It's been a year and a half since Democrats cleared the way for eliminating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and nearly nine months since the policy was scrapped altogether. All the while, conservative Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), warned of horrible consequences if gay and lesbian soldiers were permitted to serve openly.
We all heard the arguments: ending DADT would hurt recruitment, undermine morale, weaken unit cohesion, and undercut readiness at a time of war. Disregarding the judgment of the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs, Republicans said -- some even continue to say -- President Obama's policy was too big a risk.
How are those predictions holding up? Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, citing a new Defense Department analysis, explained yesterday that DADT repeal hasn't run into any snags at all.
The secretary said he received the report on repeal implementation [Wednesday], and it shows repeal is going "very well" and according to the department's plans.
"It's not impacting on morale. It's not impacting on unit cohesion. It is not impacting on readiness," he said.
Panetta said he credits military leaders for effective repeal planning. "Very frankly, my view is that the military has kind of moved beyond it," he said. "It's become part and parcel of what they've accepted within the military."
Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared at the same press conference, and told reporters he hasn't seen "any negative effect on good order and discipline" resulting from the repeal.
The Pentagon's report comes about a month after McClatchy published a report that found DADT's repeal hasn't affected military retention or recruitment, and military officials can't identify any discipline issues relating to gays serving openly.
McClatchy sought comment from John McCain, who apparently did something very unusual for the senator: he turned down a chance to talk to the media.
The way our political discourse works, we'll probably never hear any regrets from the Republicans who fought tooth and nail to stop Obama from ending the discriminatory policy, and they'll never explain how or why they were so very wrong.
But whether they want to talk about it or not, the evidence is clear that those opposed to DADT repeal made all kinds of predictions, none of which turned out to be true.
Leave a Comment:
So once again the Republicans running in circles screaming "Be Afraid!, Be Afraid!" has had no effect on reality.
Big suprise there.
I have a dream that someday I will live in a world where the fact that Republican predictions invariably and without fail, turn out to be absolutely and completely wrong will actually have some effect on our public discourse and public opinion.
Amen brother...
The military is mostly Young People, and that group does not give a Flyin' F about teh gay.
Where's Paul Ryan on this? I thought for sure he'd be telling us how the Pentagon is lying about this too!
Beat me to it. Curses!
And I give credit and applaud Romney for coming out with the repeal idea...
Ohw...wait...his etch-a-sketch moment has not gotten to this part, yet....Ok, I'll just wait, then.
Things I was told would happen:
-Gays would be having sex while on duty which would be unfair to the straights who wouldn't be having the sex
-Gays would start describing their sexual encounters in graphic detail (like straight males often do already) and this would destroy unit cohesion and/or convert people into the gay lifestyle
-People would declare themselves gay so that they could gain benefits from their military roommate
-Gays would not be able to keep themselves under control while in uniform (would be too eager to engage in PDA, have sex, engage in inappropriate contact w/ other service members, etc.)
-Same-sex rapes would skyrocket
-Gays would be checking out straights in locker rooms and other more intimate areas and this would create a form of reverse sexual harassment
-Gays are not as capable of working as hard as straight people and/or gay people are more brutal than straight people thereby interfering w/ the quality of work and/or increasing the instances of US military brutality and torture
-Gays being able to live on base together would expose children to the gay lifestyle
-People would stop volunteering to re-enlist in the military or even enlist in the military and this would hinder the military's ability to meet quotas and/or it would threaten the military because good, experienced leaders would quit in droves
-The military would become weaker because the men joining would be more effeminate
-The military would jump through all of these hoops to provide same-sex benefits to gays and then, of course, a gay person would just decide one morning that he/she was no longer gay and then what was going to happen?
-The military would have to get rid of it's uniform requirements since gay people would insist on wearing leather thongs or other outfits that currently are banned while on duty (this one has always been my favorite)
-The military would have to segregate the gays into one chamber and then the straights into another chamber (referring to bathrooms and sleeping quarters) in order to prevent gay people from raping straight people
-(Attached to the one above) the military would now have to create bathrooms especially for transgendered people
-The military would now have to remove all of it's other limitations on persons who join since being gay is apparently equivalent to having felonies on your record or abusing drugs
-The military would no longer be able to discharge people for immoral conduct (immoral here meaning conduct that the military considers inappropriate for persons in uniform)
And what happened really? Nothing. I am surprised that "Gays would insist on Gay Pride parades during military reviews" was not on the list. ;-)
No, no gay pride parades during reviews. However there was the argument that gays would insist that regular military honorary parades also be gay pride parades. On this particular one the argument was that gays would insist on walking down the street w/ a rainbow banner and/or in thongs and other dress to celebrate the gay movement. The idea, apparently, is that gays would insist on having a gay float attached to the marching band and people did not want their WWII vets being remembered by a bunch of half-naked oiled up men on a float shaped like male genitalia.
