digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at cnn.com —

Gays in military don't hurt ability to fight

cnn.com — Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Ljay90, on 07/08/2008, -1/+6I don't know what's worse; the fact that a study was actually needed to determine this or that people got *paid* to study this...
  • Troika37, on 07/08/2008, -1/+16Hopefully this will repeal that ridiculous Clintonian "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Those of us who actually WEAR a uniform don't care what name you call God, what color your skin is or where you come from. It stands to reason that we also don't really care about your love life.
    • jcm267, on 07/08/2008, -1/+10Well politically wasn't it the only thing he could've done? This country is still anti-gay and the older generations, those who were voting in 1992, are the most anti-gay.
      • Hortnon, on 07/08/2008, -1/+9Absolutely. He would've never gotten a majority to agree to a 'complete integration' or whatever you want to call it. Realistically, Troika's point carries to all levels of command, but it's the stupid old Congressmen and other politicians that limit/ed this policy.
      • JohnReb, on 07/08/2008, -1/+8In the 1950's Truman simply ordered that the military end racial segregation by Presidential Order. It took a few years, and some high commanders retired rather than take part, but it was all it took.

        Congress only gets to decide how big the military and its budget is. How it is organized falls to the Commander-in-Chief.

        Clinton only had to tell the Pentagon to accept a "live and let live" policy.
      • Hortnon, on 07/08/2008, -0/+8But what kind of impact would that have had on getting Congress to agree with the President on issues?

        And with segregation, the issue was slightly different: They had "black-only" units up to that point, and the order was now that all races must be together in units. This is different from "you have to keep your sexuality a secret".
      • JohnReb, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6True, it would have been a bit more difficult, and he would have lost some of his support in Congress. But it wouldn't have been so hard. I served with a number of openly gay sailors, and this was on a small twenty man patrol ship. It would have worked, it simply would have taken some effort.
      • Hortnon, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6Oh, I realize that servicemembers would've been able to deal with it. I just think lazy and/or cowardly politicians are the problem.
      • JohnReb, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5That I agree with completely.
  • sixsixsixtimer, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5Now that California and Massachusetts both allow same sex marriages, expect a flood of legal challenges to hit other states because California will allow out-of-state residents to come and get married. The jurisprudence regarding gay rights is gradually changing and will have ramifications eventually for the military.

    If we keep up the peaceful fight and stand our ground, equal rights can be won.
  • Kythas, on 07/08/2008, -0/+10FTA: ""The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said."

    My experience, having been in combat, is when the bullets are flying all you care about is the guy to your left and the guy to your right doing their job as you are doing yours. You don't care about were he's from, what color his skin is, by which name he calls God, what his native language is, or what he does in bed. The only level of "trust" that remains is "Can I trust this guy with my life?"

    I don't see how an openly gay man who does his job and does it well would undermine the trust I'd have in him to save my ass in combat. I certainly wouldn't allow him to die just because he's gay.

    But then, call me weird. I'm a conservative Republican who doesn't care what people do in the bedroom, how (or if) they pray, and I'm not even opposed to gay marriage.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.