Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
don't tell hell

Will Senate Hearings on DADT Do More Than a Finger-Pointing Report Aimed at Gay Inc.?


So New York’s Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell moratorium push isn’t going to work out. But are her efforts all for naught? Nah, not if you can wait till autumn for some movement.

Gillibrand, who’s facing an uphill battle to keep her U.S. Senate seat next year, has come out swinging for the gays. You could argue she’s joined the fray to sweep up votes. Or maybe because she recognizes it’s the right thing to do. Let us know if you care either way. But she’s raging on, convincing the Senate Armed Services Committee (read: an exclusive group of power-hungry legislators) to hold hearings on DADT this fall, which would be “the first formal re-assessment of the policy since Congress passed it into law in 1993,” reports Jason Bellini. The hearings would not serve the purpose of passing legislation, but rather inviting testimony from experts on the impact of DADT.

Meanwhile, the University of California at Santa Barbara’s Palm Center — which previously outlined in a stinging, sensible report how to do away with DADT — is planning to unveil a new paper called ” Self-Inflicted Wounds on “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell.” We like its subtitle better: “How and Why the Gay Community Took the Pressure off the White House.”

Even though “the summary doesn’t name the individuals,” it’s clear: They’re coming for you, Joe Solmonese. (And since the report hasn’t yet been published, might we suggest actually naming names? ‘Cause really, when is it time to take off the kid gloves?)

On:           Jul 27, 2009
Tagged: , , , ,
    • Cam

      Hey, if we get full rights, Joe’s out of a job. He is smart enough to look across the boarder at Canada. They don’t have organizations equivilent to HRC because gays can marry etc… there. Joe’s all about keeping his power and his wallet full.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 12:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ja

      @Cam: that is very cynical. There are plenty of gay civil rights issues to keep him busy for many years in this country and beyond.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 12:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      @Ja: You said “@Cam: that is very cynical. There are plenty of gay civil rights issues to keep him busy for many years in this country and beyond.”

      If we get Marriage and get rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Those are our civil rights. Full Marriage equality, No more federally written discrimination in the Federal language are the biggies, ENDA is additionally one more. Why do you think HRC NEVER wanted to deal with those two issues? If they go our way all HRC has left to do is become like GLAAD and write nasty letters to people that portray gays badly in TV commercials. People don’t donate enough money to keep Joe earning the salary he does now (Over $300,000 per year) if that happens.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 1:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bryan

      The truth is, the battle will never be over. Even when we do get full marriage equality, we will still have to fight to keep it and to make sure that bigoted bureaucrats in podunk towns don’t try to skirt the law.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      @Bryan: Yes, but HRC is a federal lobbying organization. Once Federal laws are in our favor they would either have to radically change or try to become more of a grass roots activist organization, but those spots are already filled in many states and by umbrella organizations like “Equality”

      Jul 27, 2009 at 1:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane

      @No. 1 · Cam The idea that “full rights’ amounts only to marriage and serving in the armed forces is a myth perpetuated by that prophet of modern gay delusion, Andrea Sullivan. Considering the fact that probably most gay people will not chose to marry to or go in the military, there are left a whole lot of people who will be concerned about job discrimination which is ubiqitous, even in places like San Fancisco and New York, if peole are at all open. Prejudice will always be there, even for kids in schools. Anyone grow up with prejudice? Lose a job? There could be a whole range of rights which would not have the black and white quality of marriage. It is possible that if gay people had any kind of unified community, we would take umbrage to wars which are fought for bad reasons, for political positions etc.

      While it will be a major step to take decision making out of the militaries hands. I’m sure that maybe someone would want to finger point at Gay Inc. that seems like an unlikely senario. Things are moving in the slow grinding pace that they ought to when you have a Democratic Republic.
      It seems that he paper by the Palm Center, no matter who it is credited to will provide a perspective and possibly a road map; it doesn’t hurt to try.
      The ugliness about DADT is that prejudice could not be more clearly evident. The Act itself is more insulting than the situation was before.
      It still shocks me that gay leaders were so much in belief of the virtue of closetedness that they let an Act requiring that we lie about who we are get through unchalanged.

      Now, it strikes me as having legitimacy in the eyes of bigots
      to sustain the belief that we can ‘change”, all be it superficially.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 1:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rick

      M Shane says “Considering the fact that probably most gay people will not chose to marry to or go in the military…”

      Can I get some lotto numbers to while you are still predicting?


