House Hearing on implementation of repealof DADT

[MsGuy]

I watched the hearing the House Republicans staged today on CSPAN. They were trying, as near as I can tell, to capitalize politically on the repeal of DADT. If so, things didn't go as scripted. There was a good bit of blatantly political grandstanding from the Republican committee members, but the Chiefs themselves pooh poohed any suggestion that the military was encountering any real problems.

The Chiefs testified quite firmly that preparations were going remarkably smoothly, with little difficulty or push back from the officer corp or the enlisted ranks.

"A GOP hearing aimed at stalling efforts to let gays serve openly in the military backfired Thursday when Pentagon chiefs testified the troops don't think there's anything wrong with that.

"We've not seen issues," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "There's not been anxiety over it from the forces in the field."

General Amos, the born again Marine Corps Commandant who openly and publically opposed repeal last fall, seemed to be especially proud of the way the Corps was handling the transition. He basically stated that young marines were focused on combat and had shown no problems about serving with Gays.

I think this is going to play out about like many people here expected: there will be a few incidents in the first year or two and after that folks will wonder what all the fuss was about.

DADT down and DOMA getting more and more wobbly. I'm so very glad I lived to see this.

[Guest zipperzone]

DOMA may indeed be wobbly but I think it is a very long way from becoming struck down. There are just too many so-called Christians and straights opposed to it being ended and the politicians will always play to the majority. And if one thinks the Supremes will be of any help.... they are delusional. :frantics:

[MsGuy]

Zipper, in a way I actually prefer to see the marriage question fought out state by state for a while. Marriage is as good an issue as any to work on changing middle America's perception of Gays.

[Guest BeachBoy]

Zipper, in a way I actually prefer to see the marriage question fought out state by state for a while. Marriage is as good an issue as any to work on changing middle America's perception of Gays.

I'm very much for a state-by-state DOMA thing for now as well. If only to get the stats in to show that things didn't go all to hell and back i those states. I think it makes a stronger federal argument.

Re your original post up here, the Seinfeld reference really stuck out to me. (At least I think that's where it's from, right? "Not that there's anything wrong with that"?) Was that you, or did you paste that from somewhere? If it came from an article, it gives me hope in a weird way - that there can be a bit of humor injected into all this.

Also, I LOVE that those chiefs aren't budging an INCH with the DADT stuff. They're probably so glad to testify about something positive, they'll just stick with it!

[MsGuy]

the Seinfeld reference really stuck out to me... "Not that there's anything wrong with that"?) Was that you, or did you paste that from somewhere?

It's pasted from the linked NY Daily News article. Long time MER members wouldn't have had to ask; they all know I have no sense of humor.

[Guest zipperzone]

Zipper, in a way I actually prefer to see the marriage question fought out state by state for a while. Marriage is as good an issue as any to work on changing middle America's perception of Gays.

Sorry but I have a hard time agreeing with you for several reasons. In the first place, it would be prohibitively costly. Can you just image the dollars it would take to fight this through FIFTY TIMES?

And most importantly, why should we wait, beg, plead, argue and cajole just to get the straight population to condescend to give us what should be ours. They will continue to say we shouldn't have "special" rights - are they too stupid to see that the right to marry isn't special - its EQUAL.

It was tried in California and look what happened. Largely because of Blacks - who already had their rights enshrined - and the interference and financial support of the Mormon Church.

I couldn't care less if every church in the land refused to marry gays on so-called religious grounds. To hell with them, who needs their bull-crap religion anyway? Just let it be legal by way of civil marriage. And don't accept the copout and allow them to call it civil unions.

I really don't know why I get so worked up over this. I live in Canada where gays can legally marry. I guess I just think that all gays regardless of where they live should have the same rights, freedoms and advantages as heterosexuals.

[MsGuy]

Zipper, it all depends on how you frame the problem.

Even if you decide the problem is the narrow legal issue of same sex marriage, the only practical quick national route is to beg the Supreme Court to impose a decision and, given the current composition of the Court, that's a very high risk strategy.

On the other hand, if you see the problem as Gays being able to live their lives with "the same rights, freedoms and advantages as heterosexuals," then the marriage issue is as good an avenue as any to engage the hearts and minds of America.

In a very real way the whole of the Civil Rights movement of the 60's was a massive, sustained educational campaign focused on changing the place of race in American public sphere. Specific immediate goals, and the tactics selected to achieve them, were chosen with that educational purpose in mind.

But then I'm a child of the sixties and I readily admit that the events of that decade influence my perception of nearly everything.

[RA1]

MsGuy-

So, you advocate divide and conquer? As any might imagine, I am very much a state's rights kind of guy, not that there are very many remaining. I hope it is obvious that I don't mean any thing other than states having the rights not specifically granted to the feds in the Constitution. Therefore, I agree with you. If 50 states approve gay civil unions or the like, it should be difficult for the Congress and the Supremes to deny it. Just a bit past that would be an amendment, with 50 sponsors, so to speak.

How long after it might become the law of the land will it be "reality"? In other words, we have legal equal rights for women and Blacks and "others" but, do we in reality? Naturally, the answer is yes and no.

As many of my semi-fair minded straight friends are wont to say, why should the married straights be the only miserable ones? Let gay folks be miserable also. As with a lot of humor, there is a lot of truth in that statement.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest zipperzone]

I really have to go back to my "cost" argument. In these difficult economic times, the cost of pushing this through 50 states (I know some have already succeeded) is beyond my comprehension. What a pathetic waste.

[MsGuy]

I really have to go back to my "cost" argument. In these difficult economic times, the cost of pushing this through 50 states (I know some have already succeeded) is beyond my comprehension. What a pathetic waste.

As opposed to the cost of buying 60 senators and 220 Congresscritters (& then paying them to stay bought)? When you can pretty much count on the Baptists and Mormons bidding against you? (I hear a reserve price of one Billion has already been set on the next presidential election. )

Seriously, other than an all or nothing gamble on the Supreme Court, what choice is there? Nobody promised us a rose garden. When I was coming of age, being Gay was still a mental illness and could get you locked up in most states. We just have to keep grinding away.

[Guest zipperzone]

Seriously, other than an all or nothing gamble on the Supreme Court, what choice is there?

Seriously? Move a few hundred miles north & receive affordable health care as a bonus

[MsGuy]

So, you advocate divide and conquer?

I advocate forcing our fellow citizens to think about stuff they would really not have to deal with. Can't get much more naive than that.

How long after it might become the law of the land will it be "reality"?

RA1, it will happen when it happens. I suspect, though, it will happen a lot faster if the change in the law is the result of a real effort on our part rather than handed down from on high by the grace of the Supremes. Real social change happens in our local neighborhoods and barber shops, not the marble corredors of D.C.

[MsGuy]

Seriously? Move a few hundred miles north & receive affordable health care as a bonus

You know, other than your winters, I can't think a single rational argument against your proposal.

But maybe after near 63 years as an American, I'm too set in my ways to learn the words to O Canada! And (no offense intended) I'd just feel silly saluting a damn maple leaf.

[Guest zipperzone]

You know, other than your winters, I can't think a single rational argument against your proposal.

But maybe after near 63 years as an American, I'm too set in my ways to learn the words to O Canada! And (no offense intended) I'd just feel silly saluting a damn maple leaf.

The west coast does not have cold winters. This year we had no snow in Vancouver except at the higher (mountain) elevations. It is very common to see guys in shorts all winter long. And talking of winters - I seem to recall vivid pictures on TV news about the horrendous snow storm all across your mid-west and up into the Atlantic seaboard.

I'm not sure I know all the words either and I can't recall the last time I sang it. I'm not offended by your remark about saluting a maple leaf - I never have.

We would welcome you with open arms. :heart:

[BiBottomBoy]

Gay marriage would be a serious economic boost. Weddings cost a lot of money and that cash is spread over multiple industries. Everything from bakers to florists to musicians to food preparation service.

Also, imagine the eventual income gay divorce lawyers will be able to generate.

[Guest BeachBoy]

I really have to go back to my "cost" argument. In these difficult economic times, the cost of pushing this through 50 states (I know some have already succeeded) is beyond my comprehension. What a pathetic waste.

Maybe they can take the money they're currently using to fight the healthcare bill and whether or not Obama is American. Economics has nothing to do with it - not with all the bullshit they bring to state courts these days.

[Guest BeachBoy]

Gay marriage would be a serious economic boost. Weddings cost a lot of money and that cash is spread over multiple industries. Everything from bakers to florists to musicians to food preparation service.

Also, imagine the eventual income gay divorce lawyers will be able to generate.

Not to mention honeymoons. Do a state-by-state honeymoon package with the ceremony!

[BiBottomBoy]

Not to mention honeymoons. Do a state-by-state honeymoon package with the ceremony!

Can you imagine how much money gay bachelor parties would generate?

I mean think how much straight dudes spend on booze and hookers for bachelor parties. I'm betting we'd spend twice that.

No gay kid in America would have to worry about student loans for tuition again.

[TampaYankee]

We would welcome you with open arms. :heart:

Well, maybe MSGuy but that is not generally the case. I looked into the possibility of moving North a few years ago.

While Canada is very friendly to American tourists and probably business, they are not so to potential American emmigrants it seems. They are quite protective of would-be new residents sponging off the national health care and taking jobs from citizens. It seems that I could streamline the path to citizenship if I brought 250K to start up a business. To gain resident status I had to provide an essential vocation/occupation which was in need. I had a technological profession and would have to prove that a position was needed and could not be filled by a citizen. So an employer must really want you very badly to fabricate a case. An extra kicker for Quebec was that one had to be or become proficient in speaking French.

I must say all that seemed out of line with so many Asians and Europeans I have seen in Canada. I cannot explain disparity in what I found and the large number of immigrants that seem to be everywhere -- well Vancouver and Montreal anyway.

Maybe they have all of these hurdles to keep sketchy types like me out.

[RA1]

Well, you could convert to Islam, move to a middle eastern country and THEN very likely move to Canada with no further problems.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest zipperzone]

Well, you could convert to Islam, move to a middle eastern country and THEN very likely move to Canada with no further problems.

Best regards,

RA1

Too close to the truth to be funny. Being East Indian is almost a prerequisite it would appear. I have no trouble with immigrants to Canada, regardless of where they are from. What I DO object to are those that come here and expect natural born Canadians to change their ways, laws, culture, etc to emulate that of the new arrivals. If you want to live in Canada, fine. Just be prepared to BE a Canadian. And be prepared to learn and use English.

Another problem I have are the immigrants who are already established here and try to get their ageing relatives into the country to join them. Their advanced age usually means they have medical conditions that must be treated and they end up getting free treatment here having contributed very little to the system.

[RA1]

I did not intend for the post to be rude (and still don't) but you will notice that I did not put a smilely on the end of it.

Best regards,

RA1