Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
U.S. Sen. John Ensign visits ITT Technical Institute in Henderson on Aug. 31. Ensign has recently signaled he might support repealing a ban on gays serving openly in the military.
By Karoun Demirjian (contact) 
Friday, Nov. 19, 2010 | 3:18 p.m.
Sun Coverage
Sen. John Ensign may be about to play a role he doesn’t take on too often in the Senate — the swing vote Democrats need to get a filibuster-proof majority.
In a letter sent to constituents and obtained by the Washington Post, Ensign signaled that he supported a repeal of the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military. (RELATED: Election Commission won’t punish John Ensign for cash to mistress)
“It is my firm belief that Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be able to fight and risk their lives in defense of this great nation," Ensign wrote in the letter, partially reprinted in the Post.
Support for the end of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote for the repeal, however.
Congress voted against moving forward on the defense authorization bill in September, a vote that hinged mostly on lawmakers’ feelings about a repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," which was written into the bill.
Maine Republican Susan Collins said then that she supported the concept of a repeal, but would vote against it because she didn’t like the tactics Democrats were using to limit the number of amendments that could be attached to the legislation.
Ensign did mention in the letter that he’s still waiting for the Defense Department to conclude its official survey of the military’s attitudes about repealing the policy.
The report from that survey is due out Dec. 1; a schedule that may free up other GOP lawmakers as well to back the repeal without having to fully pivot away from their previous positions. Many Republicans said they preferred to reserve judgment about repealing "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" until the survey was complete.
Early leaked results indicate that about 70 percent of respondents felt ending the policy would not affect the military negatively.
"John Ensign signals support for repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Good for the Senator...
Now everyone get out of the way or you will be ran over by the flood of Liberal/Democrat commenters who will be here soon to spread their hate by name calling and demonizing.
These Liberal/Democrats have the scent of blood and will be having a feeding frenzy shortly.
STAND CLEAR!!!
This is a good move by Ensign. However, passing the Murphy amendment simply sets the stage for repeal, which is dependent on additional clauses within the amendment.
"Amendment repeals "Don't Ask Don't Tell" only after: (1) receipt of the recommendations of the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group on how to implement a repeal of DADT (due December 1, 2010) and (2) a certification by the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and President that repeal is first, consistent with military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion & recruiting, and second, that the DoD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement its repeal. The amendment also includes a 60 day period after certification before the repeal takes effect."
Ensign, Murkowski, and Lugar have all signaled they are willing to move forward, provided they agree with the amendment process when the bill is brought to the floor. Expect Collins and Snowe to join as well if they are amendable to the process.
This is long overdue, and Ensign deserves credit for representing the overwhelming majority of Nevadans who think it's time for this discriminatory policy to end.
Could it be that Ensign actually has figured out his own hubris? Probably not. As for Susan Collins, when will others learn what Harry Reid figured out a long time ago: she and Olympia Snowe are gutless.
I am a lifelong Democrat and wish to thank Sen. Ensign for taking this bold and necessary action, particularly when it will not be popular with everyone. I appreciate and respect any Republican who is willing to do the right thing. Republicans are not all bad, just as not all Democrats are necessarily good.
Sorry, Larry.
Ensign probably thought that "Don't ask, don't tell" refers to his affair with his best friend's wife!
Fine, if Ensign wants to repeal DADT then the next logical step is to have men and women soldiers in the same housing as when I was in the US Army I did not know whether the person next to me, in training, was a heterosexual or homosexual male, however, since this policy is to repealed and the soldier now tells me that he is a homosexual, and thus may have sexual motives in living in a male barrack, then why not have males and females living together in the barracks? Or the alternative is to have separate barracks for each sexual orientation which will cause more housing expense obviously. If one chooses the cohabitation of all sexes, males, homosexuals and females living in the same quarters then I guess it will lead to happier life in the armed forces.
What are they going to about the transgenders?
How about some guy that wants to dress in a ladies uniform?
Transgenders have feelings, too.
That is what is important. We got to get our soldiers in touch with their feelings.
Now, any dude will tell you about the women, many of them get knocked-up in the field by a follow solider then they get removed and they got to train some new solider to do that ladies job.
In fact, more women get removed from the battlefield via being knocked up on the job then get removed by battlefield casualty.
Every day America moves closer to the edge.
"In fact, more women get removed from the battlefield via being knocked up on the job then get removed by battlefield casualty."