      Jul 27, 2009 at 1:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      @M Shane:

      you are missing the point. HRC is a federal lobbying organization. i.e. if we get full federal rights, THEY don’t have a reason to exist. This is NOT saying that watchdog, or anti-defamation organizations will cease to exist, my post is about HRC’s place in the scheme of things. You will notice that I did NOT say that canada didn’t have any gay organizations, I said that it didn’t have any equivilancies to HRC.

      Your point about whether or not gay people WILL get married or join the military has nothing to do with the point I was making. Whether or not people take advantage of their rights has nothing to do with whether or not people should have them. It would be like saying that since there was a low turnout of hispanic voters in some election that the right to vote was meaningless to Hispanics. WHETHER or not gays take advantage of the right to marry at the same numbers as straights is irrelevent to whether or not we should have full rights.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bryan

      There will be a time when laws are in our favor but there will still be support for the HRC because of the fear that the rights will be taken away. It’s been 40 years since the civil rights act and the NAACP still exists. The HRC would have to change it’s structure, or a new organization will emerge, but unfortunately, I don’t see the need for a nationwide civil rights group for LGBT people will ever go away.

      Secondly, while I’m not a fan of the HRC, I would think that the executives there could make far more working in private business than they make now. I do think that the HRC is too cowardly some times and pushes for money above all else but I don’t think for a second that they would sabotage the movement to keep their positions.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 2:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • planetspinz

      Maybe Gillebrand stepped up the gay rights plate now because of Jon Cooper http://www.cooperfornewyork.com/, a very qualified, gay, out candidate for the Senate. Now if LGBTQ Americans nationwide support Jon, maybe he will have an even better chance of representing the interest of all of us. Check him out and decide if he is worthy of donations and support.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 2:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Aaron

      So, so true!

      Jul 27, 2009 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      Cam, M Shane always misses the point…on purpose.

      He is our resident nay-sayer and harbinger of doom and gloom qho just just likes to argue over nothing all the time.

      I totally agree with you. All Joe Salmonese is interested in, is keeping his wallet padded. Ergo, he is in no rush to see us get our civil-rights.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 3:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth

      So now joining the military is also a “civil right”??

      Tell that to people who don’t meet the height, weight, age, education and fitness requirements.

      Face it, real soldiers don’t want openly homosexual people alongside of them and sharing living quarters etc.

      If openly homosexual people are allowed to share accommodation then why not have mixed sex dorms and shower facilities?

      You choose to live a homosexual lifestyle so you have to live with the consequences.

      And stop trying to pretend everything is a “civil right”. Try finding other ways to serve your country. like avoiding catching AIDS for example.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 3:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TruthToPower


      Queerty has done a great job calling out the President on his broken promises, but why do you insist on parroting a hack like Bellini when your own archives prove that he’s talking through his overstretched ass when he declares that the hearings would be

      “the first formal re-assessment of the policy since Congress passed it into law in 1993,”

      As you should recall, a year ago last week, the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee held a hearing on DADT that received wide attention, primarily for the way many of the Congressmen, particularly now-DADT repeal bill lead Patrick Murphy called bullshit on its supporters. The video clip of his interchange with homohating psycho Elaine Donnelly should be viewed again and again…particulary by those gay group talking heads afraid of appearing “not nice” when they appear opposite Antigay Industy troglodytes on TV:


      Second, I don’t know what HRC did behind closed doors but the failures of the group that claims to be the leader of the fight against DADT – – SLDN, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network — have been in plain sight for months – – so when is Bellini – – and Queerty – – going to call them out?

      First, their director said last year that THEY were telling the administration going slow was OK:

      QUOTE: “President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military’s decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.

      ‘I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus’, said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The group supports military personnel targeted under the ban.

      Mr. Sarvis told The Washington Times that he has held ‘informal discussions’ with the Obama transition team on how the new president should proceed on the potentially explosive issue.” – The Washington Times Nov 21 2008 END QUOTE.

