75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in the military.
75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in the military.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll released today shows 75 percent of Americans polled “said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military” — a dramatic rise from the 61 percent who supported the notion in 2001. Support has increased across party and ideological lines:
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.
Today is the 15th anniversary of the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy. At that time, a majority of all Americans — including 75 percent of conservatives — supported a ban on gays in the military.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
About face!
July 19th, 2008 at 1:01 pmI wonder what this has done to all the wack jobs in Colorado Springs and Waco?
Ya think any heads are exploding yet?
July 19th, 2008 at 1:04 pmWhy would anyone have a problem with anyone willing to put their lives for their country. I just can’t understand it.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pmQueue Daryl in 3..2..1
July 19th, 2008 at 1:14 pmHa anyone noticed that lately about 75% of Americans agree on just about everything from gay issues to Iraq to health care, that George W. Bus is an idiot and an a-hole, ect.
And the other 25% are Republicans.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pmSpoxLogic,
July 19th, 2008 at 1:22 pmI dont understand it either. To me that is the extreme prejudice of the neoconandrethals. The framers of our Constitution explicitly stated. “All people are created equal”
And yet we have to have laws created to protect the rights of minorities and people not like “Them” because of thier backwardsass beliefs.
It just blows me away.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll released today shows 75 percent of Americans polled “said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military”
Since when does public opinion have anything to do with public policy in this country? According to the political class, gay rights are only advocated by the “fringe left” pushing the “gay agenda.”
http://progressiveworldreview.com
July 19th, 2008 at 1:32 pmI was in the miliatary during Vietnam and there were gays serving and some of them were open about being gay. Who gives a sh!t? Somebody has to fight the wars for the chickensh!t, lilly livered, cowards, who start wars but never have served.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:34 pmI agree with PaulW. I am skeptical about the true reasoning behind this About-Face(Thanks Zooey). I tend to think it has more to do with pumping up the declining enlistsments.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:39 pmRandomChaos Says:
I tend to think it has more to do with pumping up the declining enlistsments.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Bingo.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pmshoeless Says:
Ha anyone noticed that lately about 75% of Americans agree on just about everything from gay issues to Iraq to health care, that George W. Bus is an idiot and an a-hole, ect.
And the other 25% are Republicans.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
An interest point shoeless. The “uniter” has, indeed, managed to unite about 75% of the country against the Government and any who are silly/stupid/bloodthirsty enough to still support the ongoing debacle which best defines the Administration of George “SURRENDER MONKEY” Bush.
What’s more? The 75-25 split is especially apparent on the “wedge issues” the 25%ers hold so dear. It’s a distinct possibility that we will soon witness the elimination of the “Religious (Retarded?) Right” as a political power.
As effed up as things are today, there are some encouraging signs that we are on the verge of ending that particular nightmare.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:52 pmAnyone who thinks DADT means that there are no gays in the military is living in a fantasy.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:59 pmThere are gays serving in all levels of local, state, and federal government. So what’s wrong with them serving in the military?
July 19th, 2008 at 3:17 pmThe key word in the polling question is “openly”. The idea behind DADT was that if you don’t know they are there they might as well not be. DADT has gotten a lot of criticism because of its discriminatory nature, but those who criticize DADT are not familiar with what it was like for gays in the military before DADT. In those days, gays were actively sought out by the military intelligence agencies and dismissed from the service as security risks. DADT was the best that the Clinton administration could get out of Congress at the time and at least it stopped the more egregious witch hunts. Fifteen years later it looks like DADT could be done away with entirely. This is progress.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:35 pmWhere is Daryl? Is he down at the recruiting office now that he can openly claim his gayness?
July 19th, 2008 at 3:40 pmNo, Daryll is a Republican. They don’t come out of the closet even when you leave the door open.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:51 pmsamsuncle Says:
There are gays serving in all levels of local, state, and federal government. So what’s wrong with them serving in the military?
There’s nothing wrong, only if attitudes were like that of employees working in local, state and federal government.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:59 pmWe may support gays openly serving in the military, but that will do little to change the attitude of the good ol’ boy troops surrounding gay soldiers. The treatment goes way beyond any sort of hazing.
