Dan Choi - Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Advocate.com posted a wonderful article and video about the issue of gays in the military.

As Lt. Dan Choi and about 100 LGBT activists staged a “don’t ask, don’t tell” protest Sunday afternoon across the street from the White House, six plain-clothed civilians chained themselves to the White House gates.

Choi, who has twice been arrested after handcuffing himself to the White House gates and has now been court ordered not to enter a certain perimeter around the White House, was joined by a handful of other speakers, including former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson, and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis.

The protest came on the heels of a letter leaked late Friday afternoon in which Department of Defense secretary Robert Gates urged House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton “in the strongest possible terms” to delay legislative action on repeal until the Pentagon completes its assessment of how to implement repeal.

In the video, Choi explains that the current policy results in enforced closets for gay soldiers. What do you think about that? Is it a problem?

There's also a reference to the fact that Democrats generally favor repeal of this law while Republicans do not. Why is that? Why do the Republicans have to be such nay-sayers?

I couldn't help but remember some previous discussions we've had in which we talked about the conservative / liberal divide. Conservatives, generally speaking, are against gun control, for capital punishment, racist against blacks and now we can add against gays in the military. Liberals are the opposite. I know that's a sweeping generalization, but is it true?

Opinione had a post about this the other day, but I wasn't sure what he meant by this.

Some of these soldiers look like should be in Key West and San Francisco, instead of a forward operating base in Afghanistan.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Where's the Outrage?

Where's the outrage is the question raised by our frequent commenter Fishy Jay. It came in an e-mail, copied and pasted here.

When the “guns in national parks” bill passed, many anti-gunowner columnists were outraged (outraged!) that it was as an amendment to a credit card bill. They huffed and they puffed about how awfully unrelated it was.

Now, expansion of “hate crimes” to include sexual orientation is about to pass…as an amendment to a military spending bill.

Now, one’s position on guns in national parks does not dictate or even indicate a certain position an hate crimes & sexual orientation – however, one might expect those who were so outraged by “guns in national parks” as an amendment to a credit card bill to now also be outraged by hate crimes & sexual orientation as an amendment to a military spending bill.

Strange…where’s that outrage?

I think Jay has a good point. I've seen nothing at all about this until today when Mud_Rake posted on it. Muddy had a slightly different tack on the issue, not really focusing on the fact that it was attached to a larger and unrelated bill.

Theys already passing bills says I can't carry but two weapons at a time, too! More damned taxes ever time I turn around, also. Damned socialist government, just like Hitler as well etc..

Now I got to be nice to them homos, also.

Unfortunately some folks fail to appreciate his sense of humor. You know, those contentious types who never want to give an inch. In any case, what about the observation of Fishy Jay?

What's your opinion? Was there much outrage at the fact that the "guns in parks" bill was tacked on to the credit card bill? I remember reading that many times; I suppose that counts as outrage. I personally never got too excited about that aspect of it myself.

Is it a fair comparison that the "sexual orientation / hate crimes" bill was tacked on to a military spending bill? Do you agree that the same folks who complained about the one should complain about the other? Or should liberals complain about the gun bill and conservatives complain about the sexual orientation bill? But, how would that work? That would be even harder than getting people to admit to being racists. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.