Republican Candidates Self-Destruct on CNN

[ChrisW]

This just makes my blood boil.

[youtubetp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-wJkrEnmtg[/youtubeI can't believe people in the background were boo-ing this man off his mic. And then, his mic "suddenly" cut out. It's one thing to be Republican or Democrat, but we're talking about people serving our country - many of whom are IN IRAQ now, on their second or third tours, and not to mention the discharged Arabic linguists (one of whom is a friend of mine)...

You just have to ask yourself, "Why?!" If they want to serve, LET THEM SERVE. Leave the politics, religion, and rhetoric out of it.

As for those "christian values," more Republican "Kool Aid."

For the record, I'm a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" survivor. And I can tell you after five years of living through it that it's all a bunch of bull****.

[Midnight Mike]

You just have to ask yourself, "Why?!" If they want to serve, LET THEM SERVE. Leave the politics, religion, and rhetoric out of it.

As for those "christian values," more Republican "Kool Aid."

For the record, I'm a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" survivor. And I can tell you after five years of living through it that it's all a bunch of bull****.

How about letting the Military decide :wink: The Miliary does not want gay people in the military, "Don't ask, Don't tell" was a fair compromise.

While people focus on why people were expelled from the Military for their sexual preference, nobody talks about why they did they lie to get to join.

In the future, gays will be allowed to serve, but, it will take some time for this to happen.....

[ChrisW]

...nobody talks about why they did they lie to get to join.
Uh, first of all - we didn't lie to get in. I did it to be part of something larger than myself. And Don't Ask, Don't Tell doesn't ban GLBT folks from service. It bans them from serving openly.

Have you ever worn the uniform?

[Midnight Mike]

Uh, first of all - we didn't lie to get in. I did it to be part of something larger than myself. And Don't Ask, Don't Tell doesn't ban GLBT folks from service. It bans them from serving openly.

Have you ever worn the uniform?

Yes, 4 years in the Navy.......

[ChrisW]

Well cool. I respect your opinion.

However, if we let the military decide, and their decision is unconstitutional, what then?

And take those arabic linguists. How many hundreds of thousands of tax dollars were spent to train those folks? All down the drain because of who they choose to love.

It's a shame, a damn shame.

[Nycfly75]

An individual who serves in the military deserves the utmost respect. It doesnt matter if he's and openly Gay or someone who is straight. Chris and many others like him decided to dedicate a part of their lives to serve their country. When you are on the battlefield and being shot at the gay guy is going to shed blood the same way a straight guy will. No one asks anyone to serve in the military, all of these guys whether gay or straight want to be there and they should ALL be respected for their dedication and sacrifice. Other countries have seen this logic and have successfully included gay individuals in their forces and is one of the reasons I say the US may be ahead in so many areas, but is so far behind in many crucial areas as well. Im sure Chris did the same, if not better job in the Navy as any straight guy would do and I know his living space was probably the cleanest on board because you know us gay guys are neat freaks ;).


..And about the so called plants at the Republican debate....so what that it happened? This is politics, its not a clean business. The big boys on stage all of he sudden are afraid to be questioned by their adversaries? The fact the the right wing yahoos in the audience were booing a decorated veteran is pathetic, but typical of their hypocritical beliefs. If anything there were not deft enough to trick CNN and send their plants in on the Democratic debates. No matter what, all the candidates stink in their own way. Richard Nixon and Harry Truman, the two best Presidents since WWII (in my opinion) are turning in their graves.

[PhilDernerJr]

I am a registered Republican, but I do not follow their entire platform. One part of it that embarrasses me is their stance on homosexuals.

People need to realize the following:

1. Is there a problem with gays being in the military? Yes, there are.

2. Why is there a problem? Because of IMMATURITY.

The gay community has made great strides in awareness over the past 20 years, but there is still much more to go. Unfortunately, there are many people in the country who come from areas where they've not received that awareness, or have never experienced that diversity. Combine that with a group of men put together who share many personal moments and times in their lives, some may get a little uncomfortable. It's the truth, albeit an unfortunate one.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is silly. But it works. All is really does is say, "Be who you are, but there's a time and a place for it." That is technically the same policy for straight people as well, who are not allowed to do anything with other opposite gender on base and face very strict sexual harassment policies.