That's a phenomenal argument for letting more gay men and women serve openly, James. Pregnancy isn't an issue.
Thanks for the support.
I don't believe him.
Look at Senator Ensign's past record. He has voted no ALL the time. He marches in lockstep with the Republican Party on ALL matters.
He will vote no on this one too.
Look at his wording. He "might" vote for it. He "supports" DADT. That don't mean anything. How many times have we seen Republicans say they "support" something, but then when the vote is cast, they vote no.
It's all deflection. He is trying to build a case for re-election. So, he's throwing stuff out there, hoping people believe one thing, while he does another.
I just hope somebody gets the ball rolling to boot this guy out of office. Either that or bring him up on corruption charges.
Nevada voters need a better Senator. Not this sleaze bucket.
Poor Reta T will have a stroke over this news.
BTW Mobashir, don't flatter yourself, no gay guy would ever be interested in you, your irrational fear is just a function of your ignorance.
DADT *can* pass as long as it isn't on the same bill as the DREAM act. Republicans will never allow DREAM to go through, no matter what it is attached to.
The best chance Reid has to get DADT is to keep it on the funding bill but take DREAM off, as he has indicated he might do. At that point, there are at least three potential swing votes from the Republican side to break a filibuster, and quite possibly more. Hell, DADT might even pass as a stand alone bill, which would be the best way if possible.
Maybe, just maybe, we might have a Senator out of this ordeal who can truly be genuine to his constituants instead of the "holier than though" mentality that has gripped some of the Reublican and Democrat parties.
The Senator is possibly a more humble person from his experiance.
I read today that the Senator may yet be open to the idea of repealing "Dont Ask Don't Tell". This would be the kind of LEADERSHIP that is so sorely missing in Washinton. Imagine. A conservative like Senator Ensign actually studying the harm that DADT has done to our military and working towards ending this horrible policy which has cost so many patriotic Americans their military careers because they were outed as gay.
Perhaps now, our Senator can be able to look beyond the dogma of Washington and be a Senator who will think independantly about his country and constituants instead of saying "no" to evertything just because the Republican leadership tells him to.
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
You are saying John Ensign is showing signs of support for DADT because of a WaPo report?
How did you manage to miss all the local news breaking right under your nose? It was on The Rachel Maddow Show long before it was on the pages of WaPo
Wake up NV press corps!
How about you guys see it from a service members point of view point of view? was sent today.
Honorable Senator John Ensign,
I am writing to you in regards to your signaled support of repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy". I am currently serving in the Nevada National Guard. I enlisted in 2008. I am also a Marine Corps veteran (1998-2002). My question for you sir is, Have you thought of the repercussions of repealing this policy? Personally, I have nothing against gay/lesbian people. I have relatives that are homosexual, I grew up around it. What I have a problem with, is knowing a person is homosexual and that I have to share a shower with that person. Imagine having an openly gay person showering next to you staring at your genitals. That can be very uncomfortable for the heterosexual person. It would make me uncomfortable. Repealing the policy would appease gays/lesbians, but it would alienate the heterosexual members of the military. Currently there is discrimination against gay/lesbian people from openly serving in the military, this we can agree on. If this is repealed, many members of the military are going to call for segregation between the two groups. It becomes an invasion of our privacy when forced together. I personally, will get out of the military at the end of my contract if this is repealed because of the invasion of my privacy. I agree that a gay/lesbian person can pull a trigger and fight a war like the rest of us. Currently, there are many gay/lesbian members in our Armed Forces right now. But the thing is, I don't know who these people are. And what I don't know, does not hurt me. So we can appease the gay/lesbian activists of the World by repealing this. But what about the rest of us? Now we have a problem, how is the country going to handle our complaint? It does no good to take a step back to segregation. This will be the reason the United States loses a lot of her warriors. I hope the gay/lesbian community can rally up enough people to fill in the gaps. Nobody in this country is forced to serve in the military, it is a choice. A choice predicated on the fact that I do not have to worry about being flirted with by a member of the same sex, or the awkwardness of knowing that a service-member of the same gender wants to have sex with me.
The Constitution allows for the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That could open for interpretation when somebody says you have the constitutional right to serve in the military. The fact is, there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. Service in the military is a privilege and an honor bestowed on certain individuals. A person can be denied the ability to serve in the military for a number of reasons. For instance, if a person has major police report or has been convicted of certain things, that person can be denied entry in the military. That person is just as capable of doing anything a gay/lesbian person can in the military, yet they are denied entry into the Armed Forces. That illustrates the point that a person does not have the right to serve in the military. How can the people of the United States of America force the military to change their policy and give the right for gays/lesbians to openly serve in the Armed Forces when no such inherent right ever existed in the first place?
