Americans have come a long way on gays in the military
By Steve Benen Monday Jul 21, 2008 7:30amWhen Americans were asked in 1993 about whether U.S. troops should be able to serve, even if they’re gay, a majority (55%) were opposed to the idea. About eight years later, in 2001, public opinion had already shifted a great deal — 62% of Americans supported gays serving openly in the Armed Forces, while 35% did not.
And now, as hearings on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" are poised to begin on the Hill, public opinion on the issue is practically one-sided -- in a progressive direction.
Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.
Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces. Shortly after he took office in 1993, Clinton faced strong resistance to his campaign pledge to lift the military’s ban on allowing gay people to enlist. At that time, 67 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives opposed the idea. A majority of independents, 56 percent, and 45 percent of Democrats also opposed changing the policy.
Today, Americans have become more supportive of allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the armed forces. Support from Republicans has doubled over the past 15 years, from 32 to 64 percent. More than eight in 10 Democrats and more than three-quarters of independents now support the idea, as did nearly two-thirds of self-described conservatives.
That’s really quite extraordinary. Get this: even 57% of evangelical Protestants support gays serving openly in the military.
On the one hand, it’s a very encouraging development. It’s hard to know what prompted the reversal, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it had something to do with the need for well-trained, physically-fit, patriotic Americans volunteering for duty during two wars, regardless of those Americans’ sexual orientation.
And on the other hand, we have John McCain and the Republican Party establishment.
The poll found that nearly two-thirds of Republicans support allowing gays to serve openly in the military. But on this, rank-and-file Republicans are way ahead of their leadership. The Bush White House, for example, continues to insist that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” remains in place. And then, more importantly, there’s John McCain.
When the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network asked McCain to talk about his position on the issue, McCain responded by calling gay soldiers an “intolerable risk.”
In an April 16 letter to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), McCain says the law, passed in 1993, “unambiguously maintains that open homosexuality within the military services presents an intolerable risk to morale, cohesion and discipline.” Senator McCain goes on to incorrectly assert that the U.S. Supreme Court “has ruled that the military may constitutionally discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.” […]
“Most importantly, the national security of the United States, not to mention the lives of our men and women in uniform, are put at grave risk by policies detrimental to the good order and discipline which so distinguish America’s Armed Services.”
First, McCain cites a Supreme Court ruling that doesn’t exist. Strike one.
Second, McCain calls gays an “intolerable risk” to military morale, cohesion, and discipline. Really? According to a Zogby poll of active personnel conducted, 73% of military members say they are comfortable around lesbians and gays. For that matter, more than one in five U.S. troops already knows a gay person in their unit, including combat units. So where’s the “intolerable risk”? Strike two.
Third, McCain emphasizes “national security” as a rationalization for discrimination. In what way, exactly, does it improve our national security for, say, Bleu Copas, a decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist who joined the Army after the 9/11 attacks, to be thrown out of the military for being gay, despite his role in helping translate intercepted messages from possible terrorists? Are we more or less safe with Copas as a civilian? Strike three.
There isn’t even a political upside — Americans overwhelmingly agree with Barack Obama on this, and have concluded that gays should be able to serve openly.
I’d remind McCain that the first U.S. Marine seriously wounded in Iraq was Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who lost his leg when he stepped on a land mine. Because Alva is gay, McCain apparently thinks Sgt. Alva had no business joining the U.S. military. That somehow, his sacrifice was in vain because he shouldn’t have been allowed to wear a uniform in the first place.
Americans are, to our enormous credit, leaving McCain and his antiquated, discriminatory worldview behind. We’re a stronger country for it.
Login or Register to post comments.
I thought "don't ask, don't tell" was the name of the program used to gather intel for justifying war with iraq?
*rimshot*
Sitemonitor, I know this is off topic, but it's just too infuriating. If you choose to delete it, at least consider including it in your news roundup.
And, please watch the video:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1004040.html
U.S. tax dollars continue to support this.
It’s hard to know what prompted the reversal...
LACK OF FRESH BODIES! Repukes wont fight, they'll just instigate.
Listen, to avoid having to start the draft--which would end the war in the Middle East real damn quick--I'm surprised the GOP hasn't gotten downright gay-friendly. ANYTHING to avoid having to draft rich college boys and sons of congressmen.
