[flv:http://videos.cache.magnify.net/CV9D661VGQHDTXMB-aaa_108_780_576x384.mp4 https://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs-null/2010/05/kelly7333bug.jpg 650 400]
Always a bit late to gay things in the news, Bill O’Reilly finally got around to ROTC soldier Sara Isaacson, whose coming out has her facing $79,265.14 in tuition payments that government would’ve otherwise covered. We’d argue Isaacson was the victim of legalized discrimination. Not Megyn Kelly!
“What part of ‘don’t tell’ don’t you understand?” says Kelly, who is usually one of the only mild voices of reason on O’Reilly’s program. Isaacson says the U.S. military paid $80k to put her through school at UNC Chapel Hill so they’d have the benefit of her service afterward. O’Reilly compares the transaction between Isaacson and the Pentagon as “fraud,” since she entered a contract and has now broken it. (That Isaacson says she only realized she is gay after joining ROTC.) O’Reilly thinks the army should sue Kelly, not merely “request” it back.
But what would O’Reilly — a staunch Irish Catholic defender — say if soldiers were not allowed to be open about, say, their religion? Should a Catholic soldier who comes out as a Jesus lover be expected to honor a contract that was discriminatory? After all, they can hide it.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
And therein lies the problem: The contracts between soldiers and the Pentagon should be considered invalid, and thus non-enforceable, because they are predicated on rules that violate the federal constitution. The solution is not to demand Kelly pay the money back. It’s to let Kelly serve her country openly just as heterosexuals are legally permitted to do.
Kieran
Can you cite us some examples of where Bill O’reilly has ever been a “staunch Irish Catholic defender”? WTF? Since when? The only thing I’ve seen O’reilly being staunch about is continuing to defend American boys fighting and dying in the Middle East.
As for Ms. Isaacson, I think SHE should sue the government for discrimination based on her sexual orientation.
papparon
I might be convinced that Sara Isaacson should return the money for her education, BUT only AFTER our government returns all the money it has taken from Gays with discriminatory tax laws and a thousand other lost benefits. If that ever happened, we would all be rich and gladly contribute privately to Sara’s education!
samthor
all the more reason to turn up the heat on repealing DADT
JAW
Sorry… she needs to give it back… what a great scam… have the gov pay for school… then decide that you won’t live up to the contract that you signed. Sadly, there are tens of thousands of gays serving under the DADT policy, she should be one also, till the policy changes.
How do we know that she REALLY IS a Lesbian… perhaps she is doing an Anne Hache on us and the gov… once they say she does not have to pay… she can go back to being straight.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
Another glaring example of people being forced to live a lie. DADT needs to be repealed, period.
TikiHead
JAW, did Mommy drop you on your head?
Andy
Dear Megyn Kelly,
You are a cunt.
Love,
Gays
Andy
@JAW: Anne Hache is a bisexual. Get over it.
Aaron
@Andy: Anne Heche is a nut case. Get over it!
Disgusted American
this meagan Kelly woman..is VERY unprofessional……fine if she agrees with the girl having to pay back the money….but the way she INflects he OPINIONS….wow, scarey..wouldnt want her to represent me for anything!
Disgusted American
this meagan Kelly woman..is VERY unprofessional……fine if she agrees with the girl having to pay back the money….but the way she INflects her OPINIONS….wow, scarey..wouldnt want her to represent me for anything!
JAW
Tiki… I’m sorry that I do not agree with you… but insults are a bit childish…
I hate DADT… when Clinton announced it 16 years ago, people, at first, thought that it was great. Boy were they wrong. It was a bad policy on day one. It needs to go away…
google her name and read up on her a bit.
She stated that she knew about, and did not agree with DADT long before she went into the ROTC program, or before she knew that she was gay. She also knew before she signed the contract what she needed to do. she signed anyway.
She was able to live the “lie” long enough to finish her education. I think that with repeal of DADT in the works, she should have been able to live the lie a bit longer.
She was not outed… she chose to come out… indeed her commander asked her not to hand the letter in.
Her motivies do not seem right. Again I hope and pray that DADT ends soon.
Devon
Megan Kelly is hardly a mild voice of reason. People just like to pretend she is because she’s good looking and she has a decent rack. Really she’s as bad as most of FNC’s staff. Not quite as crazy as Hannity or O’Reilly, but she’s definitely not a “voice of reason.”
The only sane people who routinely pop up on O’Reilly’s show are Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont Hill, and-on her good days-Margaret Hoover.
AlwaysGay
Megyn Kelly should be punched repeatedly in the face over her bigotry and proud screaming of it. Sara Isaacson doesn’t need to pay anything back. Gay people have paid taxes and not received our share back and let’s not forget haterosexuals purposeful manipulating of the laws to deny gay people equal rights. You don’t owe anything to haterosexuals, not after their millennia long oppression of us.