Thank you for listening,
SPC Christopher A Larson
spc larson,
the people of the united states of america can force the military to change their policy because it is at the people's mercy. we have a civilian controlled armed force. the president is it's head. he puts in charge a head of DoD, and the president is elected by the people. an example of "forced change" is when the united states declared it unconstitutional for its armed forces to segregate it's troops by race or ethnicity. it was a matter of civil rights. like, "all men are created equal" and the such. isn't this a matter of civil rights? why is it necessarily true that if a gay man showers with heterosexual men he is going to want to have sex with them? i don't want to sleep with every woman i see. why is it true that gay men are somehow more horny and therefore have only sexual motives in all cases? this is an extreme vision of gay men or gay women, as over-sexualized beings. (has no man in this thread who belongs to a gym like 24 hour fitness given thought to the fact that there are probably gay men showering in the shower? like, with them.) spc larson, you also equated someone who has committed felonies (in a vague way) to one who is homosexual. it doesn't logically hold up. moreover, the military is not an "honor bestowed on certain individuals." it's a volunteer army! honor is made in the act of serving in honorable ways. it's like you're saying gays aren't capable of being honorable because they're gay. are heterosexuals more prone to honor? it's a civil rights issue. they make good soldiers. if they want to die for a country that is founded on natural law, we are "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights ... " shouldn't they be allowed to fight AND be honest with others about who they are?
all this talk about gays looking at genitals and this crap about invasion of heterosexual privacy is fear. and, frankly, it's, at its root, un-american in the truest sense of the phrase.
repeal DADT.
besafe,
did you understand the movie? it was ironical. it was an anti-war movie. kubrick was associating the madness of war and the way the corp sexualized it. like, my gun is an extension of my penis.
sickening? really? like, it makes you sick to your stomach? sad news? like, someone died sad? sad news?
I'm confident that the only "Don't Ask Don't Tell" John Ensign is interested in doing is keeping his trysts quiet from his wife.
Comment removed by moderator. Comment contained copyrighted text the Sun doesn't have the rights to.
windycityfan23,
Would you prefer four sets of barracks instead of just two? One for straight males, straight females, gay males and lesbian females? That would add to our ballooning debt.
How about this, how about just one set of barracks for everyone, that way almost everyone can be uncomfortable until they learn it's just a human body that we've all seen before.
Have you forgotten what it was like the first time you had to shower in PE?
I'm a vet, and I say repeal DADT!
Does this mean that all soldiers will get to shower together regardless of their sexual persuasion, orientation, preference or perversions?
Tell me more...
Does anybody think it was fair that black people were forced to use separate bathrooms and drink from different water fountains before the civil rights movement. That was segregation and was deemed unfair. That is exactly what is going to happen if this gets repealed.
So the American people are forcing us to segregate. That is unfair. If people want DADT repealed, fine. Then yes there WILL be separate barracks. It will also get to the point where there will be separate units as well. Just like the all black company that fought during the civil war that was portrayed in the movie "Glory". That does not happen anymore because it was a civil rights issue. Homosexuality is not a civil rights or a constitutional issue. It is a morality issue.
If you want to talk about the economic aspect fine. Yes it will cost more money, but you are asking for it. So you are going to pay the bill as well. Or you can go with the status quo and not repeal it. Then you are saving money by not paying the wage of said discharged military member.
Separate units and separate barracks are the only way for this to work and make everybody happy. Let them serve, but not next to me. Because I can't trust the man next to me if there is any underlying sexual feelings towards me. I am your brother, not your lover.
Trust and unit cohesion are far more important in a unit's ability to conduct operations in matters of life and death than a person pride in their sexual orientation. It allows us to depend on each other so that we can do our job. It is about the greater good for the greatest amount of people.
The military contains less than 1% of the American population. A 2008 survey in the Army times found that 10% of those members would not re-enlist if DADT is repealed. 14% on top of that would consider a different career path if DADT is repealed. Out of 2.9 million people on active duty or in the reserves, 280,000 of those people are getting out. Another 400,000 on top of that are going to change their careers from being a lifelong servant of the United States. That is roughly 700,000 member loss. That is a major blow to our strength and security. All over personal pride....