Of course, things happen. We aren't going to sit here and say that no one touches another (gay or straight) in the military, that people don't hook upon base, and so forth. Control and discretion, and maturity, are key.

The ban on gays is just one of those laws that sit there, mostly unenforced. Slavery was allowed in Mississippi up until like 12 years ago, until someone realized "Whoops! This is stupid!" It is a great shame and petty excuse when the ban in the military is actually applied to discharges or punishment. One can only hope that in the future, awareness will improve and more progress will be made.

To the gay community, you've been doing well so far. Persistence and patience will get you further.

[Nycfly75]

The gay community has made great strides over the past several years, we have become more mainstream and people have seen that we are mainly not group of people who does drugs, goes to circuit parties and cross dresses. We still have a way to go, because many people in their mind still maintain that extreme image of a gay man, but in actuality represents a extremist and vocal minority of the gay community that seems to get all the attention. Im sure many wouldnt mind serving next to gay men like Chris or myself. Guys like us represent the majority of normal gay men. Phil I agree there is immaturity involved but part of the maturing process requires the government to be on our side as well. But still, you and Mel get voted "Most Gay Friendly Heterosexual Couple" in my book.

[ChrisW]

1. Is there a problem with gays being in the military? Yes, there are.

2. Why is there a problem? Because of IMMATURITY.
Exactly the reason why they should be allowed to serve openly. Ignorance is bliss.

So, let me get this straight (no pun intended)...

Even though I ran circles around the other technicians in my shop (subordinates and superiors) and knew the F/A-18 inside and out - better than anyone else there - I shouldn't have been allowed to serve because someone who was raised under a veil of ignorance in Kansas might feel uncomfortable around me?!

I worked long, sweltering, 12-hour days on an aircraft carrier flight deck in the Persian Gulf for 6 months straight as a troubleshooter and team leader AND supervised 12 other technicians and an avionics maintenance effort on 20+ year-old aircraft without any weekends or time off. And you're telling me I shouldn't have been allowed to serve openly?

Phil, unfortunately your argument doesn't add up.

Consider what happens when a ship returns from a deployment. Imagine being in my shoes, watching my straight counterparts get reunited with their girlfriends and wives after a six month deployment. You're telling me I shouldn't be allowed to experience that with my significant other in public in that case? You're saying I should have to hide behind a closed door because some ignorant child from Kansas might get offended?

C'mon, man.

[ChrisW]

Phil - out of curiosity, have you ever served in the armed forces?

[Nycfly75]

1. Is there a problem with gays being in the military? Yes, there are.

2. Why is there a problem? Because of IMMATURITY.
Exactly the reason why they should be allowed to serve openly. Ignorance is bliss.

So, let me get this straight (no pun intended)...

Even though I ran circles around the other technicians in my shop (subordinates and superiors) and knew the F/A-18 inside and out - better than anyone else there - I shouldn't have been allowed to serve because someone who was raised under a veil of ignorance in Kansas might feel uncomfortable around me?!

I worked long, sweltering, 12-hour days on an aircraft carrier flight deck in the Persian Gulf for 6 months straight as a troubleshooter and team leader AND supervised 12 other technicians and an avionics maintenance effort on 20+ year-old aircraft without any weekends or time off. And you're telling me I shouldn't have been allowed to serve openly?

Phil, unfortunately your argument doesn't add up.

Consider what happens when a ship returns from a deployment. Imagine being in my shoes, watching my straight counterparts get reunited with their girlfriends and wives after a six month deployment. You're telling me I shouldn't be allowed to experience that with my significant other in public in that case? You're saying I should have to hide behind a closed door because some ignorant child from Kansas might get offended?

C'mon, man.

