Senate Members Block Repeal of DADT

[NightLad]

And I have a question for you all, just one.

But first, please take a moment to read this brief excerpt about Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach. You may have never heard his name before, but he has devoted the past 18 years to protecting your freedoms with his life.

"Born into an Air Force family — his father was a navigator and retired as a lieutenant colonel and his mother worked as a nurse — Fehrenbach maintains he has been discreet about his sexual orientation; his parents didn’t know was gay until mid-May, just before he went public in hopes of spurring a change to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law.

A year ago, though, his career came to a standstill when officials notified him that a civilian acquaintance had identified him as gay.

Fehrenbach’s experience as an instructor-level weapons systems officer included time in both the F-15E Strike Eagle and the EF-111 Raven. Missions took him over Baghdad during the 2003 invasion, above Afghanistan in 2002 and into the Balkans for Operation Allied Force in 1999.

He has 2,180 flying hours, nine Air Medals — one for heroism — and five Air Force Commendation Medals."
– Air Force Times (Read the full story here.)
​

You can watch an interview with him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVblHCc0doc

Now my question: who feels safer tonight since the reinforcement of DATA, ensuring that patriotic men and women, like Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, will continue to be kicked out of the Service?

 

[raisindot]

No comment, other than:

We may set a "closed thread" record here....



Jeff in Boston

 

[Tom Frost]

From the European POV I'd love to make a few sarcastic and witty remarks about USA fellows, BUT... the truth is here in Europe things are exactly the same.

I guess we don't learn the lessons from history. See, Alexander the Great, Iulius Caesar, almost all the Spartan army and so many other famous conquerors and military heroes were overtly gay or bisexual, which didn't seem to make them less efficient or lethal.

I never fully understood that Don't Ask, Don't tell thing. I'm horrified that someone can't make his/her sexual orientation public by fear of losing a job. But I guess here in Spain, at least, things are exactly the same: the first army officer to publicly admit he was gay was removed from active duty and somehow forced to quit.

 

[Falstaff]

I was operating under the illusion that this is a non-political board.

 

[norton]

I was operating under the illusion that this is a non-political board.

From Joel's Sticky at the top of the Barber Shop Forum:

"Just to be clear - very civil and gentlemanly discussions on current events/politics are welcome."

 

[NightLad]

I was operating under the illusion that this is a non-political board.

Actually, I regretted mentioning partisanship in the thread title. If I could I’d simply rename it, “DADT Repeal Blocked” or something along those lines. (If any mod would care to do so, I'd be grateful.)

As I said, I never intended this thread to be a discussion about partisanship. I did intend to highlight a very relevant and current event that is impacting the lives of many brave Servicemen and women who serve with distinction and put their lives on the line for America’s freedom and liberty.

I never fully understood that Don't Ask, Don't tell thing. I'm horrified that someone can't make his/her sexual orientation public by fear of losing a job. But I guess here in Spain, at least, things are exactly the same: the first army officer to publicly admit he was gay was removed from active duty and somehow forced to quit.

This isn't a new topic in America. In the 1970s, one of the best known gay men (next to Harvy Milk) was a Vietnam vet named Leonard Matlovich.

He made a memorable statement about his view on the military's policy toward gays in the service. Today it graces his tombstone, pictured below.

 

[professorchaos]

Actually, I regretted mentioning partisanship in the thread title. If I could I’d simply rename it, “DADT Repeal Blocked” or something along those lines. (If any mod would care to do so, I'd be grateful.)

Done.

Thanks to all for keeping the thread civil thus far.

 

[The Nid Hog]

Much like the integration of the Armed forces, I think that this will inevitably succeed. My feeling is that those who block or obstruct the repeal of DADT are pandering to the baser impulses of their constituents. Personally, I think that we as a nation are better than this. I look forward to the day when this will be behind us and we can attend to the pressing problems that beset our country, not waste our time on the divisive tactics employed by demagogues.

 

[jazzman]

Much like the integration of the Armed forces, I think that this will inevitably succeed. My feeling is that those who block or obstruct the repeal of DADT are pandering to the baser impulses of their constituents. Personally, I think that we as a nation are better than this. I look forward to the day when this will be behind us and we can attend to the pressing problems that beset our country, not waste our time on the divisive tactics employed by demagogues.

Right.

I think this a non-issue for most people in the age group that enters military service, and a big issue for folks in mine--about twice that age. But, in an election year, politicians will use anything they think will get some votes. Just one more reason to encourage young voters to go to the polls.

 

[SRock]

Right.

I think this a non-issue for most people in the age group that enters military service, and a big issue for folks in mine--about twice that age. But, in an election year, politicians will use anything they think will get some votes. Just one more reason to encourage young voters to go to the polls.

I agree

 

[Redd]

This was a non-issue for me. I am as hetero as they come, but I lived and worked with several sailors who most of us knew were gay (and a few who came out after their enlistment ended). They were all great guys and excellent sailors. I consider them all my friends.