Windycityfan, you serve alongside gay service members right now. You acknowledged this.
You probably shower with gay service members right now.
Why do you think these men and women would act ANY differently if DADT is repealed?
DADT doesn't stop sexual predators, gay or straight. DADT doesn't somehow magically grant you privacy in communal showers (Why you think there's any expectation of privacy in communal showers is another issue altogether). DADT doesn't prevent you from sleeping in a bunk next to the bunk of a gay/bisexual man.
DADT is a discriminatory law built to persecute soldiers for being honest.
"Trust and unit cohesion are far more important in a unit's ability to conduct operations in matters of life and death than a person pride in their sexual orientation. It allows us to depend on each other so that we can do our job. It is about the greater good for the greatest amount of people."
You've already admitted that there are gays and lesbians serving currently. All DADT does is needlessly persecute current soldiers. The military will not change when it is repealed.
I'm a little worried that you think the current situation, where some of your fellow soldiers are lying to your face, fosters the type of trust and cohesion that you claim to want to protect.
Gay, lesbian and bisexual soldiers are just as professional as you and should be given the same respect you are given... no more and no less.
According to Elaine Donnelly's testimony in 2008 in front of the House Armed Service Committee.
She stated during 1993-2004, 9,501 homosexuals were discharged from military service.
36,513 were removed for gaining too much weight
26,446 were removed for becoming pregnant
20,527 were removed because of parenthood
60,000 were removed for drugs
So we stop removing people from the Armed Forces because of their sexual preference. How do we justify the removal of so many people whose only crime is that they have a big appetite. I dont hear the Fat Person Association campaigning for the right to serve in the military. What is every persons argument for the other groups? obviously take the drug users out of the picture. That just to illustrate how small the number homosexuals discharged really is. So 10,000 people are out because of their sexual preference. And now you are about to force out 700,000 members that are experienced at war and survival. Got enough fish to restock that pool. YOUR FREEDOMS AND SECURITY DEPEND ON IT!!
You miss the point of DADT. What we don't know, doesn't hurt us. The military is characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy. Now you want to add sexual tension to the mix? I am 1 person among many. The numbers speak for themselves.
Windycityfan, those four classifications (weight, pregnancy, parenthood, drug abuse) all detrimentally affect the ability of the soldier to do their job.
Being gay or lesbian does not affect one's ability to do one's job, that's why DADT is in effect in the first place. It allows individuals of those sexual orientations to serve, so long as they do not reveal their sexual orientation. By definition, the policy concedes that gay, lesbian and bisexual troops are just as competent as you are.
Further, while 9,501 individuals were discharged, that is not the total number of GLBT troops. You also need to figure out the difference between being discharged and being separated under the UCMJ.
"You miss the point of DADT. What we don't know, doesn't hurt us. The military is characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy. Now you want to add sexual tension to the mix? I am 1 person among many. The numbers speak for themselves."
What you don't know? But you stated you know you serve alongside gay and lesbian soldiers. You DO know, therefore you can't claim ignorance.
There will be no more "sexual tension" after the repeal than there is now. Your communal showers already include gay men, by your own admission.
It makes zero sense for you to claim trust and cohesion when you're advocating a policy which demands dishonesty and lies from those you serve alongside.
Kevin, you just don't understand the trust aspect of it. Unless you have served in the military you never will. I can trust the guy next to me because I don't know that he is homosexual. He could be for all for all I know. But, I don't know that he is. That allows me to serve next to him. Being homosexual and in the military doesn't stop them from doing their job. It prevents others from trusting them, and that prevents us from doing our job. Like I said, I have no problem with a person being GLBT, that is a persons choice. I have many of those friends and we have an agreement in place. Don't hit on me or touch me in a sexual manner. That is perfectly fine with each and every single one of them. But apparently I am not alone in the fact that if I can't trust the person next to me, I can't do my job. So do 700,000 other people. you are right, they are just as competent and I stated that.
Being separated under the UCMJ is being discharged.
I say that I know there are homosexual members currently in the military because I am not naive. There are serving and are not coming out. They accept that policy for the love of their country. Everybody else is trying to make a point.
Those homosexual members joined the military with the knowledge of this policy. It didn't stop them from joining. The do join and do it proudly. But they play by the rules because they understand that trust.