Just so ya know these are just the arguments I saw here on Newsvine (although, obviously, only some of these on Maddowblog- Maddow does not seem to attract the most moronic of Newsvine posters (thank god))
And I thought I had come up with the most absurd thing possible! But it seem reality is weirder than even my imagination. That is too funny.
Well it should be noted that I am being somewhat hyperbolic and sarcastic. I can't take arguments like this serious so it's hard for me to be more objective in regurgitating these comments w/o adding my own commentary. To be fair the argument was simply that people were worried that gays would insist on there being some sort of gay recognition float or group marching or banner or something to that effect at a parade honoring the end of a war/vets/etc. In reality they are probably not thinking oiled up gay men on a penis shaped parade float...but who the hell knows? Even if there is a banner saying "honor our fallen gay soldiers" I cannot, for the life of me, understand what would be so evil and awful and terrible about that. But basically the argument is that people who have had family members lost in wars feel that it would somehow disrespect the sacrifices of their loved ones by having something recognize that some who have died and will die are going to also be GLBTQ.
I find it interesting how final and certain all of you are. Does the military track gays now? So, are barracks fights being tracked as possible hate crimes now??
Panetta is as ignorant as he chooses to be, so, from his point of view everything is just hunky-dory, and if there is bad news, he doesn't want to hear it.
I don't think the problems will be as great as the detractors said, but there will be resentment, I guarantee it, and fights will happen. Additionally, there are already pockets of gayness in the Military. In the Navy, the Administrative Specialists that are General Unrestricted Line are notoriously gay and advance as couples in many cases. A friend of mine's wife left the service because she was in that specialty and was constantly being unjustly graded below gay peers.
Sorry folks, keep drinking the Kool-aid, but the absence of bad news does not prove that a negative impact has not been felt, especially when the message is being so tightly managed.
churches, for years have been running our lives, now that thay are in washington, thay are more impowered to do more. Now it's do as I say, not as I do is commingout loud and clear. Catholic's with their gay priest, and a pope who was a German. killing robbing, and raping women and children, are now calling gay people sinners. Mormans who lived with many wives, and having sex with their children, are calling others sinners. In fact, all churches are now going against the book thay call the bible. Moses set his people free and now all churches are putting them back into bondage. When adam and eve, left the garden , god said to go forth and be fruitful. Now it is a sin.
these churches want to have back the home for unwanted children, so as to reep money from the government. I see no church in todays world that is not part of the poor. When Jim baker was asked why he had so many cars, his responce was "you dont expect jesus to walk" So now all of the heads of churches feel thaythay are christ re-born. shame is on the churches of this country.
The pentagon is lying. there are so many problems, in fact that is why Paul Ryan is asking to give them more money than they requested...they have to have ways to combat all these serious, serious issues. The GOP's pre stance on this was more than ludicrous, and johnny boy now not wanting to talk is hilarious. The GOP morality police really do need to get a life!
BDT ('bout damn time)
But then again, maybe we need to have some republican congressmen and senators check out their restrooms to make sure there are 'no wide stances'.
What did Jesus say about homosexuality? He is your hero right? He said NOTHING,NADA, SQUAT.
So, I guess he agreed with the prevailing Old Testament Bible opinion on the matter? Is that your point....?
I would suggest that the Dems put together an all time greatest hits of Republican "Be afraid" statements as an ad. The final voice over can say "Chicken Little thought the sky was falling too." Or something similar.
So when John McCain had the opportunity recently to talk about this issue he refused? I think that shows he sticks to his convictions: "Don't Ask. Don't Tell."
See, no worse than allowing blacks into the same battles and barracks with whites.
This should put to rest any kind of full on panic "what about societal order…"
Reality, it's reality and resistance and rebellion toward reality seems futile… uh oh, the borg... Star Trek flash… oh Roddenberry
How is it that Maddow fans can always find a way to work in Star Trek???? We are such nerds we even outnerd ourselves ;-)
The thing is gay people already exist. I don't think people realize that if gay people are already serving in the military then acknowledging open service isn't going to change anything from current existence. I think it's the same w/ allowing gays to wed. Gay people already exist. They are already dating and getting married and having families. Therefore any harm that could be caused by gays (and no I don't think gays cause any harm directly to society, but I am saying that if you sincerely believe that gays will cause harm) such harm would already be occurring. And since society has not collapsed causing the apocalypse of zombie mutant ninjas then we can only assume recognition of gay rights will not lead to this problem.
I am honored to be among nerds :D.
Yes, the existence was only hidden, to which the opposers would like to return. I know there are many still in the closet, so I try to keep in mind some folks feel so fearful to come out. Once the reality is accepted as it is, those people can come out of hiding. The president gives more acceptability, which can only be better for those in hiding.
I thought DADT repeal was very logical, especially in view of all those other countries with a military that accepts LGBTQ people. Once again the person is accepted as they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service
What negative societal disorder are you looking to happen? It has been 9 months...? Do you think that maybe no rioting in the streets isn't really a good negative indicator? It takes a awhile for Gays to come out and for recruiting to see a normal flow of openly gay recruits. I would expect a rise in deployment issues such as fights, friendly fire, murders, assaults etc. to occur over the next five years or so.