Exactly my thought, there are good and bad apples in every group, nationality, etc. People should be mature enough to see that one's sexual preference doesnt hinder them from performing a job equal and depending on the person even better than anyone else could. I do not friend someone or respect them based on their nationality, ideology, their sexual preference, etc. I look at who they are as an individual. I may take them to task for things i dont agree with them about, but its not how I choose people to associate with. Trust me, there are a number of Gays, Italians (my groups) that I would not rather associate myself with because they are not respectable individuals. But in summary, I think closed minded people really need to grow up and stop judging people on everything but how they merit as a respectable human being.

In defense of Phil, he has always accepted me for who I was as a person (Mel too). While many closed minded people tend to back off when they hear a friend is gay, Phil embraced our friendship and was always a great sport with my gay-straight jokes. Our politics and my rampant Italian nationalism may not line up with each other, but we will always be good friends and I will never forget the respect he has always shown me.

[NcSchu]

Shouldn't one of the "experiences" people get from the military be interaction with people from different races, religions, and sexual orientations? This is the real world, and there are a lot of different kinds of people out there, and we shouldn't try to "protect" some the closed-minded ones because of their beliefs. I wouldn't be surprised if those rather pathetic answers that were given on stage are similar to the ones given when African Americans were barred from military service. It's the same backward, old-fashioned thinking.

I wish at every debate, both republican and democratic, the questioners could respond to the candidates responses, because I never felt they were quite adequate. I have no idea who the heck I'm going to vote for, I hate practically all the candidates (especially the ones that actually have a chance to reach the general election), and I have no idea what each one stands for because at each debate they almost always dodge the real question!

[Midnight Mike]

I am a registered Republican, but I do not follow their entire platform. One part of it that embarrasses me is their stance on homosexuals.

People need to realize the following:

1. Is there a problem with gays being in the military? Yes, there are.

2. Why is there a problem? Because of IMMATURITY.

The gay community has made great strides in awareness over the past 20 years, but there is still much more to go. Unfortunately, there are many people in the country who come from areas where they've not received that awareness, or have never experienced that diversity. Combine that with a group of men put together who share many personal moments and times in their lives, some may get a little uncomfortable. It's the truth, albeit an unfortunate one.

.

There is immaturity on both sides of the aisle, heterosexual & homosexual & both sides are simply not ready to work side-by-side.....

When gays are accepted openly into society then the integration into the military can start....

Oh yeah, a Democratic President is not going to be able to get the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy lifted anytime soon, the military brass will refuse to bend on that, no matter what they are saying at the debates......

[Midnight Mike]

Shouldn't one of the "experiences" people get from the military be interaction with people from different races, religions, and sexual orientations? This is the real world, and there are a lot of different kinds of people out there, and we shouldn't try to "protect" some the closed-minded ones because of their beliefs. I wouldn't be surprised if those rather pathetic answers that were given on stage are similar to the ones given when African Americans were barred from military service. It's the same backward, old-fashioned thinking.



Since you brought up African-Americans, it took about a 100 years before blacks were allowed to serve in the Armed Services.

[moose135]

Since you brought up African-Americans, it took about a 100 years before blacks were allowed to serve in the Armed Services.
Mike, homosexuals have served in the US Military for over 230 years.

It's ironic that Rep. Hunter quoted Colin Powell in saying "openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion". Sixty years ago, they were making the same arguments to keep African-Americans segregated in the armed forces. President Truman ordered the services integrated, the unit got over it, and General Powell went on to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is silly. But it works. All is really does is say, "Be who you are, but there's a time and a place for it." That is technically the same policy for straight people as well, who are not allowed to do anything with other opposite gender on base and face very strict sexual harassment policies.
No Phil, it doesn't work. A heterosexual service member can bring their partner to the Officers Club or NCO Club on a Friday night for drinks or dinner. A homosexual can't. It extends far beyond sexual harassment policies.


The ban on gays is just one of those laws that sit there, mostly unenforced.
Sorry to pile on Phil, but have you been following this at all? "Mostly unenforced"? Over 10,000 troops have been discharged since "don't ask, don't tell" was enacted. There have been many cases where disclosure wasn't voluntary by the military member - while trying to follow the policy, they were "outed" by other means, and were discharged.