      He quickly changed his tune when gays asked “What the fuck are you saying?” and has issued a series of “Repeal now” statements but, then – – for reasons he’s never explained – – he went against the Palm Center’s freeze suggestions – – even tho the Palm Center has been the primary source of expert information for SLDN for years – – and it was clear repeal wasn’t happening for a long while tho a freeze order could be issued in one pen stroke. Sarvis began to sound exactly like Robert Gibbs saying a freeze wouldn’t be “permanent” so forget it – – while HRC has SUPPORTED a freeze.

      Almost as crazy is his saying in the Daily Nonsense article you linked to that he knew Gillebrand’s idea wouldn’t work when he’s repeatedly promoted a very similar one – – to ask the same Congress not yet ready to repeal DADT to cut off funding for it?

      AS IF!!!!

      Hopefully the Palm Center will have the balls to call SLDN out for its major role in leading the President to believe that he can sit on his hands indefinitely.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane

      @Cam: Sorry I did miss your point!

      @No. 12 · schlukitz : sorry to inject thought into your knitting circle. Do you ever tire of living in a world that is so contrived that even you damn people ,like a resident Nazi for offering up something for you to chew on. But maybe this sight is just for old women who’s boundries don’t extend beyond thier lampshades. As long as there are borish conformists like you destroyng any element of thought this will be the small world that it rather rapidly becomes.

      No. 13 · youcanthandlethetruth NO they can’t , trust me!

      Jul 27, 2009 at 3:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      @youcanthandlethetruth: you said “So now joining the military is also a “civil right”??

      Tell that to people who don’t meet the height, weight, age, education and fitness requirements.

      Face it, real soldiers don’t want openly homosexual people alongside of them and sharing living quarters etc.”

      Hmm, funny, considering two of my exes were out to their bosses and their squads in the military and we were invited as a couple to all their houses etc… Just who are these “real soldiers” you are talking about? I dare you to tell any of the Iraq active duty and vets in their groups that they aren’t real soldiers. Or are you just one of those older obese people that watch WWE and pretend to be a real American by invoking the word “Soldier” to try to back up your point? Most soldiers understand that there are things more important than who the people around them, who are saving their lives, are sleeping with. It’s only couch potatoes like you who have none of those worries who have time to worry, like a gossipy little schoolgirl about somebody else’s bed partner.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane

      @youcanthandlethetruth: that’s not to betaken as encoragement- you seem to have flown in from another planet .
      What do you mean “real soldiers”. Some of the greatest soliers in history were gay including Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionhearted (who even his Arab enemies held in respect); The spartans were almost uniformly homosexual; protecting men they loved made them more fierce. That’s only the begining.

      Any male who is physically able: and I assure you that gay people-even many drag queens are often fiercer fighters than straight people. It seems that people of your ilk find gay people incapable of even working .

      Jul 27, 2009 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane

      No. 8 · Cam :
      Relative to your earlier point, I have never voiced any objection to gayshaving the same rights as straight people have in marriages. I only think that it is a terrific logistical mistake to use the name and other religious corelaries in getting them. It is easy to see already that it has been the most significant devisive factor in our having an rights at all.
      I have been around long enough to understand that gauy people realise themselves emotionally in a complex assortment of ways different than a breeder family. I am proud enough of who I am to say that I would as soon have those rights issued to me and my kind buy a different name. In the course of that we give the matter a secular face.
      Interestingly , in France, straight people are currently asking for Gay Civil Unions because they are better.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM

      @M Shane:

      All that gays have civil uniions and breeders have marriage is just hogwash.

      I know straight couples that do not want to “breed” and gay couples that want a family. What if I want a civil union.


      Jul 27, 2009 at 5:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane

      No. 19 · SM
      It may be personal: I’m someone who’s not fond of being like everone else.

      A big segment of my feeling apart from the practical aspect of getting what we want the easy way, comes from my living in an area where gays and lesbians want marriage solely for religious reasons /parental approval, which strikes me as being immature.

      We live in an increasingly more confromist and uncreative society, I celebrate whatever differences I can find. That is probably just me.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 5:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com

      While we should not NEED hearings about a patently absurd law, we shouldn’t need to cooperate with a robber either. But there are enough troglodytes in Congress holding the proverbial gun to our heads that we have to play the game, and one step in it is hearings.

      So this is progress. Unlike in the House, a part of the problem has certainly not been the Chair of the Senate Armed Service Committee, Carl Levin. While his House counterpart, Ike Skelton, was THE sponsor of DADT in the House in 1993 and hasn’t had hearings yet on the House bill which has been around for four years, Levin tried to shoot down opposition to gay integrating the military during Sam Nunn’s homohating “dog and pony show” Senate hearings, voted against DADT, and has consistently opposed it ever since.