It’s hard to know what prompted the reversal…
Television. In 1993, there were FEW, if any, open gay characters on TV (I mean, openly, not the queesn on Hollywood Squares pretending) . . . then came Ellen outing herself, Rosie, Will & Grace, and a flood of others.
People began realizing the obvious - gay folk are everywhere (and it helped that more family members are coming out now during this period) and you know what? They're okay. They're not that different.
Television and the fact that most Americans have at least one gay family member or one gay friend. That's what did it.
And what was the old joke, maybe it was sir George Carlin - "Homosexuals want to get into the two things most straight guys are trying to get out of - marriage and the military!"
Yay, now gays can get our asses shot off like everybody else. Something I'd like to hear would be women getting full rights to serve in the army. Feminists should have the right to get killed just like everybody else from a bullet or shrapnel or bomb, particularly since the manly man masculists are staying way the hell away from the war zone. Equal rights for all!
I don't know if this has been covered before but it literally JUST occurred to me the incredible irony of conservative republicans supporting "don't ask, don't tell".
Prospective Gay Soldier: I want to serve in the military.
Republican Lawmaker: No, its immoral, stop asking. Now shut up and blow me. And don't tell.
Simon White-Thatch Potentloins @ 4:
its_me_ya_krazy @ 3:
You guys are spot on.
Isn't it far more dangerous to allow women to serve in the military?
I mean just look at all the rape that occurs at DOD bases, not to mention the deaths of the marines in NC.
I just think the funniest thing is that we let gang members serve in the military, but not gang bangers!!!
Check out these cool photos of Obama and McOld. Notice that Mcold is wearing a seatbelt with a pen in his hand a-la-Bob Dole. Caption: "With McCain, Bush is always in the driver's seat."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/The_day_in_images.html#comments
Huge loss for homophobic republicans.
JimboSlice @ 9:
It may be, but hell, if we're gonna have equal rights for everyone, everyone gets their asses blown off together. Make the draft include women and gays along with the usual bit and we'll have some fun when the Iran War starts. A male-only draft is gender discrimination and should be stopped. ;)
The Ancient Greeks used homosexuality to their advantage.
When the topic of homosexuality in the militaries of Ancient Greece is discussed, the Sacred Band of Thebes is usually considered as the prime example of how the Ancient army use homoerotic or homosexual relationships between soldiers in a troop to boost the fighting spirit of their militaries. These bonds, perhaps somewhat inspired by episodes from Greek mythology, such as the heroic relationship between Achilles and Patroclus in the Iliad by Homer, were thought to boost morale as well as bravery.
It's an interesting topic and needs much discussion. Being gay should be acceptable (more Congress-people could come out of the closet instead of living the self-loathing life they do)
♫..Bangkok Bob..♫ @ 13:
Not just the Greeks, either, the Persians had things of this nature, as did many cultures of Bronze-Age sophistication. When the only elite soldiers are rich prissies who'd rather do other stuff, you've gotta keep them motivated somehow. Gay soldier bands, however, were a primarily Western Eurasian phenomenon, and didn't pop up as much in Eastern and Southern Eurasia (Southwest Asia is included in Western Eurasia), the Northern, Eastern, Western, Central, or Southern African regions, or the Pacific Islands, or for that matter Pacific South America or Turtle Island.
Now this is the kind of wedge issue I like. Force the Repigs to show what troglodytes they are or force them to piss off their Christianist base. Let the fun begin.
Maybe the military will get more stylish uniforms now.
General_Rennenkampf @ 14:
Society here in South East Asia is very accepting of homosexuality. There is even a class of homosexuals that are looked at as "Special". Here we call them Katoi's and it not in the least a derogatory term.
c. atrox @ 16:
Good one ... but your correct.
Filthy Harry @ 7:
Prospective Gay Soldier: I want to serve in the military.
Republican Lawmaker: No, its immoral, stop asking; we're doing fine recruiting convicts anyway.
JimboSlice @ 9:
No. This goes to show that it's far more dangerous to have men who rape in the military. Rather than blame women who are raped, why not pin the blame where it really belongs?
