chose to investigate. Despite the provisions of the policy, commanders continue to actively pursue members suspected of being gay.

According to him (I haven't checked this out), the UCMJ (military law) says nothing about not having "homosexual relationships".

You are correct, the prohibition is against "sodomy" although it seems to be rarely enforced among hetrosexual couples, married or not. But in addition to the language of the UCMJ, the provisions of DADT were codified into Title 10 of the US Code via the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 as passed by Congress, which specifically states:

`Sec. 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
(b) POLICY- A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

`(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that--

`(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;

`(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;

`(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;

`(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and

`(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

`(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

`(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

-and-

(d) SENSE OF CONGRESS- It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the suspension of questioning concerning homosexuality as part of the processing of individuals for accession into the Armed Forces under the interim policy of January 29, 1993, should be continued, but the Secretary of Defense may reinstate that questioning with such questions or such revised questions as he considers appropriate if the Secretary determines that it is necessary to do so in order to effectuate the policy set forth in section 654 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a);

Unfortunately few out there will still hate homosexuals and not be able to supress these feelings. Which is why DADT exists.

Why should someone be discriminated against (and this policy is most certainly discrimination) because someone else can't control their feelings? Wouldn't the military be better served by disciplining those who harass or mistreat a service member due to sexual orientation, or gender, or race, rather than punish the victim of that harassment? And don't for a minute think that DADT prevents harassment - it only makes it harder for harassment victims to report it, out of fear they will face discharge themselves.

More than 60 years ago, many of the same arguments used against homosexuals serving in the military were being used against African-Americans - they pose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion, and would disrupt the unit. Harry Truman ultimately ordered the integration of the armed forces in 1948. I think in the end, that policy worked out well...


DADT is an insult to the brave soldiers, both men and women, who have answered our country's call to service, some of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice.

[Midnight Mike]

Frankly, this issue is completely stupid. At this point who gives a crap? Why is it an issue. Just because a soilder is not strait doesnt mean they cannot shoot that way. Let's just get it over with already and end the don't ask don't tell. Not every gay guy is a total Perez Hilton in the world.

Military people spend an incredible amount of time with each other working long hours & in closed quarters, so, yes, military people are going to have to be comfortable with this....

It is going to have to be a phased in policy that will be very slow to allow for arrangements for people that are not comfortable, eventually, people will accept the change.

Not all military shoot firearms, you also have members of the Air Force & Navy that never picked up a gun

I think it is time to discuss when to make the change & taking a year to evaluate lifting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a step in the right direction.

Making the change now, would not be in the best interest of the military.....

[NIKV69]

Why should someone be discriminated against (and this policy is most certainly discrimination) because someone else can't control their feelings?

No it isn't. It's not preventing gays from serving. It's telling them not to divulge the fact they are gay. As for others controlling their feelings in a workplace enviorment it's not an issue but within a combat unit it can be. That is why it was enacted.

Wouldn't the military be better served by disciplining those who harass or mistreat a service member due to sexual orientation, or gender, or race, rather than punish the victim of that harassment?

Of course it would be but it is a better alternative to try to avoid this scenario all together. That is why it exists.

And don't for a minute think that DADT prevents harassment - it only makes it harder for harassment victims to report it, out of fear they will face discharge themselves.

Well once a gay solider is out then it's becomes useless. It's either feast or famine. In this day and age I think most soliders could care less but I think the reason people like Gen Conway want it kept in place is because it does work, provided the soldiers who are gay don't mind hiding it. Which they don't want to. I would like to see it changed where the soldiers are not discharged and steps are taken to either reprimand or discharge soldiers who can't respect gay service members but to get it rid of it all together now would be a mistake. Problem is Obama has to run with this because he has failed epically on all his other campaign promises so he really needs this one.

I think in the end, that policy worked out well...

Ahhh I knew Powell would come out sooner or later. He is a darling of the DNC. I guess this falls under "Gay is the new black"?

I think it is time to discuss when to make the change & taking a year to evaluate lifting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a step in the right direction.

Obama can't. If he fails at this he has no steam heading into this re-election push . Waiting a year would be like starting over with he health care debacle. It's the right thing to do but they won't do it.