      But, Barney Frank said today that opposition to repeal is much greater in the Senate than the House. That is consistent with 1. a repeal bill has not been introduced in the Senate, and, 2. chief House repeal bill sponsor Patrick Murphy has said that more in the House are willing to vote for repeal than cosponsor it. [The actual vote, of course, is what’s important.]

      But, in June, Levin reiterated what CANDIDATE Obama said in 2007. Levin said [emphasis mine]:

      “It requires PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP. This CANNOT be addressed successfully without that kind of leadership.”

      In other words, all roads to repeal begin and end with the guy who declared that “All that is required is leadership.”

      Or as the former sign on his desk declared in 1977 when pioneer military ban fighter Leonard Matlovich sat at it:

      THE BUCK STOPS HERE! – Harry Truman

      Jul 27, 2009 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM

      DADT is gone…its on its way out the door.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 7:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @youcanthandlethetruth: You really are an idiot! I usually don’t call people names but you seem to assume a lot. You think most military guys do not want to serve next to a gay man? Many gay men are much tougher and stronger than straight men, that is a fact. Many gay men spend their spare time pumping iron in the gym or doing mixed martial arts. You are probably the type that picks on small weak gay guys but do not have the nerve to mess with the tough ones. Just another coward hiding behind your keyboard!

      Jul 27, 2009 at 7:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul-kenon

      I guess all our noise , boycotts, Obama bashing etc and Maddow’s efforts to keep DADT alive has not helped.,We will never be as important. Obama put’s himself out there and always takes one for black folk or hispanic folk and women especially, but not for gays.He always stand up for the black guy who is unfairly arrested or the woman who’s getting less pay compared to her male co-workers. Why can’t he take one for us?? I don’t get it! Why does he hate us so much

      Jul 27, 2009 at 7:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      A Presiden cannot act like he favors certain military people over others. Its not that simple.

      Congress needs to change the uniform code and law.

      Many gays and lesbians have used DADT to get out of the military because they wanted out. Go read the military.com board.

      He is working out it.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 7:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM

      All you Obama bashers who hate DADT need to research your issues.

      DADT was put in place to protect you.

      Conservatives are posting that it would be fun to repeal DADT too. That way they military can just enforce the uniform code of conduct.

      The reality is you all better fight to have DADT stay right where it is until Congress changes the uniform code.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      Chill out. Have some cheesecake or whatever you fag hags do to cope with being.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      There’s no excuse for obama not issuing the stop loss. None. Get over it.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK

      It’s purly political to curry the favor of DADT’s supporters, and the antigay electorate.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      I get my opinions on DADT from military people. Not Democrats or Obama lovers. Most people in the military are convinced its going away soon.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      Because they’re the most trusted name in nondiscrimination. Apparently, you’ve culled them from a few messageboards and from the same people responsible for the policy in the first place. People whose opinions are not relevant to the issue. Now you just sound like bush (“I listen to the brass”)…the antigay, virulently christofascist brass who base their opinions on nothing more than “the gut”.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK

      And if this was really about healthcare reform being the primary issue for you, wouldn’t you be on those messageboards talking that up instead of here? You should at least be acquainted with the problem. So tell me, sadomasochism, how much, on average, does it cost a person in the u.s. to spend a night at the hospital? You should be able to immediately bring these facts and figures forth…without google hesitation. How much did the u.s. spend last year in healthcare costs, and what percentage of GDP does that expenditure total?

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth

      @Paul-kenon: Stop whining and feeling sorry for yourself.

      Pull yourself together and be a man.

      You choose to pursue a homosexual lifestyle so you must accept the consequences.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      Message Boards?

      Tell that to my friends who are waiting on their husbands to call before they go out on combat patrol in Afghanistan but never get that call because the cell phone towers are all blown up.

      You are so ignorant.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      Do you like a lot of DADT support from those gals? If so, you run in some pretty bigoted circles…running in circles being the operative expression.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      Excuse me? They sure as hell don’t act all psycho like you.

      We don’t run in circles idiot.

      Congrats on trashing people who just raised money for a soldier burned ALL OVER HIS BODY AND FACE.