Sue @ 20:
I agree, pointing out the blatant hypocrisy and I never blamed women for getting raped, that would be John S. McCain's job.
I would like to believe that Americans have grown up and wised up, but there are so many other things that make me doubt that, so I'm not sure.
As I understand it Sen. Obama is going to hold a news conference at ten o'clock this morning in whatever country he will be in at that time. According to our good *unbiased folks on Morning Joe, the press is going to attack him on the issue of the surge etc.
* snark
General_Rennenkampf @ 6:
Women on the battle field face as many as three enemies in Iraq: the insurgents, their own fellow troopers, and the unchecked, unregulated, US-paid Mercenaries. If a woman GI blew away an attacker, she'd do life...
Guys, you need to see this racist sh*t:
http://kevinbryant.com/2008/07/18/vacation-and-funny-picture/
Un-effing-believable.
Some people, man.... I just don't know anymore...
A line from a movie (LoTR):
The day someone can properly explain to me how being gay interferes with their ability to protect their nation with their life, or how being gay makes national defense inapplicable to them, that is the day I will see this as anything more than a wedge issue intended to take attention away from very real crimes that have so far gone unpunished.
♫..Bangkok Bob..♫ @ 13:
Provijng again, since pre-history, when you go to war, you fight for you buddies, to keep the guy next to you alive so there's somebody watching your back; not for any abstract crap like patriotism, freedom, or god...
♫..Bangkok Bob..♫ @ 17:
From what I've read of Kathoeys, they seem to be more of a third-gender than a Western-style homosexuality. The Kathoeys are quite interesting, to say the least, and it's worth noting that in the entire Middle East, including Westernized, secular Israel, the only state that has any sort of protection of transgender rights is Iran.
That's because the gays are long guys.
And in the lesbian shower rooms they're going to have to keep one eye peeled for hidden cameras.
A marine friend of mine put it this way: "In combat, my life and the lives of all my marines depend on every person doing the best possible job. So I want the best person, male or female, gay or straight. Anything less is affirmative action for less capable straight males."
Homosexuals and epileptics were frequent choices for priests in ancient religions.
woody, tokin librul @ 23:
Very sadly true. Even worse is when women GIs get involved in combat and then can't get psychiatric help because women can't get in combat, according to legality. :rolleyes.:
ysbaddaden @ 30:
Depends on the ancient religions, some of the more ascetic European religions were like modern-day Catholics in terms of the requirements for their "priesthood" whereas in ancient mainstream European religion (Greco-Roman), epilepsy and a few other diseases were caused by Dionysus and Poseidon. I much prefer the ancients' attitude towards soldiers (i.e. wanna join the army? We'll let you) over our modern version.
General_Rennenkampf:
my response
Reno @ 33:
I've responded as well, and mine is currently in moderation.
Maybe its' time we stopped discussing who will make appropriate cannon fodder (or, I guess now it's IED fodder) and tried to figure out a way to get our government and their corporate masters to stop waging war for profit!
ysbaddaden @ 30:
Seems they still are, too bad they just can't state the fact.
Re: Ivan @ 24
Yeah, that is some disgusting shite. Some of the comments are even worse. I definitely sent Bryant a scathing email/comment just now...whichever one of his staffers reads it will probably get to the words "You should be ashamed of yourself" right after "as an elected official" and just trash it...c'est la vie.
liberal traitor @ 37:
This is what Southerners used to call n*gger baiting in a less enlightened time. And I see that Mr. Bryant would have us in the South jump head first into politics of fear related to blacks and probably even Jim Crow again. Our shame still needs dealing with with just blacks, let alone Indians.
You have openly gay people in the military in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Demark, Germany, South Africa, the Czech Republic, Israel, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, France, Spain, Estonia, Lithuania... and so forth.
If gays are an "intolerable risk", why is it the USA has no hesitation asking these countries for military allegiance?
Alexdem @ 39:
Logic and reason, my friend, are never used in politics.
The epitaph on the headstone of Leonard Matlovic (?sp?), TSGT, USAF, a military policeman in the USAF who served in Vietnam, reads: (possibly paraphrased; my memory isn't perfect)
"They gave me a medal for killing two men, and a court-martial for loving one."