What people tend to forget is the rest of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is "Don't Pursue, Don't Harass". It's time to change this law now.

[Midnight Mike]

Since you brought up African-Americans, it took about a 100 years before blacks were allowed to serve in the Armed Services.
Mike, homosexuals have served in the US Military for over 230 years.



The topic was allowing homosexuals to serve "openly" in the military. I am sure that there were gays serving under Caesar during the Roman Empire :wink:

[PhilDernerJr]

1. Is there a problem with gays being in the military? Yes, there are.

2. Why is there a problem? Because of IMMATURITY.
Exactly the reason why they should be allowed to serve openly. Ignorance is bliss.

So, let me get this straight (no pun intended)...

Even though I ran circles around the other technicians in my shop (subordinates and superiors) and knew the F/A-18 inside and out - better than anyone else there - I shouldn't have been allowed to serve because someone who was raised under a veil of ignorance in Kansas might feel uncomfortable around me?!

I worked long, sweltering, 12-hour days on an aircraft carrier flight deck in the Persian Gulf for 6 months straight as a troubleshooter and team leader AND supervised 12 other technicians and an avionics maintenance effort on 20+ year-old aircraft without any weekends or time off. And you're telling me I shouldn't have been allowed to serve openly?

Phil, unfortunately your argument doesn't add up.

Consider what happens when a ship returns from a deployment. Imagine being in my shoes, watching my straight counterparts get reunited with their girlfriends and wives after a six month deployment. You're telling me I shouldn't be allowed to experience that with my significant other in public in that case? You're saying I should have to hide behind a closed door because some ignorant child from Kansas might get offended?

C'mon, man.

We actually are on the same page. You seem to still think that I should the ban should exist. I don't. It should be lifted. Unfortunately, for the reasons I stated, it just won't be for some time until people mature more and the gay community make larger strides.

I'm Ex-Navy.

[PhilDernerJr]

Since you brought up African-Americans, it took about a 100 years before blacks were allowed to serve in the Armed Services.

African-Americans actually served in the American Revolution.

[Midnight Mike]

It's ironic that Rep. Hunter quoted Colin Powell in saying "openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion". Sixty years ago, they were making the same arguments to keep African-Americans segregated in the armed forces. President Truman ordered the services integrated, the unit got over it, and General Powell went on to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

.

There is no comparison between the blacks of yesterday & homosexuals of today. Blacks were part of society, openly (can't hide the color thing) for quite some time, also, it took close to 100 years from when the blacks were freed to serving in the military....

Though homosexuality has been around for quite some time, it is only in the past 20 years that gay people have begun to be accepted into society....

While people are pushing for gays to be allowed to serve openly in the military, more time should be given to allow gays to be accepted more into society & then later into the military....

[Midnight Mike]

[quote="Midnight Mike":10710]Since you brought up African-Americans, it took about a 100 years before blacks were allowed to serve in the Armed Services.

African-Americans actually served in the American Revolution.[/quote:10710]

There are always exceptions, some blacks fought in the Revolutionary War to win their freedom, hell, some blacks even fought in the Civil War, but these were special cases.

It was not until WWII that blacks were allowed to serve without restrictions in the Military....

[Nycfly75]

[quote="Midnight Mike":eec57]Since you brought up African-Americans, it took about a 100 years before blacks were allowed to serve in the Armed Services.
Mike, homosexuals have served in the US Military for over 230 years.



The topic was allowing homosexuals to serve "openly" in the military. I am sure that there were gays serving under Caesar during the Roman Empire :wink:[/quote:eec57]


Yes, and it was a more accepted practice than it is now in the United States. If "Domitius" was a strong talented soldier, thats all that mattered to Rome, no one cared what "Domitius" did in his bedroom when he off duty.

[T-Bird76]

Yes, and it was a more accepted practice than it is now in the United States. If "Domitius" was a strong talented soldier, thats all that mattered to Rome, no one cared what "Domitius" did in his bedroom when he off duty.