      Fucking idiot

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      Right, and yet they support DADT according to you. Who you are friends with is an expression of who you are. In light of your parroting rick warren-like terms to silence gay people on their civil rights, it seems to be accurate.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com

      Blog Rule #1: if you don’t feed the cockroaches, they will go away. This thread, like so many before it, has been invested by one whose goal is ATTENTION, negative or positive, and NOT the subject at hand. Please do not feed.

      For the sane who still have any doubts re the President’s options, we submit the FACTS released today by the Palm Center:


      Los Angeles, CA – A working group on the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy comprised of retired general officers, scholars and a former member of Congress issued a
      statement today in response to inaccurate or misleading statements made about the policy by President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Rep. Patrick Murphy
      (D-PA), and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen.

      The DADT Working Group addressed the following statements:

      – President Barack Obama: we cannot ignore the will of Congress

      “I also want to make sure that (a) we are not simply ignoring a congressional law. If Congress passes a law that is constitutionally valid, then it’s not appropriate for the executive branch simply to say, we will not enforce a

      Why this needs to be corrected: Congress has authorized the
      President, via statute, to suspend any law regarding military
      separations during national security emergencies. Hence, an
      executive order would not be a matter of the President choosing to “not enforce a law” but an appropriate exercise of executive authority granted directly by Congressional statute.

      – Representative Patrick Murphy (D-PA): an executive order would ignore standing law

      “[The president] — to his credit — seems not to want to ignore standing law that was passed by the Congress. It shows why Congress needs to change it.”

      Why this needs to be corrected: Congress has authorized the
      President, via statute, to suspend any law regarding military
      separations during national security emergencies. Hence, an
      executive order would be consistent with, not ignore, standing law.

      – Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: the military is bound by legislation in its enforcement of “don’t ask, don’t tell”

      “The key is to remember it’s not a policy, it’s a law. And so before we can change what we do, the Congress has to change the law. And once the law is changed, then we will do what the law says and what the president tells us to do.”

      Why this needs to be corrected: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” as codified by Congress, grants significant authority to the Secretary of Defense to devise and implement the procedures under which investigations, separation proceedings, and other personnel actions will be carried out. In fact, Secretary Gates has said he is looking for ways to relax enforcement of the law without approval from Congress.

      – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen: the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” would affect military families

      “…what I feel most obligated about is to make sure I tell the president, you know, to give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times.”

      Why this needs to be corrected:

      No research shows that allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would impact heterosexual military families.”

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      Dude…You are such a fucking loser its not even funny.


      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KyleR


      Yo know nothing of the military. There is plenty of evidence that those serving in the military wouldn’t care who the person next to them slept with. The only ones that do are people like you. Religious fundamentalists.

      I remember reading a poll conducted of US Service members returning from the Middle East by Stars and Stripes or the Military Times, I don’t remember which one it was. Anyways, over 70% of those that responded were in FAVOR of ending DADT and serving next to an openly gay service member. Because guess what? They already did. Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Australia all allow gays to serve openly and their military’s don’t have a problem. Recruitment actually goes up. So does retention. The only people that leave the military and don’t enlist are people like you.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      And yet they seem to be worried about meddling in the affairs of others as per your rhetoric because they support DADT, a discrimiatory policy. And don’t hide behind their relationship status, and the fact that their legal spouses (who’ve they’ve married legally) are sacrificing for their country (honorably). Don’t exploit their sacrifice and suffering so that you can foist a morally reprehensible position in support of obama. That doesn’t make your position any more ethical.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KyleR

      @Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com:

      And one aspect of DADT that most don’t mention. The decision to kick out the member regarding any accusations/admitted by a gay service member is left up to his/her Commanding Officer. If the ‘needs of the military’ outweigh the possible hardships, then the member is left to serve. I’m not sure if this even happens, but it is an option open to the CO. Gay service member DON’T have to be kicked out. And if they are, the type of discharge is also left up to the CO, it can be Honorable, OTH, or Dishonorable.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      I get my opinions on DADT from military people.

      Oooooh…she’s highly connected too!

      Next, she’ll be telling us that she had lunch with the President…or was it a beer?

      Oh dear. So many social functions. So little action!

      Jul 27, 2009 at 8:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      I said hello to hillary clinton once, and she winked at me, shook my hand, and said hi back. I guess using SM’s suspect standard, I’m now in her inner circle of confidants and advisors.