Kinda says it all, right?
32 General_Rennenkampf
I'm refering to pre-classical religions, primarily of Europe.
Oddly enough, one of the more restrained religious rites were for Aphrodites/Venus.
They've found sites of Eurasian shamans where apparently they threw cannabis seeds into the fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--gK-K01tzc
As a vet I wouldn't have wanted openly gays in my unit. Unit cohesion is extremely important to be effective. It would cause a lot of problems Im sure. I like the current policy, dont ask, dont tell. If your gay you can serve, but keep it to yourself..
Ivan @ 24:
He's a South Carolina Republican from a bumfuck district, are you surprised? Go to his site and you will see he is also a big supporter of the that other southern Republican racist Jesse Helms. If he could get by with it I'm sure he would have a picture of himself with a white sheet over his head on his site.
Is it too late to allow South Carolina succeed from the nation?
ysbaddaden @ 42:
Which is what I'm referring to as well as the more mainstream religion. In a sense, the US in the early 21st Century is a good model for classical Rome, there's a mainstream religion that (to very grossly oversimplify) can leave a lot of people dissatisfied and so they turn to the new cults, a great deal of discomfort with the traditional stories prompting a lack of love among the elite, plenty of people attracted to exotic older Eastern cults, and general attitudes of skepticism among the wealthy. Curious, isn't it?
Or to put it another way.. the discrimination of gays in the military is a big joke.
You'd think they'd have gotten it by now, 25 years since Corporal Klinger in M*A*S*H hung up his dress.
JimboSlice @ 21:
I see the anti-gays and anti-women in the military arguments as pretty consistent. In both cases, it is argued that either women or gays are "the problem" because of the way some men might react to their presence. With women, it's that men won't respect them or will rape them or won't trust their abilities, yadaydadayada. With gays it's that their presence will make straight men uncomfortable, undermine morale, straight men won't respect gays, will harass them, etc. In both cases, the problem is the supposed response of some straight men, but that's not where the focus is.
And, I'm all for drafting women alongside men. Women are still killed and raped in wars en masse regardless whether they're serving in the military. Putting them in a uniform and arming them at least gives them more of an option of fighting back.
Sue @ 47:
Very good point, Sue. One of the old "benefits" that people had for war in the 1st Century was what happened to the women of the conquered. Nowadays, if the women can shoot back, I'm all for it.
The national security argument is a joke. When I was in the Canadian Forces (before the court ruling allowing openly gay folks to serve), I was interviewed by an agent for a routine security check on another member. Some of the questions, I realized, were trying to find out if I thought the guy might be gay. After the interview, I asked why people still cared, and I was given the "If an enemy finds out they are gay, they can be blackmailed" line. I pointed out that this is only true so long as the military cares they're a homosexual.
In other words, the only reason that gay people can be considered a security risk...is because the military considers being gay a security risk.
General_Rennenkampf @ 6:
Women are getting killed in Iraq. I new a couple of gay people that served in the military and retired. They did their jobs well. Most soldiers don't care if a soldier is gay as long as they are not hit on. Just like the straight soldiers it is a small part of their life. I don't think we go around asking straights about their sex. At least the people I was around didn't.
Mike @ 43:
People like you seemed to have problems with your own sexuality if you are worried about some gay person sharing a area with you. Think about it. Is that all you think about all day long or are you worried about doing your job. I rather have a gay person in my unit than a rapist or a racist.
Bajaboy @ 41:
Gay men and women should abstain from the military until they are granted their basic rights as Americans.Something about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Oh, goody, goody! So gays won't have have marriage or inheritence rights, but they can still be serve or (or be drafted) and fight and die for a country where the likes of James Dobson and Right Wing talk show hosts can put them down whenever they like.
There are no gay politics in a foxhole... Noone cares who is sleeping with whom on liberty when the shit is waay deep...