Like I said, I hope that the GLBT community can replenish the 700,00 lost ranks. That is equivalent to eliminating the USMC four times over. Huge hit to our security.
I hope you will volunteer your time to recruit those people. Considering how you are campaigning for them to join. Do your piece!!
Windycityfan, I can't help you with your hangups. You have this weird preconception that every gay person wants to touch you or hit on you, have sex with you, or stare at you in the shower. You should take the time to speak to some of those gay friends you claim to have and claim to trust.
You might also read this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-be...
If another member of the military makes an unwanted sexual advance toward you, male or female, you have recourse. Given that there are gay men in the military currently, as you stipulated, and they have not cravenly tried to molest you, I'm flabbergasted as to why you think, if DADT was repealed, why this would change.
I'm still unclear as to why you can trust someone who is lying to you, but can't trust someone who is being honest with you. That's counter intuitive.
Trust is built upon respect, and since you seem to have no respect for GLBT soldiers, the person who is damaging cohesion and trust is you, not the gay solider.
As for your Army Times survey numbers, you might want to take another look at their findings.
Here's a snippet from the article:
"Similar debates have surfaced in other countries that recently lifted in the ban, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Israel, Segal said."
"None of the dire consequences that were expected occurred," Segal said. "My sense is, and this is just impressionistic, it was more peaceful than the gender integration of the military."
Those countries all had similar polls, and when the ban on serving was lifted, there was no mass exodus. None of those militaries suffered difficulties recruiting.
All of the scare tactics and fear amounted to nothing.
Frankly: I don't believe the figures you quote.
In response to your article link, the author has lost all credibility because he doesn't know the facts. The military is not in desperate recruits. Membership is at an all time high. The Army has raised the ASVAB score from 30 to 50. Why, we dont need dumb people to pull the trigger anymore. There is hardly anymore bonuses given out to entice members to join. Go talk to a recruiter before you throw your weight behind a man who has no clue what he is talking about.
Speaking of links......
www.libertyjuice.com/2010/11/10/democrat...
www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-cu...
Time will tell Kevin, time will tell
Lets all be honest with ourselves here. Would we expect the military to allow male officers access to mingle, live, and shower in a female's barracks?
Now, we may say that just because a man in in the shower with a female it doesn't mean he wants to have sex with her, or look at her naked body, and so on. But wouldn't we just be putting the female in a very uncomfortable position?
I suppose that isn't a good enough analogy for those of you who just think this is about the rights of a minority, and making sure our country is as politically correct as possible. But is political correctness or so on really an issue here.
Why is it that a homosexual person thinks that their silence on their sexuality is some unjust punishment we've handed them. I suppose if they were given classified secrets of national security they'd complain that they don't want to keep a secret either and be lying to people right?
You see there is a clear difference between omission and lying about who you are. No one is asking them to blatantly lie about anything, just to omit details that are unnecessary and not a core component of any activity they are required to do. The argument being presented by those who want DADT repealed is as if they are being required to lie about their sexual orientation. I have yet to see a date on the calendar labeled Heterosexual pride day since Heterosexuals do not find it an issue that they make sure everyone knows what their orientation is and therefore why is that the GLB community finds it necessary that everyone allow for the righteous celebration of their beliefs.
Kevin,
You need to read my letter again. Nowhere in that letter did I say EVERY gay man wanted to do those things to me. I specifically used the singular variation because I know that is not the case. Generalizing the community would be unfair. It was an example of a situation that anybody could be forced into. An uncomfortable one situation at that. So what I feel doesn't matter? Why is that? But the feelings of homosexuals are the only thing that matters?
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was put in place NOT to punish anyone - but to avoid a conflict of interest and concern. Under DADT the military doesn't know, and could care less, WHO a Gay person is. They are allowed to serve if they don't broadcast any deviant behavior. Further, being Gay in the military is NOT lying, or being dishonest - because the DADT rule excludes the posibility of having to "come out" - if you keep your trap shut.
As long as Gay's don't feel they have a "compulsion" to TELL someone that they are Gay - and by doing so violate the rule that explicity tells them to not bring attention to themselves - they CAN STAY in the military. Isn't that the objective that Gays want to accomplish? They have it now. So, all this chatter that Gay's should be allowed to serve their country "OPENINGLY" - is ALREADY AVAILABLE. If they Just follow the DADT rule - just like any other military rule (and there are a lot of them) a Gay person will be just fine - and welcome too.