      Jul 27, 2009 at 9:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com


      It absolutely happens—commanders “looking the other way.” It ALWAYS has, from the earliest days of our country when Prussian Baron von Steuben arrived at Valley Forge with his handsome, 17-year-old “secretary,” allegedly fleeing prosecution for kissing boys back home, and turned Washington’s rag tag volunteers into a real army with training and policies the country still follows in many ways.

      …to World War II when only a fraction of those among the 16 million American males in uniform who statistically MUST have been gay were discharged. In fact, a handful of gay soldiers were ordered BACK TO DUTY after having been imprisoned for sodomy.

      …all the way to today when the number of servicemembers reporting that their commanders ignored their being gay grows larger and larger.

      Friederich Wilhelm von Steuben Monument, Lafayette Park, Washington DC

      Jul 27, 2009 at 9:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      I hear you. LOL

      Jul 27, 2009 at 9:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      It’s not my fault I know people who have testified before Congress. Don’t fault me for the fact my brother is hot and dates people in the know.

      You are still a loser.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 12:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      Bruce Vilanch is hardly “in the know”.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 12:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      My friends have testified at House of Representatives Committees on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions hearing on the Employment Non Discrimination Act.

      …….and you are still a hatefilled gay

      Jul 28, 2009 at 12:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      My friend’s secretary of state.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 12:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM

      Don’t worry TANK, we all know your contribution to LGBT Equality will be years spent bashing and abusing people while hiding behind a computer screen.

      You are sooooooooooo badass!

      Don’t worry. There are many LGBT with 100x the class and ability to lay it all on the line for equality in constructive ways.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 12:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK


      Yeah, but they agree with you. So they can’t be that intelligent…or have that much ability.

      Go eat a cookie. You earned it!

      Jul 28, 2009 at 12:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      Go play with your friend Secretary of State…you know the woman who has to call Barack Obama..Mr. President.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 12:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com

      I see cockroach feeding.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 4:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @TANK: The Secretary of State is one of the few in the administration that has shown ANY LEADERSHIP on gay equality. Too bad she is not the President.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 6:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      Too bad her husband signed legislation into law that help put us into this economic crisis.

      The Blame The President Brigade and expecting pie from the sky with no work is strong in these parts. You all should get t-shirts.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 6:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @SM: Yes, I remember how Obama used NAFTA during the campaign to attack Hillary but once elected, never mentioned NAFTA again.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 6:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      By the way InExile, if you are such a Hillary supporter than you know Hillary was all about healthcare reform. Much more than Obama. You are funny to think she would have risked that for anything or put your entire LGBT agenda first.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 6:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      Bill Clinton signed both the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, both of which are directly responsible for the economic crisis we now find ourselves in.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 6:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @SM: What has our leader done about that? He gave billions to Wall Street with no clear oversight. I saw a lady from the Federal Reserve say they have no idea what the banks used the money for last week. Nice giveaway huh? Wish the American people got checks to with as they please!

      Jul 28, 2009 at 7:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @SM: She would have gotten the public option, Senate wants to take that off the table along with no employer mandated coverage. Looks the same as what we have now. Once again, no leadership on health care.

      When Bush was President the ship had a captain with no anchor. Now the ship has an anchor but no captain, drifting aimlessly.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 7:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      Dude…either step up and work to help Obama make America better or SHUT THE FUCK UP!



      You all boo fucking hoo over your rights and the phone banks in California for your side were barely STAFFED. You all never went to places where you needed to talk to people who did not support you…NO YOU ATTACK PEOPLE WHO DO NOT SUPPORT YOU LIKE RABID DOGS.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 7:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      Hillary Clinton has so much baggage her Presidency would have been a joke with Bill back in the WH. She also would have thrown you under the bus for her precious healthcare.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 7:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      I will gladly help Obama with all of his agenda both with time and money once I have my rights. Until then, I am not in a position to do anything but wait and it’s not because I want to, it is because I have to.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 7:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @SM: She would have had health care done by now because she is a proven hard worker. She voted in the Senate yes or no, not present. She actually showed up for work! Hillary did not have all the religious entanglements Obama has, she would not be trying to appease the religious right, so I seriously doubt she would have thrown us under the bus or in this case the Obus.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 7:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @SM: I thought you cared about health care???

