If Missouri’s Sen. Claire McCaskill was the star of today’s Don’t Ask Don’t hearings (and boy, was she), then its sorest loser has to be Georgia’s Sen. Saxby Chambliss, for his lovely equation where banning homosexuality in the military equals banning drug abuse in the military.
The military, Chambliss said while addressing Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen, “must maintain policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.” And “the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk to those high standards.” Which is why letting gays serve openly in the military would, of course, lead to the snowball effect of permitting “alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art.”
All of which, like homosexuals serving in the military, we’re pretty sure are happening anyhow.
Meanwhile, if Chambliss isn’t your favorite hack from today’s hearings, how about Sen. John McCain? He told Chris Matthews on MSNBC in August 2006, “I understand the opposition to [DADT], and I’ve had these debates, the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says ‘Senator, I think we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider changing it.'” Wasn’t that part of what today was all about? Then why was he arguing: “Our men and women in uniform are fighting two wars, guarding the frontlines against a global terrorist enemy, serving and sacrificing on battlefields far from home, and working to rebuild and reform the force after more than eight years of conflict. At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.”
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.
Wade macMorrighan
What I thunk they *really* object to is the notion that by serving our country openly, we would not only be seen as “heroes”, but that we would be seen as having strong moral character, and they can’t *have* that, right?
Cam
McCain is polling badly and has a conservative primarly challanger, so now, after having his staff attack Sara Palin he is having her stump for him, and in spite of having an openly gay chief of staff he is attacking the repleal of DADT. He is a cynical hypocritical empty suit who does whatever he can to try to keep his job getting treated like a king on the taxpayers dime.
jason
What McCain fails to understand is that discharging good gay soldiers actually weakens the military. It weakens the war on terror.
As for Chambliss, a turd is a turd.
Brian NJ
How does removing soldiers who guard other soldiers help in a time of war? It helps the soldier left fighting right into the grave.
It leaves no one to translate that message of a car bomb ahead, no soldier to fly reconnaissance. It is a shit policy in a time of war you stupid, stupid fucks.
jason
Brian NJ,
Beautifully said.
The con-tards (conservative retards) are blinded by their hatred of male homosexual relations, even to the point of putting their country at risk.
Michael W.
Saxby Chambliss was expected to be a dickhead.
McCain was the biggest dumbass cause he should know better. He’s
obviously flip flopped and threw us under the bus for the sake of that Arizona senatorial primary. He is surrounded by family members with a more progressive mindset who are likely insistent on changing his mind. You can’t say the same for Saxby.
McCain is a piece of shit. The only people worse than him are all those gays who casted votes for his presidency in November 2008 (the most gay votes any Republican candidate has gotten to date). A bunch of racists and/or bitter Clintonistas who still hadn’t recovered from the abrupt ending to Hillary’s “inevitable” rise.
1EqualityUSA
Here is another favorite from Debra in Massachusetts:
“If what you say is correct and everyone in the military should have the same rights, then straight married service members should never mention their spouse or children and keep that part of their life totally private. If they so much as mention that they are attracted to the opposite sex, went on a date with someone of the opposite sex, are married and love their husband or wife, then they should be kicked out of the service for not keeping their private life private. This is the way LGBT service members have to live. It’s discrimination, and it’s an incredible burden to ask anyone to live under such secrecy, let alone someone sacrificing so much for the welfare of our country. Being in a war zone is stressful enough without worrying that any word you might say without consciously censoring yourself might cause you to lose your job.”
I had never thought of that. It makes DADT look ridiculous.
1EqualityUSA
Another favorite post regarding V.A. loans and discrimination against gays, about 10 months ago:
This is not an issue of free speech but of neighborliness. Fundamental decency requires that we treat each other with respect, especially when we disagree deeply on hot moral issues. (emphasis added)
That’s all well and good, but we don’t see too much respect or neighborliness coming from Gallagher’s side. Her website says, “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children,” but the fact of the matter is that she is completely, 100% opposed to anyform of recognition.
Here’s a small example: I’m buying a house. I’m using the VA to underwrite the loan. That’s not some perk offered by the federal government, that is something I earned with my military service.
But because of the anti-marriage BS that people like Gallagher spew (specifically DOMA in this case), I am not permitted to use the VA to buy property that will belong to both myself and my partner. I either have to “go it alone” on the paperwork, using my income alone for the house, and (more importantly) put everything in my name, leaving him with no protection at all, or forgo using the VA.
Maggie Gallagher sees nothing wrong with essentially ripping my compensation, that I earned through several years of service, right out of my hands.
Is that neighborly? Is that respectful? What would you do if your “neighbor” stole your paycheck right out of your bank account? How would you react?
If Gallagher actually showed any empathy whatsoever; if she was arguing for some kind of civil union (for example) or some kind of other solution that would help meet the needs and difficulties I face every day, then I’d buy her arguments. I could respect her stance on marriage if she was actively seeking some kind of middle ground that respected all of us.
But she’s not. She’s not respectful. She’s not neighborly. So she has no right whatsoever to demand it of anyone else.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for the people who are criticizing Hesse on anything but substantive grounds. But can we please bury the faux concern of Gallagher et al. for the supposed demise of “neighborliness” that they themselves killed off a long time ago?
Same Crap
Chambliss is the dumbest Southern cracker in the Sentate. That’s not small feat considering his competition.