Paul
I saw this on the O’Reilly Factor last night, and had to turn it off. I can’t stand Megyn Kelly but last night I came so close to throwing a brick through my television after I heard this. No, Isaacson should NOT have to repay that debt. She is fully qualified to perform the duties which she has studied for. The Army made an investment that will pay off if their bigotry didn’t stand in the way.
I come from a military family. My father served 20 years in the U.S. Navy, my great-grandfather was on the beaches of Normandy (yes, Bloody Omaha) in June of 1944. My uncle has done three tours in Iraq and two of my cousins are in the ROTC program at schools across the country. NOBODY whom I consider a hero in my family believes in DADT or banning homosexuals from service. My great-grandfather, even in 1944, said that segregation of the armed forces was the most asinine thing he had ever witnessed. He taught his children and grandchildren that it doesn’t matter who has your back in war, so long as they have your back and you can trust them. My uncle and my father truly believe that you don’t have to BE straight to serve in the military, you only have to SHOOT straight.
DADT is only an issue because homophobes in the armed forces make it an issue. I say homophobes should be banned from military service, rather than homosexuals.
Baxter
Yes, she should have to pay back the money. She broke a contract. The fact that DADT is a terrible policy doesn’t mean she can get free government money and not have to hold up her end of the bargain.
Pip
Absolutely not. If she was refusing to serve in the army AS a Lesbian, despite singing the contract, then yes. But its a violation of human rights for the army to discriminate along lines of sexual orientation. This is a non issue, and these talking heads on Fox are just bigots and nothing more.
B
No. 16 · Baxter wrote, “Yes, she should have to pay back the money. She broke a contract.” How did she break a contract? She isn’t the one asking for a discharge.
Now, if she came out in order to get out, I think she should pay it back, but there is no evidence for that being the case. If she came out because she could no longer keep a lid on her sexual orientation, even more so if she did not realize that she was a lesbian when she signed up, then it isn’t her fault and she shouldn’t have to pay.
CaliberGuy
I know that this is not going to be the popular answer, but she did sign a contract, and that contract was that in return for the military paying for her to go school she would in return serve in the forces for a disclosed amount of time.
She claims to have only realised she was gay her senior year, OK I can kinda buy that. But she is not forced to disclose it, she decides right before she is to graduate conveniently right after they are done paying for her schooling to Come out to the army. Her commanders give her an out and say you don’t have to do this we don’t have to take it, if you do you will have to pay back the money aspar the contract. She then chooses to come out, her choice.
She now has to pay back the money, it’s not an if and or but sort of situation, she singed an agreement with the military who used 80k of taxpayer money to put her threw school all then came out before serving the military to make good on the money owned. A contract is a contract.
Landon
After reading all of the previous postings on this topic, I have come to realize that the angst towards DADT is inappropriately aligned against the Department of Defense (DOD) and often times the Army as well. I want to address this issue in order to give everyone a better understanding of this issue and clear up misconceptions and fallacies of the military, specifically the U.S. Army in regards to DADT.
In order to understand DADT from the military point of view you must first understand the hierarchy and how the military runs. Equally important to understanding this complex and controversial issue is comprehending how DADT was formed.
The Department Of Defense is a cabinet-level department, subordinate to the Executive Branch and headed by the Secretary of Defense (SecDef). The SecDef is an appointee of the President of the United States (POTUS) who follows the orders issued by the Commander-in-Chief and supports the National Security Strategy. The SecDef directs DOD through the services secretaries (Sec Navy, Sec Army, Sec AF). Additionally, DOD is subordinate to the legislative branch under the conditions that Congress appropriates the defense budget and possesses the authority to declare wars. The U.S. military has always been and will always be led and directed by the elected civilian leadership of the United States.
DADT is the nickname for Presidential Directive 1304.26 which was ordered by the President in 1993. This directive was a major change to the previous policy, which outright banned homosexuals from serving in the military. This new policy allowed for homosexuals to serve in the uniformed services under the general conditions that they did not disclose their sexual preference. The President of the United States issued the DADT directive; not DOD, not the Secretary of Defense, and most definitely not the U.S. Army. Soldiers follow orders and that is exactly what the U.S. military did; the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the United States military followed the orders of the Commander-in Chief faithfully as they are sworn to do in accordance with their oaths of service.
Are there service members who support DADT? Most definitely.
Are there service members who want DADT repealed? Again, most definitely.
The men and women who comprise the United States Armed Forces are a diverse group of citizens, who are a representation of all of the values and beliefs of the rest of the Nation. But to denigrate the military as a bunch of homophobic bigots who created and support DADT is nothing short of utter ignorance. I have served in the Army for 16 years and can honestly say that there is not a more professional organization than the United States military. If the policy were to change tomorrow the military would salute, move out, sharply and execute their assigned mission orders. Make no mistake, there will be challenges if the policy is repealed, but if and when that time comes the U.S. military will execute in a professional manner. My intent is not to debate whether DADT is right or wrong, but instead to dispel ignorance and anger that is inappropriately directed at America’s finest.
HOPE that your elected officials will make responsible national policies; KNOW that the U.S. military will always keep you safe.