That's because homosexuality and bisexuality were openly practiced in the Roman Empire, that's no secret.

[Tom_Turner]

Even though I ran circles around the other technicians in my shop (subordinates and superiors) and knew the F/A-18 inside and out - better than anyone else there - I shouldn't have been allowed to serve because someone who was raised under a veil of ignorance in Kansas might feel uncomfortable around me?!


Ironically, thats more or less one of the core "political correctness" tenets that goes around these days... for example, a Christmas Tree will "offend" 2% of the population, so it needs to be expunged from the public square. Queue the search for the "correct" constitutional "interpretation" etc.... :D

There is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides of these issues...

Phil's right, its simply a hot potato because it is sexuality, and theres mostly emotion under whatever arguments people may put forth... It is more or less accepted today that folks are born gay, but just let someone attempt a scientific inquiry into violent (or criminal) behavior on genetic grounds and see how fast that effort gets shut down... we prefer to believe all those proclivities are entirely environmental.

For what its worth though Chris, I don't personally disagree with what your position.

And, I think it'll ultimately, at some point, be decided in a way you favor. After all, a Jewish soldier not too many years ago, sued for the right to wear a Yarmulke and won. A fairly small issue in the larger scheme of things, (after all "why not?") although, I had thought one of the functions of boot camp was to wipe out individual identity to an extent, for a greater cause...

There will be a lot to be ironed out though I suppose. Gays cannot get married technically in most cases, but the military (govt) will need to provide family housing subsidies for gay boyfriends and girlfriends (that might not have chosen to be "married" even if they could) and that will afford an advantage over straight couples that choose not to be married..(and that will be an added expense for govt), although not to do so will afford an "unfair" advantage for "straight" enlistees, etc.

Just out of curiosity, do women serve in front line combat positions these days?

Just curious.

[PhilDernerJr]

As I understand, women do not serve in "front line" positions, but can support front line troops. They are out in the same patrols with the guys getting hit by IEDs, so they do see combat.

[Tom_Turner]

As I understand, women do not serve in "front line" positions, but can support front line troops. They are out in the same patrols with the guys getting hit by IEDs, so they do see combat.

Yeah, thats what I thought.

Don't suppose anyone is wondering if its "constitutional" though.

Tom

[Tom_Turner]

Over 10,000 troops have been discharged since "don't ask, don't tell" was enacted. There have been many cases where disclosure wasn't voluntary by the military member - while trying to follow the policy, they were "outed" by other means, and were discharged.

What people tend to forget is the rest of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is "Don't Pursue, Don't Harass". It's time to change this law now.

Thats an excellent point.

[moose135]

Just out of curiosity, do women serve in front line combat positions these days?

I don't think they are in Army infantry units, but they flight fighters and bombers in the Air Force and Navy, and as Phil alluded to, provide security for convoys in Iraq, among other duties.

[Tom_Turner]

One can only hope that in the future, awareness will improve and more progress will be made.

To the gay community, you've been doing well so far. Persistence and patience will get you further.

In defense of any activists thinking time is of the essence here, they might be right.

I'd suggest the media, though prime time Television, cable and satellite technology is mostly responsible for conditioning/mainstreaming homosexuality for "Middle America". [the fact that most of the context is within prime time sitcom refuse is sort of the beside the point here]. It seems natural to assume a progression of "awareness" or the sexual revolution of the 1960s, but that may not be the case.

If the demographics of the country progress along Latino lines, (and muslim), in the context of multiculturalism, (i.e. the emphasis on changing the host country, not the immigrant) within the republic/democracy, I wonder how things will go 30 years from now? I think I know how it works in some Muslim countries, but not really up to speed on gay rights in Latin America and Mexico.

All the New York City based gay political drama seemed to focus around The St Patrick Day's Parade, Ancient Order of Hibernians and the Catholic Church. Are there now, or will there be, gay floats and marching bands in Muslim and Latino Parades in the future?

