RE: not quite the same as segregation, (I think, personally) it’s not quite the same b/c when it came to “blacks”, there was an element of fear of the unknown, vs gays, where you have fear of the known (very known) that being gay sex, particularly gay male, which is unfortunately the convenient common denominator reached for. Perhaps that too could be overcome…I just have a hard time seeing that as a realistic possibility. Whatever happens, I don’t want trouble for gays in the service b/c they can perform like anyone else.

A- Obama’s afraid of public backlash that might hurt Democratic candidates. Um, he seem utterly oblivious to public backlash on all the other things he’s done, why should this be any different?

B- Obama’s listening to his military advisors and takes them seriously. Same as above…he doesn’t like the military and doesn’t respect it. If it were only the military not wanting the change, he’d have done it already just to make his supporters happy.

C- He doesn’t like the idea of gays serving in the military. Well, he said he was against gay marriage too, and has done virtually nothing to convince anyone he plays up to the gays for any reason other than votes.

I think C is the winner.

Like Anon #70, I don’t see why they don’t want gays in the army. Even if we listen to the claim that it’s a dangerous distraction, there’s already women serving so that’s no argument!

They’re saying gays are fine, except they’re inferior to heterosexuals in a way that prevents them from doing a soldier’s duty. How exactly? Oh, best not go into details, that wouldn’t be PC.

Load of rubbish >:(

The recent “repeal bill” was sponsored by the representative from Likud, Independent Senator Joe Lieberman. Five Republicans voted for it.

Since most Americans support repeal, I think it’s safe to say a good many representatives simply did their jobs, and voted as their constituency wished. No great moral courage was required or demonstrated. Nonetheless, the Democratic party has been sending out mass-mailings trumpeting their triumph over the evil Republican homo-haters, and people are lapping it up. I’ve had several emails forwarded to me, including one from a church, characterizing DADT as a “Republican” policy, and the Democrats as our valiant gay-friendly heroes stalwartly opposing it.

Personally, I’m not convinced that serving in the US military is the best course for anyone, but I’ll always applaud any small step towards equality under law.

Your rationale for why this is a bigger problem to overcome than racial segregation doesn’t really fly either. At the time that the military ended that practice there were still people around who had lived under slavery, for crying out loud. You really think our collective attitude toward gays today is worse than race relations were in the 1940s?

All your points boil down to “keep ‘em in the closet for their own good.” That’s not only discriminatory, it’s patronizing.

PS magazine was illustrated by such comic book notables as:

Will Eisner, Murphy Anderson, Mike Ploog,Don Perlin, Dan Spiegle etc.

http://dig.library.vcu.edu/cdm4/index_psm.php?CISOROOT=/psm

The option to come out doesn’t make a service-person worse off but that doesn’t account for the “asking” part of DADT. I think gays should be able to openly serve, but that’s not going to get you from A to B easily, nor does it account for a litany of known factors, and certainly not for unexpected ones that completely out of touch policy-makers will invariably overlook or f-up. Not having some kind of graduated approach (I don’t know off hand what that might be) could potentially suck immensely for many gays in the military. Personally, I wouldn’t trust the military with much of anything, much less protect my rights as a gay person (if I was). I’m not arguing for keeping DATD, just contributing (hopefully) some key points re: gay welfare within the military.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4dgGl05CqE

I went to school with a kid who later joined the army who looks just like the kid in panel 4.

Is it ok in this man’s army for a door to swing both ways?

http://www.thetruthishere.com/denvermurals.html

My other thought was “Yeah, I bet cases are handled just like that. Never.” Especially the “make sure they don’t harass him” and “he’s still one of our soldiers” bits. Yeah, RIGHT.

*fumes*

So bizarrely, the two guys this guy witnesses could be straight and (curious, drunk, lost a bet, dosed with experimental CIA drug, removing snake venom), but are still in trouble. Meanwhile, the guy doing the investigation could be in the closet, but celibate, and in no jeopardy.

Thus the very careful phrases “homosexual conduct” and “homosexual act”