On the other hand, if a service member choses to open their mouth - and admit they are Gay - it is a VIOLATION of the rule that is trying to ensure non-discrimination for all Gay people who may be in the military. And thus, it subjects the a Gay person to being discharged - if they CHOOSE to VIOLATE THE DADT RULE.
It is all a matter of self-discipline. We should note that everyone has different proclivities - other than being Gay. But people don't express such "quirks to others, for many reasons; embarrassment, disfavor, job security, shame, guilt in letting your wife or husband know, a violation of the law, etc.
If I were Gay I sure as hell would not jeprodize my career and livelihood, just so I could broadcast that I was Gay. SO this DADT issue seems to come down to a "matter of principle" for Gay's, because they don't want to be RESTRICTED from TELLING the "world" know that they are Gay. They knew DADT existed before they joined up.
But what do Gay people think they will gain by telling anyone they are Gay? NOTHING - except perhaps, to find out who else is Gay. Believe it or not, the majority is supposed to rule this country, and service members should not have to be concerned about seemingly innocent, yet awkward solicitations because of a comment like: "I thought we had a moment." THAT is also what DADT is designed to prevent: a conflict of interest, and to protect both sides.
Israel allows gays to be drafted for military service and has had no big problems about gays in the Israeli army.
I m retired US Army and i think Israel has proved that the ban on gays in our military is nigh.
As a retired Navy Veteran, I worked for a law enforcement agency in the military during one of my tours overseas back in the 1990s. We used to actively seek out gays, getting other servicemembers to wear wires recording all the grisly details of an alternative lifestyle in order to build up a case to drum them out of the military.
Please don't misunderstand me. A lot of us disagreed with this policy. We hated doing this. But they told us to do it, we saluted sharply and marched up the hill. It was a waste of time, taking our efforts away from crime prevention and regular law enforcement efforts in the military. But we had to do it. We signed contracts.
But then, in the early 1990s, DADT happened. And we were told no more active pursuit. But if something was revealed during an ongoing active investigation of something else, then we would stop, document it, turn it over to the command. No more targeting of gays and lesbians by starting an investigation solely based on that.
We were relieved when this happened. Sanity prevailed.
Only thing I want to say is this...the over-the-top examples mentioned by other commenters are really not much to worry about. For example, the transgender thing just doesn't happen. And if it does happen? There are other Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Articles that pertain to enforcement of that issue.
This staring at genitals thing is stupid. The writer of that is fearmongering. Because when you are in the military, everyone is a professional. And we treat each other as professionals. The close proximity situation cannot be alleviated. You work with it. When I went to take a shower, I was more interested in getting clean than I was worrying about some knucklehead checking out my privates.
All I know is that the government has deferred to the military on this issue. The higher ups in the military all want it done away with. And a study has been performed, parts of it leaked, and it basically says it can be done.
But Congress Republicans are in the way. They say there are against it. Then they say they will be for it, but only after a study is done. The study is done and they are STILL against it. They are for it. They are against it. They were for it before they were against it. They were against it before they were for it.
Something's gotta give. And I agree with the President in saying that Congress needs to get this thing done. We need a unified military. Not a divided one. This whole DADT thing is starting to rip apart effectiveness in the military.
Good for you, Ensign!
"You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight." -- Barry Goldwater (1909-1998)
Politics as usual
You still are a bum.
Good man, that Senator John Ensign...
If someone wants to join the military and fight to protect me, you, our neighbors and country , I couldn't care less what his/her race, religion or sexual orientation is. To me, unless they are like that crazy Hassan guy, they are all heroes who deserve our admiration and respect.
"There's risk involved. " This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness. " My primary concern with proposed repeal is the potential disruption to cohesion that may be caused by significant change during a period of expended combat operations."--General James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps
"In my years of military service, I've experienced the fact that the introduction of an open homosexual into a small unit immediately polarizes that unit and destroys the very bonding that is so important for the unit's survival in time of war."-General Norman Schwarzkopf
Homosexuals constantly focus on themselves: their so-called needs, what they want, their entitlements, their rights; they never talk about the good of the unit. It is this constant focus on themselves, the inability to subjugate or to subordinate their own personal desire for the good of the unit. This is an instant indicator of trouble in combat--and frankly, even not in combat. -Colonel John Ripley, USMC (1939-2008)
We can do this garbage all day long.
Why has John softened on family values??? Mrs. Ensign and Mrs. Hampton ...?? Maybe they got together and changed his mind....