      Jul 28, 2009 at 7:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      Obama has not even picked out a Church.

      Eric Holder is the first person in history from the DOJ to testify on behalf of a bill. That bill was the Matthew Shepard Act.

      Since you hate Obama so much…I start voting REPUBLICAN for you ungrateful whiney babies.

      go change your diaper.

      fucking incredible…the democrats worked hard to put Obama in office for you all and you just spit….

      well…I’ll SPIT ON YOU

      Jul 28, 2009 at 7:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @SM: No Nancy Pelosi and Donna Brazil changed the rules mid-primary giving him the nomination. He was awarded votes he did not earn and to make sure delegates did not vote for the true leader they did a mock vote at the democratic convention.

      I DO NOT hate Obama, in fact I like him, I voted for him, I sent him money, and I just want him to keep all of his promises. (even the promises that vanished from Whitehouse.gov)

      You really should seek counseling on anger management, you foul language is very impolite.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 7:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      By the way, your precious Hillary was planning on winning healthcare reform as President by using religion and getting the support of people of faith.

      It would have been fun under the bus~

      Jul 28, 2009 at 7:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @SM: Funny how the state department was the first to bring gays equality to it’s employees. Just a coincidence huh? Getting support from religious people is not the same as give people like Rick Warren center stage at the inauguration. Even as Secretary of State, our Secretary did not forget us.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 7:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      right………By the way. Hillary has VISITED SADDLEBACK TOO!

      Clinton Hires Evangelical Consultant for Presidential Campaign
      An “evangelical consultant” has been hired by Hillary Clinton to help attract Christian conservatives in her likely 2008 presidential campaign.
      by Anne Thomas
      Posted: Wednesday, December 27, 2006, 9:45 (GMT)Font Scale:A A A

      An “evangelical consultant” has been hired by Hillary Clinton to help attract Christian conservatives in her likely 2008 presidential campaign.

      More than one-quarter of the USA’s voters identify themselves as evangelical, a voter bloc that has long been courted by Republicans.

      In addition, a similar political operative has successfully aided Democratic candidates in several states in the midterm elections.

      Clinton’s new hire is Burns Strider, an evangelical Christian who directs religious outreach for House Democrats and is the lead staffer for the Democrats’ Faith Working Group, headed by incoming Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina.

      Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the group last year when Democratic strategists observed that the party lost ground in the previous election in part because candidates failed to reach centrist and conservative voters in rural areas, who tend to be churchgoers concerned with moral issues, according to the Washington, D.C.-based publication The Hill.

      Strider was an aide to Pelosi when the group was formed and joined Clyburn’s staff as policy director of the Democratic Caucus earlier this year, the paper reported.

      “Observers of Clinton’s expressions of faith say religion has always been important to her, that she attended prayer group meetings while first lady, and that she joined a Senate prayer group shortly after winning election in 2000,” The Hill reports.

      “Reporters anticipating Clinton’s ’08 presidential run wrongly discount her expressions of faith as cynical political maneuvering,” the observers add.

      Clinton is not the only potential Democratic candidate for the White House to launch efforts to appeal to religious voters.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 7:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SM


      Hillary Clinton would have let nothing come in the way with her Health Care Platform. Not even you.

      She was going to use religion to influence conservatives also.


      Jul 28, 2009 at 8:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @SM: Visiting Saddleback is not giving Rick Warren center stage at a Presidential inauguration. Presidential candidates need to get support wherever they can.

      Hillary made an appearance at the Abby in West Hollywood which is a gay bar, did Obama?

      Jul 28, 2009 at 8:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul-kenon

      @InExile: So, Hillary is better that Obama coz she danced at a gay bar??? Man, Ijust love my gay brothers and sisters. we are sooooooooooosmart!

      Jul 28, 2009 at 8:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @Paul-kenon: She did not dance! She made a campaign visit during the primary to speak, meanwhile Obama was refusing to be interviewed by the Philadelphia Gay news and of coarse Hillary did give them an interview.

      My point is even during the primary Obama was distancing himself from our community. What we have seen since January is just more of the same. Talk is cheap, actions are what mean something.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 8:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      @InExile: Show me some action and some leadership on LGBT issues and he has my full support, until then no free pass based on faith.

      Jul 28, 2009 at 8:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.