Are they opening the disciplinary records for the Military for review, or are we basing this declaration of Victory purely on Leon Pannetta's unbiased and completely without slant opinion during this election year....?
Speaking of gays in the military. I have no confirmation on these gents, but I do agree that it's about one of the cutest things ever.
Uhmmm. . .Can I just say that I love this photo!!!
For once, I agree with the liberals - Sparta had a famous fighting unit that was one of their best and was 100% homosexual. I talked to my dad about this months ago, and it sounds like banning homosexuality in the military was an emotional decision after a very severe series of male rape cases in the 70's, much like how removing guns from everywhere has made us so much safer and we're so much better off with a welfare state than we were when neighbors took care of each other. I also agree that we should have sexual education, and when we're done teaching them how to use condoms safely, we should teach them how to use firearms safely, but then again, I suppose it's so much worse to get a girl pregnant then it is to kill somebody with a misfiring gun.
Umm no. Gays were openly banned from serving in the US military dating back to WWI. More than likely they were also barred from serving prior to that, but I don't recollect there being an actual act by Congress instigating as much. Prior to the world wars the United States did not have a long standing army and during the wars we had to draft millions of citizens to fill that void. The US military and congress needed to put together a means by which to determine what soldiers were fit for service and what soldiers were not. It is from this that the ASVAB and the waiver system came into being. Homosexuals were determined to be unfit for service and the Congress passed an official act banning gays outright.
I should also mention that crime has gone down even w/ your apparent argument that guns have been removed. Last time I checked guns have not been banned, but ya know even if they have that would mean banning guns had the opposite effect you're claiming.
And the government giving out assistance does not prevent you from helping your neighbor. It doesn't stop me and it doesn't stop my neighbors so I dunno what your problem is here. It absolutely astonishes me how you can deride the government in one breadth while then simultaneously ignoring that if the government is as bad as you say it is then this would necessitate that people- who by the way aren't forced to receive government benefits- would avoid the government like the plague. Yet the fact that they do not suggests otherwise. When we had a "neighbor" dependent society, ftr, we had more people dying, getting sick, and more homeless persons than we do today. You know that agency called AARP? The old people's organization? AARP started because we used to have an epidemic of homeless old people who were left to die out on the streets. In 1916 in fact in New York city they had an incident in which almost 10,000 people died in 1 week because they burned alive on New York City rooftops. These were all homeless people. I mean yeah if you wanna complain about how the system constantly needs reformed to keep it adequate OK that's a fair complaint. But talking about "the day when neighbors cared for each other" is just silly. The days you're talking about neighbors didn't care about each other and the government caring for you doesn't prevent neighbors from caring for each other. You are basically being nostalgic for an America that has never existed. What is more you are only advocating this precisely because you don't want to care for your neighbor, which is even more confusing and contradictory.
I don't think you should teach people how to use firearms in public school. But I do agree that people who want to purchase a gun should be required to get a license from the state and to register their handguns (like we do w/ motor vehicles). Just like w/ cars we require people to be competent w/ a vehicle before we allow them to get a license (or well we at least make them demonstrate competency- it's at least making them show that they know some things). We should have a similar system to do as much in the states.
Cheers and applause for The Mouzer!!!!
I think people purchasing a gun for protection, or whatever reason should also be taught the laws about what happens if you do kill a person when defending yourself or whomever, whatever. I am not really an anti gun person, per se. But there are consequences to shooting at people, especially in public places. Stray bullets that don't exactly hit the target, but some other bystanders. Then cases of wrong identity or misinterpreting the situation. The hero can turn into the goat quickly.
Jeremy, You need to read history yourself. Spartan's practiced pederasty which allowed young warriors to "mentor" a young boy. This frequently included sex. The Spartans also had a requirement that a warrior's duty was to take a wife and have children. So, they were not gay they way this policy is written, but are pedophiles.
...and working along similar pedophiles in Afghanistan has resulted in a lot of friction between our troops and the pederast afghan's.
Maybe the presence of gays and lesbians in the military will discourage enlistment of those types of @!$%#s who urinate on dead corpses and who murder innocent Afghans in death squads or lunatic solo night raids. Those who are seriously twisted crusaders for god are the homophobes, and we don't want them in the military anyway. They don't have the mental capacity to be serious, professional, trained warriors fit to represent our nation with dignity and decency.
Nine Months, and the MSM and Leon Panetta are declaring success. Super. Sounds a lot like the declared success on the Economy last year.
What heppened when US troops were put alongside Afghan troops? Well, it seems US troops don't like serving along side practicing pederasts. Afghan's tastes for young boys made US troops want to kill them.
Unfortunately, the MSM doesn't want to report on that either.
So, expect many Ministry of Truth pronouncements like the above...and most troops will still practice the "10 foot rule" with their less discrete gay platoon mates.