The late Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, “Mr. Conservative” himself, said, “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.” Those were the kind of Republicans we used to be able to get along with once in a while. Too bad the Religious Right drove them away.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:08 pmOverturning DADT is only the first step, albeit a triumphant step. The next step would be to fend off the conservacreatures within and without the military — and there are enough of them, unfortunately, but there has been improvement — who believe that crazy conservatism has a monopoly on the military.
And if “operating tempo” is affected, don’t blame the gays doing their job in uniform, blame their intolerant comrades wasting the unit’s time whining away.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:27 pmI tell ya, Wayne, there’s always something about Barry that makes you feel a lit bit better about his legacy.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:28 pmWayne A. Schneider Says:
Too bad the Religious Right drove them away.
That’s why the Seperation of Church and State is so crucial to a healthy democracy.
WHAT WILL THESE HATEFUL CHRISTIAN BASTARDS TAKE ON NEXT IN THIS COUNTRY AS THE NEXT GREATEST THREAT TO THEIR JEBUS AND THIER OWN IGNORANCE?
They can’t survive without hating something, someone, or everything not like them everyday of their pitiful lives!
Their Jebus is soooooo meeeannn!
July 19th, 2008 at 7:13 pmI favor a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy when it comes to a person’s religion. Gay or straight makes no difference unless you’re looking for sex.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:11 pmdixie blood,
Glad to see you are above hate. Unless you consider these “Christian bastards” separate from the less vocal moderate Christians you are painting a rather large swatch of the world as ignorant.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:53 pmHateful Christian Bastards are what they are…the others can defend themselves quite well…
You imply that all Christians are Hateful Bastards and I don’t…I speak only to the Hateful Christian Bastards and that’s not all Christians as you would like to imply with your superb, first-rate, ignorance!
Good luck with your stupidity there…Jebus Troll!!
July 19th, 2008 at 9:11 pmWayne A. Schneider Says:
The late Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, “Mr. Conservative” himself, said, “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.” Those were the kind of Republicans we used to be able to get along with once in a while. Too bad the Religious Right drove them away.
My father was an Eisenhower Republican. He is an atheist, and the influence of the Christian Right on the Republicans drove him away from the party back in the 1980’s.
Politically, it was the best thing that ever happened to him. He woke up to all the horrible things the right wing had been feeding him.
Now, he is a progressive Democrat, just like his son.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:26 amMaybe that’s the real reason most of the right hasn’t served,they’re trying to stay undetected and in the closet!
July 20th, 2008 at 11:43 amThis is great news.
We are becoming more tolerant of homosexuality.
Here’s a video clip of the Iranian president suggesting that Iran doesn’t even have gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_3RUwAJ_MI
July 21st, 2008 at 6:32 amI spent four years in the Army, and not one of my roommates had a problem with me being gay.
Daryll will complain loudly, and point to very carefully chosen verses of the Bible that support his prejudices (while ignoring other verses of the Bible that are inconvenient to his argument), but did Daryll serve in the military?
No, he didn’t.
It doesn’t mean Daryll is any less patriotic, nor is he a coward for not serving in the military. There are hundreds of millions of Americans who nerver served in the military, who are very patriotic.
Using the Bible to support your prejudice towards others is, howver, the most hypocritical thing one can do. The Daryll’s and Bitbit’s and others who claim that that some very carefully excised verses of the Bible support their regressive morality that they wish to enforce on everyone else makes a mockery of Christianity.
It is beyond time for DADT to be removed and allow equal rights for anyone who wishes to serve in the military.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:05 amWhat are the costs associated with openly homosexual service members?
For instance, what is the negative inducement for service because there are homosexuals serving? Many men join the military because of the strong traditions. How many prospective service members would find “having to serve with homosexuals” an end to these strong traditions?
How should the brass respond when two uniformed, openly homosexual service members – in uniform – participate in a pride parade? Does this create an image of the services that make the populace want to respect and support the military?
Could homosexuals in positions of responsibility and authority be trusted to act in the interest of all service members? IOW, what would prevent the creation of a “gay battalion” or discrimination against heterosexual service members? If the San Francisco board of governors – or whatever the city’s board is called – is used as an example of how those in responsible positions will behave, then the answer is obviously that the gay agenda will be put first.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:29 amWhat are the costs associated with openly homosexual service members?
What about the claims – from either homosexual or heterosexual – service members that because of their service they became HIV positive? Would they qualify for veteran’s disability? Would they qualify for care in a VA hospital? What should be done about those members who might claim a undesired switch in gender orientation, and thus a life long disability, because of military service? Homosexuality is usually termed “self described” – there is not test for it- which seems to mean that it would be easy to make such fraudulent claims.
