Clearly the USA in not mature enough for affording full human rights to all persons. It is still in it’s infantile need for scapegoats. Maturity takes responsibility for itself. Childishness is marked by seeking to divert blame to others preferably those that “appear” to be defenseless. Straight people labor under the myth that gay men really just want to be women or are somehow “womanly”. This too is meaningless since it presupposes their own myths about women. They also have succeeded in perpetrating the myth that gays are after children. The fear mongering has been so useful to them on so many topics. Once convinced of either of these myths they cannot be educated and have become thoroughly indoctrinated not to hear other information; sad really.

Hard to believe that such a dinosaur still exists but here he is.
http://www.northstarwriters.com/gl060.htm

I have decided to refer to these types as Tyranny-sauruses. May they go extinct along with the Inquisitors who inspired them.

Cyrena

Wow! We are on the same wavelength! Yes, I am also convinced that Mr. Obama is totally sincere about ending “DADT” forever.

Next step for Mr. Obama: accepting same-sex marriage without reservation by finally recognizing that States do not have any “compelling interest” in refusing to issue the standard civil marriage licenses to gay couples. He’s a lawyer, is he not? Then why is he prevaricating?

Ed,
I think he’s serious. Maybe it’s that short and simple YES that threw you.

Gay man backed for Navy secretary
Foes cite ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’

Stephen Dinan (Contact)

Thursday, December 18, 2008

“Some top retired military leaders and some Democrats in Congress are backing William White, chief operating officer of the Intrepid Museum Foundation, to be the next secretary of the Navy—a move that would put the first openly gay person at the top of one of the services.”

The secretary’s job is a civilian position, so it would not run afoul of the ban on gays serving in the military, but it would renew focus on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as President-elect Barack Obama prepares to take office.”
More at the link

Whoops!! I THOUGHT there was more at the link, but when I tried to post it here and then submit it, the TD machine responded that the link was ‘blacklisted’. Ah HA!

But, hopefully these others below, (at least the one from Huffpo) will come through. Otherwise, you can just google it.

Never mind, just google it. The TD machine rejected the huffpo link as well, so it’ll probably reject the newsweek link too.

So as far as I can tell, (my personal interpretation that is) Obama means what he says, and has been indicating ALL ALONG, in the very clear answer to the question:

•  “Here’s what Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama’s top talker, had to say about whether the next president would work to end the military’s policy of discrimination against gay service members: “You don’t hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it’s ‘Yes.’ “

There we have it. Question ASKED AND ANSWERED!! “YES” is an affirmative response to the question of whether or not he would work to end the military’s POLICY of Discrimination against gay service members, and he answered “YES”.

Now for those who would quibble about the sincerity of such an unequivocal and unambiguous response, I have to ask why. I have to ask why because the professional background of the President-elect is situated in the Civil Rights Laws of the US Constitution, and this isn’t his first barbecue in terms of dealing with what is institutionalized discrimination.

It’s also not his first go at writing and introducing policy directed at the health, care and well being of our military forces either. Overturning this policy is only one of the reforms we need in terms of our military, but he’s already waged a few battles in terms of the military and specifically veterans.

He’s also commented profusely on the overall issue of gay rights, and promised to repeal all of the discriminatory “Marriage Protection” legislation at the federal level and below. That’s been ages ago.

So I said all of that to say that there’s not much of a reason NOT to take him at face value when the question has been asked and answered the way it has.

He said he would do this, and he is. I promised to cook dinner today, and I will. I don’t have to tell anybody what I’m going to cook, or how I’m going to cook it. I just promised that I’d cook dinner. And, I will.

Obama should let this one alone and address the more serious problems of the Nation at this time.  Creating a backlash in the military at this time would be a mistake.  It is a matter of gravitas.

I, personally have no problem with gays serving in the US Armed Forces.  While the Germans may have had their Panzer Division, the US will have Pansy Divisions!

re: By dihey, January 15 at 7:51 am:

OK, good - I was just lazily going by the headline. Sorry for the sloppiness.

Ed

The statement was “end the military’s policy of discrimination against gay service members”. The word “discrimination” tells us what the action will be. Gays will be allowed to serve “openly”. There will be no return to the old policy. When the pertinent law has passed the Congress Obama will have achieved something close to Truman’s integration order of the armed forces. Good.

This is an ambiguous promise.

Does this mean that we will go back to the old policy of an outright ban on gays in the military - whether or not anyone asks or tells?

Or does it mean that Obama will push for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform?