Our Views: A year later, repeal works

The opponents of the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies in the military categorize the issue as a case in which President Barack Obama “has recklessly used the armed forces for unprecedented social experimentation,” in the words of Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Preparedness.

Unfortunately for the critics, on this issue, Obama has been proved right.

Gay and lesbian members of the armed services can serve openly, no longer forced to lie about their personal lives to their friends in uniform. A year after repeal, the Pentagon declares the new policy a success, with no adverse effects on the effectiveness of the armed services.

During the heated debate over the policy, many argued that the gay experience is a false parallel of President Harry S. Truman ordering the racial integration of the armed services. Yet the military rose to the challenge of this newest order, with similarly positive results.

In Louisiana’s congressional delegation, three members were proved right in voting for repeal: U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and then-Reps. Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville, and Anh Cao, R-New Orleans.

U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and five other Republican members in the House opposed the repeal legislation.

The 2012 Republican primaries were marred by an incident in which a gay serviceman was roundly booed when appearing on video during a candidates debate. Now, GOP nominee Mitt Romney says that he will not seek to reverse the change in policy if elected in place of Obama.

That is progress. All in uniform for this great country deserve respect.

Comments

1) Comment by ultimateliberal - 25/09/2012

Thank you for a good article. When I served, it was said that women join the military looking for other women of for a husband. How insulting to the many courageous women who wanted to serve. I can say this, for certain. Sexual orientation has NO BEARING on one's willingness or ability to serve honorably. We have, as a society, finally become human, indeed! Thank you for the respect we deserve--CPT, USAR, 'Nam Era. (female)

2) Comment by DMJ - 23/09/2012

It's funny how what real liberals think isn't at all the same as what people who hate liberals think that liberals think. No liberal expects equal outcomes for different people. We just want equal opportunity. That's what allowing gay people to serve openly in the military is all about. Score one for the good guys...

3) Comment by Bouncer - 22/09/2012

@Attilla....excuse me, do we know one another? No? I didn't think so. You don't know me, you don't know anything about me, and for you to conclude that I am a "liberal" by virtue of what I have said here is, quite honestly, utterly ridiculous. It's typical of someone with your "us versus them" mentality to want to neatly categorize and pigeonhole others, just so you'll know who to dislike. I don't fit neatly into your little preconceived view of the world, so lay off me and stop stalking me from question to question. I have never said anything directly to you or about you, not until you took it upon yourself to take a verbal swing at me. As I said, you don't know me or anything about me, so keep your opinions about my opinions to yourself. I'm not interested, and I'm sure that the rest of the readers in this forum aren't, either. Thanks, and you have yourself a SUPER day!

4) Comment by Attila - 22/09/2012

Bouncer: Equal rights to a lot of your fellow libs does not mean equal rights. It means equal outcomes....and that's the truth.

5) Comment by Bouncer - 22/09/2012

@NIMBY.....either you are severely reading-challenged, or you've got deep-seated mental problems. I have never said anything to you or about you, and my post was not made out of "pity" for anyone. People like you, i.e., those who shoot their mouths off without thinking, are part of the problem with public forums such as this. Any dweeb with a computer can sign in, run off at the mouth, attack others without any provocation (as you have done to me), and then crawl back under his rock. In the future, think about what you are saying before you stick your foot in your mouth and make an even bigger idiot out of yourself. And for the record, I don't think you're "better" than anyone. Based on what I have consistently seen out of you in these posts, I would say that you're pretty pathetic.

6) Comment by nimby? - 22/09/2012

Bouncer , as one of "them" , I am well able to speak for myself . if anything I am better than you for what life has put me thru , save your pity , I don't need it ...

7) Comment by Bouncer - 21/09/2012

It has been my observation through the years that anytime equal rights are extended to a group formerly oppressed or marginalized, then those who have some kind of vested interest in maintaining the status quo of oppression or marginalization always, always start accusing "them" (women, minorities, homosexuals) of having "special rights." Not so. As one person has already pointed out, you cannot expect thinking people to agree that the demand for "equal rights" is the same thing as demanding "special rights." Marginalized people only want the same rules, standards, rights, and privileges that apply to every other free citizen to apply to them. You can't get any more "American" (in spirit, at least) than that, can you?

8) Comment by nimby? - 21/09/2012

our military functions as a unit , to highlight groups because of their color , orientation , religion , etc. serves no purpose other than appease those overly sensitive who in many cases have nothing to do with the military . it further suggests of the divisiveness in our nation , not needed in the military . a soldier is just that , a soldier , no winners or losers . carry on ...

9) Comment by LSUinVail - 21/09/2012

From the day that President Clinton enacted DADT I felt it was a ridiculous endeavor. What does a soldier's sexual orientation have to do with their ability to carry out their duties?

10) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 21/09/2012

Jdk and rgerald both seem a little desperate in their responses. I guess y'all bought into the line "we are not going to let facts get in the way" of our message. Have either of you spent a day in service? For the ten years I served, gays were present and they had no ill effect on moral or the mission. Just like it didnt hurt when women joined the fighting forces and before them when blacks, indians, and other minorities joined. And jdk, like so many others, thinks that replacing equal rights with "special rights" somehow changes the dynamics of the conversation. But most reasonable and intelligent people understand that it is not a special right to live your life in freedom. Being forced to live your life hidden is oppression. And no military member, fighting for all our freedom, should be forced to live that way.

11) Comment by DMJ - 21/09/2012

Obama: 1....Bigots: 0. Ouch. This one must hurt for you guys, eh? Instead of just admitting to being on the wrong side, you guys are going to come up with childish, convulted reasons why you're still right? What's the point? Does anyone really think we're going to reinstate DADT? You lost this one. Let it go.

12) Comment by [e-mail] - 21/09/2012

Obama's not right and you guys are all wet on this one. There's nothing to be gained by highlighting homosexuality in the armed forces and it's not a pretty sight for a lot of people no matter how tolerant they might be, and our men and women in uniform are not guinea pigs to advance liberal causes or placate special interest groups.

13) Comment by jdk944 - 21/09/2012

Once again The Advocate prvoides us with their "left' leaning slant!! NO, Obama wasn't right about this, pretty much like his whole Presidency has been!! We've witnessed a decline of religious freedom, the censoring of chaplains, the embrace of same-sex "marriage," and the special treatment for homosexual soldiers. "While many will ignore the negative impacts, or pretend that they don't exist, threats to our troops' freedom are mounting," said retired Chaplain Ron Crews, whose organization, Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, is cataloguing consequence after consequence of repeal. Even the Palm Center, which is a pro-homosexual organization, couldn't bury all of its findings. In a Military Times survey from January 2012, it noted: "Of 792 active-duty service members and mobilized reservists who completed the survey, 150 (18.9%) indicated that since DADT was repealed, someone in their units disclosed being gay or bisexual. Of those, 32 (21.3%) said that the disclosure had a negative impact on their units. In addition, 36 (4.5%) reported that since DADT was repealed, an openly gay or bisexual person joined their units. Of those, 12 (33.3%) said that the newcomer had a negative impact on their units."

14) Comment by chem - 21/09/2012

This issue was demonized by the religious right-wing segment of the republican party and by almost all religious acolytes. According to them, the world would come to an end. Obviously, a year later, all is well. The intolerance of the religious right is wrong again.

15) Comment by ScotB - 20/09/2012

Of course it works. Everybody knew who the gay people were all along anyway. There has always been gay people serving, many who served with distinction. This has always been a non-issue with the ranks and only the brass had an issue with it.