What about the claims – from either homosexual or heterosexual – service members that they suffered sexual harassment because of their orientation?
Are the costs worth the benefits? Probably not.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:30 amThe decision to allow openly homosexuals to serve in the military is bigger than simply having more people in the military.
And, of course, this query needs an answer: “How many homosexuals want to serve in the military?”
What are the costs associated with openly homosexual service members?
July 21st, 2008 at 11:31 ambitbit makes some interesting questions.
I guess we could go to the other nations that recently opened their ranks to gay people:
Canada
Great Britain
Germany
France
Spain
Not one of these countries report any widespread problems with openly gay members of the military serving alongside their heterosexual counterparts.
July 21st, 2008 at 2:48 pm#31 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————”Could homosexuals in positions of responsibility and authority be trusted to act in the interest of all service members? IOW, what would prevent the creation of a “gay battalion” or discrimination against heterosexual service members?”
July 21st, 2008 at 11:29 am
Hmmm. . . . For decades, the heterosexual leaders in “positions of responsibility and authority” have created environments that were openly hostile and dangerous to gay people.
It looks like the only real problem is from heterosexuals against homosexuals, and Bitbit is stretching his highly imaginative thought processes to find any staw-man argument to support his prejudices.
Why don’t you ask questions of this nature, Bitbit:
Considering the historically anti-gay attitudes of current military leaders, could they be trusted to treat any gay people who serve in their companies the same way they treat heterosexuals?
Considering history, the answer to this would be a resounding “NO!”
July 21st, 2008 at 2:58 pmThe hypocrisy. Gays are barely given rights in this country. Yet because there are not enough military, it is now alright for them to join the Army and serve. Why? Because they are thought of as collateral damage when they die. That’s why.
To die for a country that considers them to be marginal. Disgusting.
July 21st, 2008 at 9:23 pm#36 – curious Says:
———————————————————
“The hypocrisy. Gays are barely given rights in this country. Yet because there are not enough military, it is now alright for them to join the Army and serve. Why? Because they are thought of as collateral damage when they die. That’s why.
To die for a country that considers them to be marginal. Disgusting.”
July 21st, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I respectfully disagree. Gaining the right to serve openly in the military will continue to fight for equal rights for gay Americans.
In 1948, the military was officially “integrated” for black service members. It was the first step of the civil rights movement. When the average white service member learned that blacks were just as good a soldier as they were, it was much more difficult to continue the racist practices of the time. Of course, it took another few decades to roll back the rest of the racist laws, but it did happen.
I believe it will be the same way with gay Americans, and the fight for equal treatment by laws. It will take time, but the tides are turning against the regressives who wish to keep gay people as second class citizens, and the regressives see it. That’s why they’re fighting so hard to KEEP all the anti-gay laws in place. They hate equal rights. so they fight against them.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 amWhere it really counts…
from
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007864.cfm
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 am#38 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————–
“Where it really counts…”
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
A little lower than the percentage of active duty members who didn’t want the service integrated in 1948.
MUCH lower than the number of active duty members who supported the draft during Vietnam.
Your point?
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 pmMore proof that members of the military are against DADT:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1204/p03s01-usmi.html
“A Zogby survey of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan found that 73 percent reported being “personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians,” and only 37 percent want to keep the current policy.”
July 24th, 2008 at 6:47 amMore from that Zogby poll
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=17967
Believe the numbers here mean that there are no benefits that contribute to the mission of the military.
The cost benefits – suggested by the Zogby poll – are zero.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm#41 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————
“Believe the numbers here mean that there are no benefits that contribute to the mission of the military.
The cost benefits – suggested by the Zogby poll – are zero.”
July 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
So, we keep a ban in place to keep enlisting 4,000 close minded idiots?
Consider how many more people were complaining about racial integration of the military! Your argument indicates you believe we never should have integrated the military!
Why do you support racial segregation of the military, Bitbit?
July 25th, 2008 at 10:17 amTo a culture which predates written language, being occupied for a few years
April 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pmsohbetor dominated for thirty by a home-grown dictator, is just a phase. Heck! They’ve maintained their identity, cetcharted their own destiny, and cast out invaders after occupations which Bedava mp3 indirlasted far longer than our nation’s entire history.