And we won’t hear Mike Turner’s position?
The Dayton Daily News-less has the back-assward positions of Austria, Jordan and Boehner on gays in the military- but no mention of Teflon Mike:
WASHINGTON — Republican congressmen Steve Austria and Jim Jordan objected Wednesday, Feb. 3, to Pentagon plans to end a ban on gays and lesbians openly serving in the armed forces.
Jordan, R-Urbana, and Austria, R-Beavercreek, issued their critical statements just one day after Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would appoint a high-level panel to review ways to end the prohibition within a year….
“I would have great concerns about what introducing open homosexuality into the military might do to jeopardize the effectiveness, readiness and preparedness of our military,” Jordan said, adding that “active duty military service and civilian life are vastly different.”
Austria said that the current policy “seems to be working and we should be consulting with our commanders on the ground on whether or not there is a problem and if the current policy needs to be reviewed.”…
A spokeswoman for Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said he backs a repeal of the current policy.
Austria and Jordan echoed House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-West Chester, who on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday asked, “In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?”
Apparently, it’s too much work to find out what Mike Turner says- or maybe he hasn’t gotten his talking points yet from Boehner. You’d think this simple bit of reporting wouldn’t be too difficult for the paper that endorses him every election.
For the record- not a single one of these congressmen has served in the military- where there have always been homosexuals serving honorably.
And if two wars is a problem for Boehner- try getting out of them. This affects so few people that it’s really a non-issue, except to those who must serve in secret.
It’s time to end “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” and implement “none of your business”- after all, aren’t they protecting the “land of the free” where “all men are created equal.”
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-West Chester, who on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday asked, “In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?”
Boehner answered his own question. We are disqualifying someone who is qualified, perhaps more so than his/her heterosexual counterpart, to do certain tasks in the US armed forces on the grounds they’re are homosexual.
Not only is this when we should be having this debate, it’s when we should be ending it and letting anyone who wants to serve, do as such. Because if the best translators in the world prefer to be bedfellows with their own gender, I’d much rather have them doing the translating than someone who isn’t the best in world simply because they choose to sleep with the opposite gender.
This is putting party politics before what’s best for the country.
From a purely political perspective Mike is in a safe seat and he has no vested interest in answering the question; therefore, he will not.
Given Turners record on LGBT issues we don’t even need to aks him the question; we already know the answer.
I agree Jeff, but as I think about it he should actually be THE congress person to comment on the issue as he is on the Military Affairs committee? The DDN will not put pressure on the anointed one and it would be interesting to see how he would respond if there actually would be an opponent to his Congressional Seat. I would love to see old Mikey boy question Mike Mullen. Not a chance which is why the Republicans will not take it up.
Even if there were an opponent [ and the Dems, Greens and no one else has a credible candidate] it would not make any difference to Turner unless they had a LOT of $$ to spend. He will do as he has done in past elections, simply ignore the opposition. Great democracy we have here [NOT]
On this and other LGBT issues Turner might be representing the majority opinion in his district, given the big military/military retiree presence here, not to mention that it is fairly culturally conservative (as is the entire Ohio Valley, for that matter).
If he is on the military affairs committee we will know soon enough, based on his votes or if his committee holds hearings and Turner asks questions.
Headline should read: Congreessmen have No Faith in Military to Do Their Jobs in Changing Times.”
Do you think they would change their tune then?
I do.
I think both sides are going about this wrong. Has anyone done a survey or study of the armed forces to determine if allowing troops to “come out” will affect effectiveness and morale?
David, as a veteran I think you’re particularly qualified to speak on the specific impacts of this change. Opponents seem to be concerned about degrading the cohesiveness of the unit and the ability of soldiers to count on one another in stressful battle situations – can you give some perspective from your experience?
I think it opens up more avenues for a fraternization without the consequential resultant reassignment of the impregnated person stateside to work in the Security and Badging office. Fraternization is still Fraternization, No? If we really wanted to save money. Go back to an all male Military. Pregnancy the ultimate “Get Out” clause.
Some Classic Links on Pregnancy in the Military.
Any survey would be compromised by people with strong political views who can simply claim that it will hamper their morale and effectiveness. Armed forces currently operate with high morale and effectiveness both here, in units with service members who are widely accepted as gay (effectively out), and abroad, in the 25 countries where gay people serve openly in the military.
@Scott- there were a lot of well known lesbians in the Army when I was in- and it wasn’t an issue. However, gay men weren’t well accepted- nor were all kinds of people- from one guy I knew who went suicidal after the constant ribbing he got for not having a chin (he was born that way- the Army actually spent the money to let their maxio-facial guys build him a chin- at huge taxpayer expense, figuring that wartime injuries could result in them needing those skills).
There were no Corporal Klingers- in drag, or cross dressers- those wouldn’t have been tolerated- nor would those we label as “flaming fags”- but- in general, people’s private lives were of little interest to most of us- who were busy trying to actually have one (the numbers of males to females in any Army town were pretty skewed in those days.)
The US Military is still backwards on their position of putting females in combat roles- which I believe is also stupid- I think women have the ability to take on combat roles- and this has been forced in the current wars. The Israeli military hasn’t had problems with women in combat- and they’ve always fought at a numerical disadvantage and won.
Women do have an easy out with pregnancy. It’s a problem. However, this is an all volunteer force- not drafted, so unless we want to deny parenthood to those who serve- we have to deal with it.
Times have changed. Republicans haven’t. That’s the story here.
Once again the objections are smoke screen. Demoralization of the hetro troops, not. Readiness to go in to combat? What are they saying, if gays allowed to be out everybody’s going to be lined up for a bj when the bombs start falling? No, what this entails is any Republican Congressperson or Senator fears loosing their voting base that they spent three decades re-educating to hate a particular group if they support repeal of don’t ask don’t tell.
David:
Slow down there bubba, there’s quite a few female fighter pilots who would beg to differ. Just because the Army is a little behind the power curve…
Via SLOG:
@ Joe Lacey: it could equally be said that a survey would be “compromised” by those with strong political views in favor, too. A survey can’t be “compromised” by answering honestly unless you’re working backwards from the answer you’ve already decided on.
Fine. Then a survey would be compromised by those with strong political views (end of sentence). It’s very likely that you will get answers that are not frank or honest from those holding strong political views on this subject. Either way that diminishes the value of any survey of service members. A study of the morale and effectiveness of fighting forces that currently have openly serving gay people would be far more valuable.
What you propose would be worthwhile, especially if it took into consideration opinions and efficiencies before and after, but not to the exclusion of polling Americans as well.
But assuming an anonymous survey, what motivation would anyone with strong opinions one way or the other have NOT to be honest? It’s only the relative anonymity of the internet that allows me to have this discussion with you, as the last time this topic came up on here, someone’s livelihood was threatened and he was accused of supporting beheading gay teenagers. (Can’t remember if that was you or David Lauri that said that and never recanted despite many opportunities to do so.)
It’s only the relative anonymity of the internet that allows me to have this discussion with you, as the last time this topic came up on here, someone’s livelihood was threatened and he was accused of supporting beheading gay teenagers. (Can’t remember if that was you or David Lauri that said that and never recanted despite many opportunities to do so.)
Um, wow. First, I don’t hold power over anyone’s job. Second, I really don’t remember ever writing anything about the beheading of gay teenagers. I did a Google search just to double-check, and my comments on the only link that is really me and not some other combination of “david lauri” have nothing to do with beheading or gay teenagers.
I don’t even know of any place that beheads gay teenagers. There are, however, places that hang them.
My apologies, David L.; it was Joe Lacey that said it, on Nov.24, 2009:
“I trust Mr. Vigh had fun reading about last week’s murder and decapitation of Jorge Steven Lopez, a gay teen in Puerto Rico.”
See, I’m capable of acknowledging my mistake and apologizing. To the best of my knowledge, Joe never formally retracted his calumny. I’m offering him another opportunity to do so here, however, so that he can be seen as a reasonable person in this debate and not a hot-headed extremist.
….well, did Robert Vigh have fun reading about that? It was a question. Did Vigh answer it?
Wow, learn how to use hyperlinks. Every comment made on esrati.com has a permalink which you can get by right-clicking on the date and time of the comment. You can link directly to Joe’s comment so that it can be read in its context.
Also, learn what sarcasm is. By saying what he said, Joe wasn’t making a literal claim that Mr. Vigh actually took pleasure in the murder of a gay Puerto Rican teenager; he was using a, to quote Wikipedia, “rhetorical device of using a characterization of something or someone in order to express contempt.”
The Cincinnati Enquirer called Turner’s Office and got no comment. I can look up link but so can you.
Despite the implication of allowing gays to serve in the Military with respect to Romania, I found that as a society that were a tad more homophobic than most Americans but would allow more closeness between males than their American counter parts. For example I would give the Romanian Plant Manager a back massage, and he loved it (I have a gift) but the American. Not so much.
Now when it comes to sexuality I think the Romanians have it down. Oh to get this service in Dayton. Well you can, but it takes some….. Enjoy!
Why study people’s opinions on this? The opinion study would be useless. People’s responses to a survey about gay people would be skewed by strong feelings either way whether the survey was anonymous or not or whether the survey was in America or overseas. If you are really interested in an effecient mlitary, study the effectiveness and morale of the Israeli (or any other country that allows it) military both before and after they allowed gay people to serve openly.
I have no idea what Mr. Vigh’s livelihood is. He said that he enjoyed defending the dehumanizing comments of someone else about gay people. If he enjoys that then he should enjoy one of the results of such dehumanizing comments, gaybashing.