Major Landon Moxley, Student, Command and General Staff College
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this posting are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
B
No. 20 · Landon wrote, “After reading all of the previous postings on this topic, I have come to realize that the angst towards DADT is inappropriately aligned against the Department of Defense (DOD) and often times the Army as well.”
I think we should note that Presidential Directive 1304.26 and any subsequent directives or legislation do not (as far as I know) address the issue at hand, which is not DADT but rather roughly $80,000.
If a person realizes they are gay after they enlist, it shouldn’t be treated any differently than an 18 year old, just under the height limit, who enlists and subsequently grows another half inch and reports that fact, making him too tall to serve.
Landon
No.21 B wrote, ”
If a person realizes they are gay after they enlist, it shouldn’t be treated any differently than an 18 year old, just under the height limit, who enlists and subsequently grows another half inch and reports that fact, making him too tall to serve.”
Your analogy is slightly flawed,an 18 old year cannot control his growth. She chose to divulge the information that resulted in her discharge, therefore breaching an agreement between her and the government (taxpayers). The issue of her paying back the funding for services not rendered is not subject to my opinion or the military’s policy, as stated earlier, this is a policy/regulation decision dictated by civilian leadership.
A more accurate analogy would be an 18 year old, tests free of drugs prior to enlisting and subsequently participates in drug use and voluntarily discloses his drug use to his superiors, resulting in a breach of contract and is discharged and is forced to pay back scholarship funding. I can attest to this analogy personally as I witnessed it with one of my classmates.
Pip
@Landon: Looks like Mike Huckabee posts on Queerty now. And gays shouldn’t get married either because then the dog fuckers will want to get married too!
Cassandra
Landon
Your choice of analogy, which is orders of magnitude less accurate than the one B chose, betrays your prejudice.
You have viciously equated homosexuality, people’s innate capacity for love and affection and sexual expression, with drug addiction, something that destroys not only the life of the user, but injures those who care about him/her, increases the odds that the user will harm others physically, and is the heart of abusive and destructive industries supporting organized crime in many nations. That was a monstrous thing to do, the kind of thing only monsters posing as human beings do.
It takes true evil to compare homosexuality to drug addiction, and anyone who makes such a comparison, simply and completely lacks the moral foundation to give anyone else advice or criticism about right and wrong, legal and illegal, moral and immoral.
Your assumption that GLBTQ people can, should and must conceal their sexual orientation, even lie about it, indicates that a truly depraved and amoral ethical system on your part, one where integrity is rejected in favor of bowing to mainstream prejudice and malice.
Heaven help the U.S. and its soldiers if you are really serving in the military. For if you are, the ability to commit and justify a My Lai Massacre is clearly in your moral compass and it is only a matter of time.
B
In No 22, Landon wrote, “Your analogy is slightly flawed,an 18 old year cannot control his growth. She chose to divulge the information that resulted in her discharge, therefore breaching an agreement between her and the government (taxpayers).”
But gays and lesbians can’t control their sexual orientation either, so the analogy is correct. Some grow up in parts of the U.S. where there is an incredible amount of pressure to conform to heterosexual norms, and due to the pressure, they don’t realize their true sexual orientation for some time. If you put a tight lid on a pot of boiling water, eventually the inevitable will happen and it is not a question of “if” but of “when”.
What do you think would happen if you applied DADT to straight soldiers as well? Expecting them to not say a word about their sexual orientation (including when a very attractive member of the opposite sex walks by) is the sort of thing once parodied by Gilbert and Sullivan in H.M.S. Pinafore:
CAPT. I do my best to satisfy you all–
ALL. And with you we’re quite content.
CAPT. You’re exceedingly polite,
And I think it only right
To return the compliment.
ALL. We’re exceedingly polite,
And he thinks it’s only right
To return the compliment.
CAPT. Bad language or abuse,
I never, never use,
Whatever the emergency;
Though “Bother it” I may
Occasionally say,
I never use a big, big D–
ALL. What, never?
CAPT. No, never!
ALL. What, never?
CAPT. Hardly ever!
ALL. Hardly ever swears a big, big D–
Then give three cheers, and one cheer more,
For the well-bred Captain of the Pinafore!
[After song exeunt all but CAPTAIN]
Landon
@B:
B sorry if I inferred that you analogy was wacked, I just did not see someone actually being discharged by growing slightly. Your last post gives me better context and clarifies your original analogy. My analogy was only trying to show another instance of a circumstance that would cause an individual to be discharged if they divuleged certain information. The sad thing about example I relayed is that after my friend volunteered that he smoked marijuana (not addicted), his drug test came back negative and he was still dishcarged.
geral
United States Army Intelligence Officer , ROTC, files a false report against Geral Sosbee and then, in apparent concert with the fbi/police fraudulent attempted sting and criminal assault (by a low level operative) against Sosbee the government thugs seek a way to imprison him.
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part19-updatefor.html#firstmessage
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part19a-updatefo.html
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part19b-updatefo.html