Why can't DADT be eliminated in 2 seconds.

To show that I am not totally close minded about the issue, I did as PhotoFish advised. This article was what I read.

---

Pentagon Says it's Safe to Overturn Gay Ban

by Justin Fishel | November 30, 2010



A nearly year-long Pentagon study of the law that bans gays from serving openly in the military has concluded the risks associated with repealing don't ask, don't tell policy are low.

However, a drilldown into the report shows some concerns about a hasty end to the 15-year policy.

According to an executive summary of the report released Tuesday, of the 115,052 people who responded to a confidential survey, 70 percent said they thought a repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy would not have a negative impact.

In addition, 92 percent said their experiences serving with co-workers they believed to be gay or lesbian were either "very good," "good" or "neither good nor poor."

The executive summary concludes there is a "widespread attitude among a solid majority of service members that repeal of don't ask, don't tell will not have a negative impact on their ability to conduct their military mission."

"A strong majority of those who answered the survey, more than two-thirds, do not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in uniform," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said at a Tuesday press conference called to discuss the report.

But even as many in the military brass prepare for a new era, resistance to the ban remains strong among some quarters, most notably from within the Marines and military chaplains.

Between 40 and 60 percent of combat troops surveyed said gays openly serving in combat would be a bad idea. Fifty-eight percent of those in combat responding negatively are Marines.

Former Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway has made clear in multiple interviews with the media that he and most Marines are against it and thought that it would harm combat effectiveness and unit cohesion. At one point, Conway even suggested separate quarters for gay service members.

His replacement, Gen. James Amos, agreed with Conway's assessment, saying in his confirmation hearing in September that the attitude among Marines is "predominantly negative" toward openly gay service members.

Responding to the survey results, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine combat veteran, accused the Pentagon of creating a survey whose "criteria and lines of questioning" were created to "reach a predetermined outcome."

“If anything, the survey results make a compelling case for keeping current policy in place and avoiding any type of distraction for our nation’s military and its combat mission,” Hunter said. “When breaking down the specifics, more respondents answered unfavorably or remain uncertain about a policy change than those who favor repeal."

Gates ordered the military wide review in February after President Obama made it clear in his State of the Union address that he wanted to repeal don't ask, don't tell.

A working group, led by Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and the top general at European Command, Gen. Carter Ham, organized and culled results from a survey sent to 400,000 active duty and reserve service members and their families.

The working group hired a confidential survey group to conduct the interviews. It was able to survey 296 homosexuals service members. Surveys also went out to more than 150,000 military spouses, 44,266 of whom responded.

The defense secretary acknowledged variances in the overall outcome of the survey when broken down to specific groups.

"Within the combat armed specialties and units, there is a higher level of discontent, of discomfort and resistance, to changing the current policy. Those findings and the potential implications for America's fighting forces remain a source of concern to the service chiefs and to me," Gates said.

He also agreed that a full-bore move toward an immediate repeal may create unintended consequences.

"If a court ordered us to do this tomorrow, I believe ... the risk to the force would be high if we had no time to prepare," he said, adding that the working group's "road map" for full repeal would succeed "assuming that the military is given sufficient time and preparation to get the job done right."

But noting that a repeal will be bumpy at first, he minimized future objections to a change in policy.

"If the Congress of the United States repeals this law, this is the will of the American people. And you are the American military. And we will do this, and we will do it right," he added.

It's unclear how long the military would need to prepare for a repeal of the Clinton-era policy.

Earlier this year a California district judge ruled the don't ask, don't tell policy was unconstitutional and placed a temporary stay on its enforcement. The Supreme Court, however, overturned the stay, arguing the law should be kept in place while a federal appeals court examines the case.

A bill that included language to repeal don't ask, don't tell passed the House or Representatives during the summer but failed to clear the Senate.

Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen are expected to testify on the report in front of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on Thursday and Friday.

It's unclear whether or not Congress will vote on legislation before the end of the lame-duck session. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on Sunday that there's no way the repeal would get the votes it needed during the abbreviated session.

Sources on Capitol Hill told Fox News that the issue was not brought up during a meeting Tuesday between congressional leaders and President Obama on legislative priorities.

All of the original NATO signatories except for the U.S. and Turkey allow gay service members. Among the countries that don't allow it are Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.


Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/ ... z16oA3MBwI

Nothing in the Military can be eliminated or put into effect in 2 seconds. NOTHING!!

It takes 18 months or more for a new ribbon or medal to be approved and implemented...and this is basically harmless to unit morale and cohesion.