I am officially embarrassed by my Senate. Shame on you, United States Senate.

 

[damooshki]

This bill WAS NOT blocked due to the repeal of DADT being attached to it. There was just so much else attached to this bill that had absolutely nothing to do with military funding (which the bill was the "Military Funding Bill"). I personally don't have any issue with repealing DADT and neither did most of the senators who voted against it. Rather they took issue with the many other attachments to the bill which included a large amount of unnecessary spending which will not improve or assist the military in any way, under the guise of funding our troops and repealing DADT. This bill was a political maneuver. But rather, to try to make those look bad who voted against it because of DADT repeal being attached.

 

[castlecraver]

View attachment 124380
Pretty much all that needs to be said, AFAIC.

 

[mretzloff]

Why are threads that intend to do nothing but stir up controversy, such as this one, allowed to continue? Eventually someone will bite and then the whole forum looks less stellar.

 

[The Nid Hog]

Why are threads that intend to do nothing but stir up controversy, such as this one, allowed to continue? Eventually someone will bite and then the whole forum looks less stellar.

Up until now, everything has been fine. No need to snipe and change the tone. Obviously the mods have their hands on the tiller.

 

[ctr]

I feel neither more safe, nor less safe.

The question is not one of patriotism, courage, or a desire to serve. The issue is following the rules. Our military functions on good order and discipline - in short rules. The rules are known when a service member joins the military. Infractions of any rules will be met with disciplinary action up to and including discharge from service.

There can be no leeway in the following of rules. Following orders is critical to the success of the military, its missions, and our very democracy. So with all due respect to the OP, and the discharged service member, the conditions of discharge and prior record are irrelevant. The service member broke the rules for years, was caught, and acted upon.

I understand and appreciate the rule and the reasoning behind it from experience. 100% focus on the task without undue distractions is mandatory. It is simply too dangerous otherwise. The military is not like a regular job or a vocation one clocks out of at the end of the work day. It is a very different world.

This is my opinion, and I would ask that it is respected as others seek respect for their viewpoints.

 

[BCatl]

Much like the integration of the Armed forces, I think that this will inevitably succeed. My feeling is that those who block or obstruct the repeal of DADT are pandering to the baser impulses of their constituents. Personally, I think that we as a nation are better than this. I look forward to the day when this will be behind us and we can attend to the pressing problems that beset our country, not waste our time on the divisive tactics employed by demagogues.

+1. This represents my view as well.

 

[instpasr]

I've served with both hetero and homosexual soldiers and I can tell you that they bleed the same when they're wounded in combat. One of my best soldiers was gay, got out of the Army after his commitment was up and was later recalled. He could have outed himself, he didn't because he had his duty. Bottom line whom ever a person choses to sleep with should be a private matter. Funny how 20 extra years of life changes our point of view.

 

[The Nid Hog]

I've served with both hetero and homosexual soldiers and I can tell you that they bleed the same when they're wounded in combat. One of my best soldiers was gay, got out of the Army after his commitment was up and was later recalled. He could have outed himself, he didn't because he had his duty. Bottom line whom ever a person choses to sleep with should be a private matter. Funny how 20 extra years of life changes our point of view.

I agree completely. And I think that people would be well served to think about the future. I don't have a Ouiji Board, but I think that this is coming no matter what. Why not be on the right side of history? People should look at Robert Byrd, who was remembered for a great many accomplishments, but the issue of his Klan membership always came up. I wouldn't want to have to look my kids in the face and explain to them why I supported segregation back in the day.

While I to some degree understand the argument about following rules, one should also look at history. Integration of the military wasn't based on a change in recruiting in which prospective recruits were no longer asked their race. Barriers to race were removed. I think that's what's on the horizon here too. They aren't going to simply repeal DADT. Rules and regulations that pertain to sexual orientation will also be changed.

That will not, however, effect rules that regulate good order and discipline. It would be ridiculous to imagine that the military wasn't rife with charges based on harrassment and violations by heterosexual service members. In fact, back in the Old Corps, I rarely saw anybody prosecuted or discharged for homosexuality, although I certainly (as I now realize) knew more than a few gay Marines. But plenty of people went downrange for man-on-woman infractions. I don't think that getting rid of DADT and all related rules are going to change the military--performances at 8th and I aren't going to be like a parade on Castro Street. Marines are Marines.

 

[knlgskr]

Never has and never will make any difference to me what someone's sexual preference might be and unless they volunteer the information; I don't ask because it isn't any of my business. The same was true during military service, those who might have a different sexual preference kept it to themselves and I did likewise; not much of topic for discussion. Change the regulations and allow anyone who is capable of serving to serve; probably won't be as much of a problem as is currently thought but politicians can't/won't let a crisis pass/go to waste. G. I.s will sort it out among themselves if allowed to do so; always have, always will.