Is It Time to Repeal the Ban on Gays in the Military?

Reader Comments
Back to article

I searched for "Famous Homosexuals" and found Lesbians Ruth and Naomi in the Bible. One of them, by Boaz, had a son that was an ancestor of King David, who also seems to have had a gay lover. Religionists cause much misery to homosexuals, but their own beloved Scripture has conflicting tales on the subject.

aura dawn veirs of CA 1:05AM July 13, 2009

In 2012 we must vote for Governor Mitt Romney to become our President and Governor Sarah Palin to become our Vice President starting on January 20, 2013 , First Governor Mitt Romney is economically smarter than Barak Obama. Secondly Governors Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin are of the superior rightwing conservative philosophy that they are pro God and Christianity, pro life, pro marriage; pro guns-second amendment, pro low taxes, pro low government spending; pro small government, pro unintrusive government, pro traditional and Judeo Christian values; pro Bible reading and prayer in our public schools, pro Christians schools and private education , pro private and free enterprise; pro military spending, anti arms agreements with Russia, pro creation; pro nuclear, pro conservative supreme court judges, pro American sovereignty; pro capitalism, anti communist, anti socialist; conservative on immigration, and pro constitution.John Warren

John Warren of NJ 9:31PM July 01, 2009

If only the Upper Middle Classes did not have to fork over billions for the military who proudly take base exchange discounts for all their purchases--1/3rd or more for household items, cameras, groceries, you name it. Disney accomodations are FREE for this group. Military retired and spouses, more often than not, possess double and triple retirement funds,comprising SIX Funds together--thanks to the non-military TAX PAYERS from the Middle Classes No "thank you" ever finds its way back to the rest of us who actually keep the country running. Double benefits would go to "gay partners". Our Western law heritage maintains that families rovide an overall benefit to socity and that certain benefits should accrue to those who maintain such an arrangement. Granting identical benefits to those who are diametrically opposed to the traditions of family--would historically undermine the very fabric of American jurisprudence, causing economic harm to those who depend upon consistency and thereby promote revolutionary revisions to our country's fixed, morally-binding customs. Think about it!

Anne of FL 4:42PM June 30, 2009

It's long past due for DODT to be repealed and for gays to be allowed to serve openly. Every friend I have in the armed forces says it is not a big deal to most soldiers, and it harms our military to exclude qualified people. There was a time when many people objected to desegrigating the military. But time showed that it was a good idea and that soldiers adapted.
Elaine Donnelly seems like a piece of work, and her logic is right out of the fearmongering bigot handbook. Why is it that the conservative argument is always to coddle bigots?

Bryan of MA 3:54PM June 30, 2009

She will be remembered as a bigot for all time - but just like those opposed to Martin Luther King - She will be forgotten as an embarrassment to the Nation's attempt to progress.

BF of OH 2:16PM June 30, 2009

I find it pathetic and laughable that Elaine Donnelly continues her crusade against against gay people serving openly in the military. DADT, far from "enjoying widespread support" has in recent years eroded in public popularity to the point that over 70% of Americans support its repeal. The "privacy" and "modesty" argument is equally vacuous. Young men and women, gay and straight, share locker rooms in middle and high school and nobody cares; Donnelly simply projects her own painfully evident prudery and homophobia onto an entire class of people she doesn't even know. If you're tough enough to be a soldier I doubt you're going to be squeamish around your fellows fighters! Moreover, it's been demonstrated that "Military Times" subscribers are largely old-timer career officers, not younger, junior officers or enlisted soldiers. This is a group that by age and service culture is much more likely to share Donnelly's views. A poll of the overall general service population would likely show a more balanced and tolerant perspective. Finally, fears of sexual harassment are purely speculative with no basis whatsoever in fact--"exposure to others sexually attracted to them." Men and women are serving together already, and women are daily reporting sexual harassment, which Donnelly doesn't address--is it somehow worse if _men_ report sexual harassment? I suspect that most men can handle such a matter if women can do it. All soldiers know the rules of engagement and are subject to the same discipline by their superior officers if they are harassers, whether they are male or female and harassing the same or the opposite sex. This argument is, therefore, completely without merit. Donnelly should drop the prudish, bigoted and bankrupt campaign against gay people serving in the U.S. military. Gay people have demonstrated repeatedly that they are patriotic, dedicated soldiers and sailors. Allow them to serve openly.

torqueflite of CO 12:13PM June 30, 2009

and the only one is gay - would you say to keep him/her out? That's just plain dumb. The world is full of gay and straight people. We all live and work every day with a variety of people, and thye do not threaten our well-being. Just as women should be allowed in the military if they can meet the same guidelines as the men, gays should be allowed in if thye have proven their loyalty to this nation and they can meet the same guidelines. Why are we always protecting "phobic" men? I say get rid of the ban. Let's get rid of people who are unable to do the job, are disloyal, are disruptive. There are just as many straight folks as gays who are disgusting and incompetent. Civilized people all over the world do not ask if people are gay or straight when they meet. They ask if they are law-abiding, caring, hard-working, moral people. This country really is so backwards about homsexuality. And I'm a straight person...

Dorfy of SC 12:12PM June 30, 2009

I can't believe that there is a law like that, how long did it take our political leaders to pass that worthless bill. If we could send another 100,000 troops over seas to help the already tired and home sick troops back to there families do you really think they are going to care if they are Gay. Move on Donnelly check out the calender it's 2009. Oh by the way I'm married with two kids.

B. Hedges of NY 12:12PM June 30, 2009

Would you tell it to the face of a would-be African immigrant who has AIDS to "forget about coming to America because 'we don't want their aids"? Would you tell it to the face of a woman that she shouldn't have the right to vote because "women aren't as smart as men"? Would you tell it to the face of an African-American that they shouldn't dream big because they are "inferior"? No sensible person would say anything of the sort to their faces. So what makes it o.k. to tell a gay/lesbian person that he/she should not be allowed to serve their country because "their sexual orientation undermines unit cohesion and military discipline"? None of the above reasons barring civil rights makes any sense and is not grounded in fact. This is not just a matter of civil rights but of respect. It should be considered cowardly for a legislator to draft discriminatory laws, but not have the words to say when confronted on the issue by a gay or lesbian person. New rule-If you can't say it to his/her face, err on the side of respect and civil liberties.

Publius of NJ 12:11PM June 30, 2009

Fehrenbach's dismissal and subsequent loss of pension benefits is a disgrace. His loyal and valuable service, rather than being recognized as qualities "above and beyond" are instead being tossed out with the wash's dirty water. Land of the brave and home of the free are being redefined...sadly redefined.

roland conde of NY 12:09PM June 30, 2009