Annd, most everyone loves Jesus and God in those situations too.. mostly. Doesn't mean the cloud fairy will save your ass any more than that belief kicking in means god will punish you for standing on the line with a fag... The only thing that matters when the chips are down is that you know your job and can do it without panicing... Which WILL get yours and that fags ass killed period... Regardless of who is a nice guy or who sleeps around.. with either sex or goes to sunday prayer service e.v.er.y.t.i.m.e. it's called sunday mornings.... Funny thing is, I figured this much out a long time ago....Didn't need a politician or a think tank focus group or some report or a freaking nanny to tell me this simple truth......JD
To quote Chris Rock:
"If they wanna fight, let 'em fight, 'cause I ain't fightin'... I ain't shootin' nobody, so call me a f****t. When the war's over, I'll be the f****t with two legs."
LeftieLady @ 52:
I thought it was the pursuit of tail.
Mike @ 43:
If you can't get over your bigotry and insecurity about serving with a gay soldier, then you probably should've stayed out of the military anyway. I served with gay soldiers and never had a problem; my grandfather had no problem with black soldiers, though many of his comrades did. Don't use the 'Unit Cohesion' bullshit to justify your small mindedness!
c. atrox @ 16:
LOL
Now if only there was some movement on atheists in the military.
mathking @ 29:
When I was going thru staging(it's a month long retraining in nearly all combat procedures for Marines going to Nam) we had two guys who everyone knew were gay. Guess what , nobody cared , they did their jobs and were good marines.
Ruthless People @ 44:
Maybe he's the illegitimate child of Jesse Helms?
Southern Yankee @ 50:
I know that women serve, I've already stated that the fact that they serve and get PTSD from it and are then denied treatment by beauracratic sleight of hand is disgusting.
Darth_Romney @ 53:
With each small step their journey nears completion.
This isn't about accepting homosexuals. This is about recruitment numbers bottoming out - even after they started accepting white supremacists again. You know its a bad thing when even the Neo-nazis and KKK wont join the war.
I actually overheard some inbred white trash in Cedar Rapids, IA say that "gays will no longer use being homosexual as an excuse to get out of the army." Apparently it hasn't reached this guy that the draft ended over 30 years ago.
Icelander @ 59:
No more Freedom Fries for you.
For all the people bitching and moaning about how lousy 'dont ask dont tell' was, consider that it used to be a federal crime to join the military while gay (first they ask you if youre gay then they have you swear and oath that you told the truth).
was it better than simply allowing gays to serve? of course not, but ask yourselves what kind of progress the US military wouldve made without it.
again, im not saying that 'dont ask dont tell' was ever the best policy...just that it was a step in the right direction and the best homosexuals who wanted to serve their country and reap outstanding educational benefits were going to get at the time.
cut to 15 years later, and if obama wins, theres no reason why gays shouldnt be allowed to serve openly.
I have a hard time understanding why anybody would want to be in the US military-
US soldiers are being sent into a meat grinder, their benifits are being slashed, and they lose all rights and freedoms as a human being..
Plus they are being told to gun down women and children-who would want to live such a life???
The military treats gays as sub human- that, and their policy of killing civilians in Iraq, are just some of the reasons I have ZERO respect fore the US military
I'd like to see how many people become "Gay" when there's a draft.
terry740 @ 63:
I agree with you. But you know there are a lot of soldiers that are racist and when they get out of the military they join nazi camps that are around the US. I don't understand that either. You have blacks in the military fighting and die for all of us and come home and are treated badly. I know that is true. Growing up living on an airbase we had lots of friends of color. We played together, went to school together, spent the night at each others homes. When my dad retired we left for another state. This kid who was black and friend of my brother came to visit us. By the way his dad was a Colonel and my dad was a Master Sergeant. Anyway he said he was shocked when his dad retired from the military because he never witness racism until his dad retired. We understood that also because we our dad retired we went through the state of AL and was very shocked to see separate drinking fountains and bathrooms. We just couldn't believe it. We were kids.
From what I have heard, homosexuality does not automatically translate to (pardon the expression) "weak-wristed poofs". And wasn't Alexander the Great at the very least bi-sexual?
I would rather see homosexuals of otherwise moral character openly serving in the military than the current situation with greater than 10% of enlistees with criminal histories, or for that matter, illegal aliens. It isn't just a question of morality, either, but of patriotism and loyalty to the USA.
And by being forced to conceal their sexual orientation, don't homosexuals also face an increased vulnerability to blackmail, just like drug addicts or poligamists?
Login or Register to post comments.