[ChrisW]

Gay service members are DYING for this country as we speak and have been for hundreds of years, but aren't allowed to hug someone they love in public when - and if - they come home to their loved ones unless it's behind a veil of secrecy all because some joker from Kansas can't handle reality.

It's bull****.

It's a damn shame.

It's un-American.

Most of all, though, its inhumane.

[ChrisW]

And what's the old addage? "They gave me a medal for killing a man, and fired me for loving one." :roll:

[PhilDernerJr]

I've seen straight people get in trouble for hugging on base though.

[ChrisW]

Did they get fired for it? Can straight people marry? DO THEY GET PAID MORE?

Moot point, Phil.

[SoPictureThis]

This thread seems to have gone on a lot longer than the typical debate on NYCA...interesting.

Please, everyone, stop attacking Phil and others for their beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it's an extremely bothersome viewpoint as perceived by another individual, right?

Afterall, if it was as if Phil didn't support gays and/or was homophobic (hahah), why would he allow this lovely pro-gay lifestyle banner ad to be visible to the 500+ active members of his website!:




http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l58/LAXspotr/Picture2.png





- jMay

[njgtr82]

This thread seems to have gone on a lot longer than the typical debate on NYCA...interesting.

Please, everyone, stop attacking Phil and others for their beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it's an extremely bothersome viewpoint as perceived by another individual, right?

Afterall, if it was as if Phil didn't support gays and/or was homophobic (hahah), why would he allow this lovely pro-gay lifestyle banner ad to be visible to the 500+ active members of his website!:




http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l58/LAXspotr/Picture2.png





- jMay

:lol:

[Matt Molnar]

While I am generally in favor of gay rights, there is simply little or no chance of this policy changing in the next decade, perhaps not in our lifetime, no matter who is elected. With so many issues threatening the very existence of this country, it's very sad that CNN wasted our time with an irrelevant question, without even taking into account that he shouldn't have been there to begin with.

[ChrisW]

While I am generally in favor of gay rights, there is simply little or no chance of this policy changing in the next decade, perhaps not in our lifetime, no matter who is elected. With so many issues threatening the very existence of this country, it's very sad that CNN wasted our time with an irrelevant question, without even taking into account that he shouldn't have been there to begin with.

Irrelevant question? I doubt the thousands of GLBT service members who have served and are continuing to protect your freedom would agree.

Last time I checked - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness didn't come with a disclaimer.

And, once again, an opposing viewpoint is classified as a personal attack here. :roll:

[NIKV69]

And, once again, an opposing viewpoint is classified as a personal attack here.



Interesting observation


it's very sad that CNN wasted our time with an irrelevant question, without even taking into account that he shouldn't have been there to begin with.



Matt CNN made asses of themselves with their behavior but Gay rights is hardly irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for illegal immigration and Iraq I think gay rights would be a hot button issue and it still could become one. Let's not forget not only serving in the military but marriage is also in play.

[PhilDernerJr]

And, once again, an opposing viewpoint is classified as a personal attack here.

Interesting observation

Off Topic: As my name was mentioned as being "attacked", I don't feel I was. My post was misunderstood at one point, but the fact is that my points were mostly in agreement with others here. This debate is going pretty well so far. Let's continue with the thread's intention.

Back on topic, I agree with Matt. It's just not going to change just yet. For the gay community to make progress, general awareness in society should be improved before pressing this part of the gay issue further. It's been going well so far. Time will tell.

[ChrisW]

Time will tell.

Meanwhile, we're still asking these men and women to make the ultimate sacrifice. :roll:

Do you think that if we had a survey in Montgomery, AL back in 1950 that people would have voted to allow Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus?! Of course they wouldn't have allowed it. It took her standing up for what was right to change the world. Indeed, she did change the world that day...

[ChrisW]

And another thing...

Myself - and countless others no doubt - don't care if Johnny Appleseed from Kansas didn't mature enough growing up to accept that fact that diversity is one of mankind's greatest strengths when it is embraced.

