DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) The policy of the US military that requires homosexuals in the military dishonestly pass as heterosexual. The majority of Americans want to discontinue it. The courts have ruled it unconstitutional. Yet the practice continues. Open service is the term used for a military without DADT. I am of two minds about this. I am in favour of anything that makes it difficult for psychopaths to murder innocent people and be paid for it by the taxpayers. DADT fits in that category.
I think the objection to gays in the military is that, no matter what the official celibacy policy, the gay soldiers will get more sex than the straight ones, even if just on shore leave. This could lead to resentment. But that is a specious argument. The military already accepts gays. Through DADT, it just wants to force them through the indignity of pretending to be straight. It is roughly like a policy of allowing women in the military, where as a policy to discourage them, they accepted only if they dress up in male garb and pass as men. It is a most peculiar policy, requiring people to lie.
President Obama, as commander in chief has the authority to end DADT without consulting congress or the senate. However, he refuses to do that. He also challenged the court ruling demanding it end. Obama is clearly not sincere when he says he supports repealing DADT. He is not as two-faced as Senator McCain, but two-faced enough to lose support of the gays who helped put him in the White House.
available on the web at:
optional Replicator mirror
Please email your feedback for publication, letters to the editor, errors, omissions, typos, formatting errors, ambiguities, unclear wording, broken/redirected link reports, suggestions to improve this page or comments to Roedy Green : . If you want your message, your name or email kept confidential, not considered for public posting, please explicitly specify that. Unless you state otherwise, I will treat your message as a letter to the editor that I may or may not publish in the feedback section. After that, it will be too late to retract it. If you disagree with something I said, especially when sending an ad-hominem attack, a rant composed mainly of obscenities or a death threat, please quote the offending passage and cite the web page where you found it, tell me why you think it is wrong, and, if possible, provide some supporting evidence. I can’t very well fix erroneous or ambiguous text if I can’t find it.
|no blog for this page||Canadian
Your face IP:[220.127.116.11]
|Feedback||You are visitor number 11.|