I believe Secretary Gates is doing this the right way and if DADT is done away with (in my mind repealing it makes it go back to what it was before, which was asking and telling and kicking people out), the rules will be in place long before it is fully implemented.

Nice read Nymys, even if it is from some wacko right-wing source. Why do suppose that of 400,000 surveyed, only 115,052 responded?
I'd also like to see the breakdown of how the spouses answered the survey.

posteryoyo wrote: This is the US military. On average christian dudes fighting. Any of which could be asked to kill someone they do not know in an instant and be expected to do it....expected to perform the ulitmate sin, sending them to their hell and many do it as needed and I thank them....for the needed ones.

Why can these same individuals not follow an order to not bash on gays and why cant we solve the problem of soldiers not following orders by dicipline and then dishonerable discharge....is that not what we use for other misbehavior in the military?

Seems like killing someone you don't know would be worse than tolerating someone you do? Esp in Christianity....which is the model besides US law that is used to judge people?

Please help me understand why we would want a soldier that cannot follow orders in the miltary, even if you hate gays just like him?

My question is not liberal or conservative or Democrat or Republican, so if you choose to answer, please do not use those words or their relatives. I am also not assuming that all soldiers hate gays, only the stupid biggoted ones that put this hate above their job and duty.

I vote..if you don't follow orders, you don't get to serve, you don't get to brag, you get to be ashamed.

Interesting that you choose to take the path of bashing that which you fail to understand. I think it more proper to accredit your post to ignorance than to an intentional distortion since that is the kinder of the two motives which your post could contain. The law of Moses is that one shall not murder someone else. There are just reasons to take the life of another, to kill them, even in Christianity. Self defense is one of them. The laws of nature, and of nature's God, do not include allowing yourself to be killed by removing the ability to defend your own life. When a war is a just war, there is no sin committed against God when a soldier kills someone else in the prosecution of the war. Remember that the founders felt their actions guided by divine Providence when they took up arms against their king in pursuit of liberty and freedom.

Yes, the ability for a homosexual to openly serve in the military will disrupt the unit, the morale and the discipline of the military, just as racial integration initially impacted the military in the same way. Cultures do not change simply because someone decides that it should, or that it will. Those changes take time to become part of a new culture, which is what will eventually happen when Congress finally gets around to changing the laws that organize the military forces of this nation.

Obama can't simply repeal DADT to get rid of the policy. The laws, which only Congress can change, state that homosexuality is not compatible with military service. DADT was implemented as an end around the existing laws. If one doesn't tell what their sexual orientation is, and the authority is prevented from asking, then no proof can exist that the law regarding the disciplining of the military, as established by Congress under the authority given them by the Constitution, is being, or has been, violated. Repealing DADT by Obama would only result in the ability of the authority to once again ask the question to ensure that the laws regarding the discipline of the military established by Congress are being followed. The president does not have the authority to change the laws, only Congress has been granted that authority by the Constitution.

Why do suppose that of 400,000 surveyed, only 115,052 responded?
I'd also like to see the breakdown of how the spouses answered the survey.

In response to your question, I am assuming that rather than address the issues, they thought that not responding would be an easier position to defend. We have talked about this before, no one wants to be labeled a homophobe, or a racist, for that matter. It is easier not to let your opinion be known than take the chance of being labeled.

As mentioned by others military life is all about taking orders, following those orders and getting along with others in your outfit. You don't have to like it, you just have to do it.

I don't know if the breakdown will be available regarding the spouses answers, but I too would like to see it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... index.html

It'll take some time to read. I'll read it remembering listening to an uncle expound on the fact that we hadn't won any wars since we let African Americans and women serve in the same capacity as white men. Not everyone can deal with change. Many of us will take our prejudices to our graves.

Photo-fish wrote: Nice read Nymys, even if it is from some wacko right-wing source. Why do suppose that of 400,000 surveyed, only 115,052 responded?
I'd also like to see the breakdown of how the spouses answered the survey.

p-f, I thought it was the pentagon study. I think over 25% is a good response. When I was active, surveys were regarded as nothing but a pia that detracted from the tasks at hand.
Is there some reason to think that spouses were surveyed? If there is, I missed it.

What has Christianity have to do with it? Appears that you have an agenda. You are blaming this religion whenever this sexual diviance is abhored by most world religions. What do the Muslims think of it? What does Judaism teach about it?
It is not a religious abhorance but a human abhorance. Male homosexuality is repulsive to male humans.

The military is ready for proud & out homosexual men.
In fact Airborne has already changed their slogan, it used to be "Death From Above", but it now reads, "It's Raining Men".

Could you guys remember this is not in the ring? We may have to split this into two topics.