We're dealing with people's rights here (or lack thereof) AND asking them to die for a country that isn't living up to their end of the bargain - i.e., ensuring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed WITHOUT a disclaimer.

In case you didn't notice, this particular issue ignites a fire under me. Having lived in it for five years, I have a unique - and personal - perspective on it.

[Matt Molnar]

I'm not saying that it's irrelevant to the gay community. But this issue will be (and should be, IMO) at the bottom of the list of things to do for whoever is elected. There are dozens of gargantuan military issues that need to be addressed that will determine the course of our nation...i.e. getting out of Iraq, what to do about Iran, the military's role in protecting the border, who's gonna pay for all the wounded soldiers, etc. I don't mean to minimize the importance of it, but the number of people affected by such a rule change would be a tiny portion of our population, while those other issues affect everyone.

[ChrisW]

I'm not saying that it's irrelevant to the gay community. But this issue will be (and should be, IMO) at the bottom of the list of things to do for whoever is elected. There are dozens of gargantuan military issues that need to be addressed that will determine the course of our nation...i.e. getting out of Iraq, what to do about Iran, the military's role in protecting the border, who's gonna pay for all the wounded soldiers, etc. I don't mean to minimize the importance of it, but the number of people affected by such a rule change would be a tiny portion of our population, while those other issues affect everyone.
Well, you're more or less on spot here. It doesn't negate the reality these guys and gals are going through though.

[NIKV69]

There are dozens of gargantuan military issues that need to be addressed that will determine the course of our nation...i.e. getting out of Iraq, what to do about Iran, the military's role in protecting the border, who's gonna pay for all the wounded soldiers,

Matt you notice that the majority of these so called (top of the list issues) have nothing to do with things in small town america with maybe the exception of immigration? If you think that the voters are not intererested in gay rights, abortion, taxes, health care, fuel costs, social security etc you are badly mistaken. Believe it or not most of the middle to lower middle class wants someone to step up and say I will get you cheaper health care, protect your social security so it's there for you children, lower fuel so it doesn't cost 4 bucks a gallon to heat your house and get less taken out of your paycheck and more back in your tax refund. These are core issues that many are thinking about. No matter how Iraq goes it will end and we will get most of the troops out of there. Iran as well as North Korea will continue to have to be watched but for your newly married couple with one kid and one on the way they want to know there wiill be something there for them whey they retire and when their kids grow up.

[Matt Molnar]

I was only talking about military issues, the expenses and consequences of which affect all of us.

[Matt Molnar]

A new 60 Minutes report claims the military has been much more tolerant of gays since the beginning of the Afghan and Iraq wars. 1200 soldiers were discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2001, compared to only 600 this year.

Manzella, a medic who served in Iraq for a year, currently serves as medical liaison for the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Kuwait, where he says he is "out" to his entire chain of command, including a three-star general. After leaving Iraq, he started receiving anonymous emails warning him about his openness that suggested he was being watched, so he went to his commander to head off an investigation he felt was coming. "I didn’t know how else to do it," he tells Stahl, acknowledging that he initiated an investigation of himself by violating the policy. "I felt more comfortable being the one to say, 'This is what is real,'" Manzella says.

He then says his commander reported him, as he was obliged to do, and then "I had to go see my battalion commander, who read me my rights," he says. He turned over pictures of him and his boyfriend, including video of a passionate kiss, to aid the investigation. But to his surprise, "I was told to go back to work. There was no evidence of homosexuality," says Manzella. "'You’re not gay,'" he says his superiors told him. This response confused him and, he says, the closest a superior officer came to addressing his sexuality was to say "I don't care if you're gay or not."
Full Story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/ ... 5278.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/13/60minutes/main3615278.shtml)

[adam613]

This response confused him and, he says, the closest a superior officer came to addressing his sexuality was to say "I don't care if you're gay or not."

Which is exactly the way it should be.

[ChrisW]

A new 60 Minutes report claims the military has been much more tolerant of gays since the beginning of the Afghan and Iraq wars. 1200 soldiers were discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2001, compared to only 600 this year.
Yeah, imagine that. :roll: