Yes but that still doesn't address the potential for disaster which accompanies the allowing of couples to serve together, homosexual or not.

Is it not true that in essence, practically any service member can be called on to enter into harm's way?

I can imagine plenty of situations where it could hinder, if not outright be catastrophic to not only moral in general but actual combat tactical scenarios as I pointed out earlier.

Don't get me wrong, what someone does in their own bedroom is their business imo, but couples serving together can't be prevented if open homosexuality is allowed. In my mind, I'd think it wouldn't only concern them either but anyone and everyone who could stand to suffer loss on account of it.

Imagine you and your husband, boyfriend, sweetheart or whatever is serving in any war area of operations. You're both captured. It's known to the enemy that an intimate relationship exist between you. Could it not be possible and even likely that because of that reality or suspicion thereof that enemy would have extremely more leverage than otherwise?

Imagine again, if you will, that you as a combat leader have to decide which of your charges (those under your command) to send into a dangerous situation. Agreed that it's an ugly scenario in any case but how much can you trust that he didn't send soldier X because he has deeper feelings for that particular individual than he does for soldiers Y,Z,W etc, etc...?

It's not just the service member's privacy at stake here. It's potentially the lives of anyone else they serve with, not to mention the familys back home.

To me it's a moot point whether or not gays have a right to serve openly. The tactical ramifications way outweigh any and all other concerns in the matter.

I think the tactical ramifications are refuted by professionalism and duty. There are many sentimental attachments in such close quarters where people are responsible for each others lives so that even a best friend might have difficulty seeing their best friend go into combat but if he is a true soldier will make the right decision in SPITE of personal feelings. There could already be couples serving and probably are, but if they are professional enough to still perform their duties, it doesnt become such an issue.

I understand what you are saying but I think a potential solution would be punitive rather than preventative(Which is what I think this whole debate amounts to for most). soldiers should do their job, regardless of their relationships or attracions, and if caught doing otherwise should be discharged, that would be punitive.

preventative measures would be to just not openly PERMIT that potential situation by allowing couples , or potential couples,to serve together



If I were a soldier, which I obviously am not, I just wouldnt want the added discomfort of wondering whether the one in the next stall is becoming aroused. If I were professional enough for such arousal not to bother me though, I could no longer see the argument to keep men and women seperate.

no one has answered mine either... so I'll ask it again... why is it important to them to be openly gay in the military?

to answer yours, 1 - the military has functioned successfully for hundreds of years without anyone being openly gay in it... why change that?

2 - housing and bunking issues
3 - if something is not broke, then why try to fix it?
4 - issues concerning unfair and biased orders being given out, on both sides of the issue
5 - they money it will take to process these issues
6 - most straight men will not want to bunk with gays
7 - the military will lose a lot of good people if this goes through,
about a quarter of the active military will not resign, along with the people that will not want to join because of this.

not to metion the fact that the government is trampling on straight peoples rights to not have to serve with a gay...

I have to agree... It would ruin moral across the board and as far as "professionalism and duty" goes, well... Anyone who's ever been in combat knows that when the **** hits the fan and it all comes down to a gory, all out fight to the death, the overriding reason one doesn't run and hide is simply and purely because the fear of letting down your comrades is worse than the fear of dying. It takes a healthy moral for that to exist.

I have attempted to respond to many of the posts here. It became quite lengthy, so I will make at least three posting out of it.



The reason for the study is that Obama came into office ready to repeal DADT. McCain and others, mostly Republican, were SO OPPOSED to Obama and upset over losing majority hold over congress that they used stall tactics – probably thinking they could stall until Republicans could gain majority again.

First there were hearings which tended to side with repeal. Since that was not the response hoped for, it was suggested that there should be a 1 year study of the effects that repealing DADT might have.

If the report suggestion was taken seriously, and actually undertaken, that would mean the report would come out AFTER the mid-term elections. And it did – but between then and now A LOT has transpired, some of which will be discussed in some other replies below.



It’s not only unethical to ‘experiment’ with our troops in that manner, it’s also not possible given the interconnectivity of all the layers of our military and the broad array of environment in which they function.

HOWEVER, during the first day of Senate hearings (today 12/2) it was made clear that IF Congress chose to act toward DADT repeal they would control how it would proceed. One Q&A exchange between Senator Scott Brown and Secretary Gates went something like this:



So it’s possible that IF Congress chooses to ACT on repeal they can maintain control and might choose to include conditions which must be met.

But in light of the letter to Reid, signed by every Republican Senator, Congress may be stalemated on the issue.



This something that Admiral Mullin, Gates, and Jeh Johnson – are STRONGLY urging the Senate to avoid. That will come up again later.

Senator Wicker brought up the idea of a referendum on whether we SHOULD repeal DADT to which Gates responded “I think doing a referendum of service members on a policy matter is a very dangerous path.”

Senator Graham questioned if the response to a ‘direct’ question of whether DADT SHOULD be repealed would differ from the Report conclusions to which Mullen responds that “we don’t know and that question would never be asked.

Senator McCain said feels “taken aback” because we won’t a military referendum but ALSO protects against the WRONG response by stating that wouldn’t mean conforming to the dictates of subordinates. (imagine that, a referendum that only counts if it reflects the ideals of McCain)

But the best answer (today) was given by Sen. Susan Collins




The author of the quote above seems to think the danger of allowing gays to serve openly is that the straight troops will be so paranoid they won’t be able to function. Yes - That would be dangerous – mostly to the homosexuals who were attempting to follow orders but instead end up protecting 98% of their ‘straight’ unit who are too paralyzed by paranoia to function.

While another poster holds an opposing view – that homosexuals are nymphomaniacs who cannot control their sexual impulses.



I would like to remind everyone that the best estimates suggest that the percentage of homosexuals serving in the military are generally consistent with that of the general population, 2-3 percent – with lesbians, in the military, being the greater percentage outnumbering gays. In fact, many of the respondents to the surveys indicated that to their knowledge they never had a homosexual in their unit.

WELL, believe it or not, as unrelated to the OP as the above quote is – there was a ‘sort of’ response in today’s hearing that might be related.



So, obviously the military wouldn’t like it if they had insure all those wives and their kids – BUT as for marriage between TWO people, well it seems just one more reason for the courts to recognize same-sex marriage.



Also from the hearings today – perhaps the following might be an appropriate response to the above quote.





Keep that scenario in mind, you might want to write a WWIII war screenplay one day with a focus on this homosexual ‘love’ aspect. That screenplay might make a great homosexual war action - love story but it would most likely be completely fictional or at the most based on a ‘true’ story that has been embellished beyond all recognition of reality.

Here is one answer – from the military aspect:


Some of the survey results show heterosexuals covering – and in effect lying – to protect someone they know to be a homosexual, because of their respect for and in some cases their friendship with that person. NOT ONLY are homosexuals asked to cover up and lie (against the greatest code of honor of any segment of the bureaucracy) but DADT also forces straight troops to make extremely tough ethical decisions regarding what the code of honor means and how it was meant to be interpreted. We should never have to ask our troops to read between the lines of a ‘code of honor’. If it IS a code of honor, it should allow for the recognition of everyone under that code to be equally honored and respected.




Not exactly true – There was a time when gay’s were not ALLOWED to be in service and if they were discovered, they were dismissed. However, in at least one war, when men alone made up the troops, the need for volunteers was so great that open enrollment of gays was commanded. Once that war ended, there was a return to the status quo, and gays, once again were dismissed. They have always served, when asked, or in silence, but they have never been treated fairly.



These are answered above in the quote that begins (9:37: Mullen continues- “Some may want separate shower facilities)



It is broke and the ‘Report’ simply verifies it.




The only issues to repealing DADT are related to training (ie. education), and it has been concluded that the cost is minimal.



Well, I hope you look up to Senator McCain, you seem to think alike, he also brought this up.





Homosexuals have always served when asked, or in silence and even when it was against the law. The overwhelming amount of information is conclusive that BOTH straight and homosexual men and woman cite the same sentiments about their reasons for WANTING to serve. Those reasons are honorable and obviously as the history of homosexuals in the military suggests, those reasons are very compelling. I seriously doubt that straight men and women who are so compelled to serve their country would be dissuaded by the presence of a mere 2-3% of homosexuals – who share the same compelling interest.

who said the military was broken? did we win most all wars with openly gays in the military? no, we did not... everything you post is about a survey this and a survey that... you know as well as i do that surveys do not mean squat, they are only as biased as the people giving them... i noticed you didn't quote from the survey thomas posted... is there a reason for that? because it says the opposite of everything you say...there is no proof every way about gays in the military...what about the housing issues? that is going to be free? look at all the money they have already spent on this, and you say it will be minimal...

I think most people are missing the bigger picture here.Do you think it would be a good idea for men and women to serve in the same barracks,shower together,and have relationships with each other?Would it be a good idea to have the barracks run more like a frat house or college dorm where men and women could see each other all the time?


If we repeal don't ask don't tell what is going to stop two gay men from having a relationship(including sexual flings)in the same room as with 50 other people?Are you going to say it's ok to be gay but you have to basically keep it in the closet so nobody else can see or are you going to say you can be openly gay and show it with another man and people have to tolerate it and accept it regardless of how they feel.


I would not want to share a room with 50 men and 50 women having a relationship with each other.Just like I would not want to be in the same room with a man and a woman kissing,fondling,and have sex with each other.I don't want to see it no matter who is doing it.I certainly don't want to watch and hear two men going at it and I certainly don't know how the military would prevent this from happening since legally two men would have the right to love one another as this is what defines being gay.


You can say...the military will pass laws banning men from showing affection to other men in the same room or barracks or what ever.But it's a joke.Just like it would be a joke to put 50 women in the same room with 100 men and expect not to see girls giving BJ's in the stalls,having sex in the janitors closets,and anywhere else they could get away with it.

those numbers would no doubt change if the atmosphere were one where homosexuals felt FREE to be open and in the military,,,


seperate showers doesnt resolve anything either, it would be like allowing heterosexual females and males to shower together

A very important issue which came up repeatedly in today’s Senate hearings is the urgency and necessity of Congressional action toward the repeal of DADT. These issues are best as initially stated by those who made them.

(the source of the quotes below are: Live from the Senate Armed Services Committee: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell hearing – By Adam Bink http://prop8trialtracker.com/)



There are two reasons why these kinds of statements kept coming up.
The first reason is obviously stated, that the activity surrounding issues of Gay rights, at the Supreme Court level, have continued to increase, not only with NEW claims but also with appeals that hope to overturn recent court declarations of laws like DOMA and DADT being unconstitutional.

There are currently cases set to be heard very shortly and IF any of those cases involving DADT are ‘again’ deemed to be unconstitutional, the abrupt halt to DADT is likely to create the kind of problems Johnson, Gates, Mullen and others believe can be avoided if Congress will take the action needed and ‘control’ the time and training required for the uneventful repeal of DADT .

The second reason for continuing to bring this issue up, is the consistent use of avoidance strategy that Republicans have been using throughout this administration. Some have attempted to blame the urgency of this issue on Obama, even suggesting in the hearings today, that Obama has ‘painted them into this corner.’

They have painted themselves in a corner, first because they refused to listen to the truth in the last hearings, and then they refused to recognize the reality growing acceptance of homosexuals within the majority of the general population, and then they continued to deny the growing role and influence of the Supreme Court’s involvement in gay rights issues over the course of the past 18 months.

Finally, still holding to that same posturing, knowing that the defense bill, which includes the DADT Repeal clause, was on the calendar for this lame duck session, the Republicans sought to kill it once again by delivering an open letter to Reid (below)



Notice the wording in the letter “until the Senate has acted … and prevented the tax increase”.

Was the wording designed to create another diversionary tactic? In essence, stating that if the vote on the expiring tax cuts did not go their way, they would simply filibuster until no time remained to consider other legislation, like the defense bill?

Some Republican that signed that letter, seem to be taking an active part in the current Senate hearings, and at least of few of them have previously declared they would vote to repeal DADT should it come to the floor.

Will they own up to a ‘previous’ commitment or stick with the recent signature of the open letter? Will their ethics reflect the kind of honor code present in the military, or will their ethics reflect the same problematic decisions of many military personal who have lied to protect themselves or a respected service member?

It seems to me, that Johnson, Gates, Mullen and the others who have been urging the Senate to take action are giving Republicans every REASON, and OPPORTUNITY to change their position. It’s important to recognize what is happening here.

If there is any danger to repealing DADT it will comes from an ‘immediate’ proclamation of the Supreme Court that DADT is unconstitutional.

Either Republicans don’t believe that will happen, or they want it to happen so they can blame Obama and ‘ACTIVIST’ Supreme Court judges, for any problems that an instant repeal might cause within the military.

Are Republicans attempting to hold the court system hostage, do they think the courts will fear the backlash of blame should the military experience problems?

What would be the HONORABLE thing for Republican Senators to do at this point?

dont play with soldiers lives, leave military matters to military professionals

working with the military will give much better results than FORCING their hand,,,

Obama has had two years to repeal DADT.We both know the Republicans were powerless to stop anything in those two years.He could have passed it with ease.Obama keep stalling so he could point the finger at the Republicans and blame them for it not being repealed.


Obama knew if he did repeal it then he would have to do with a tital wave of negative publicity from people in the military in a already unpopular War.Obama will never repeal DADT.He is going to put it in some dark corner somewhere where it will be forgotten like he has for the last 2 years.

not quite two years, and OBama did initiate these precedings back in February of 2010, one year and one month after he took office, unfortunatly he is only a president and the precedings themself involve many others(including military officials, of all people) and a bit of time to do proper preperation and research

Agreed... It just isn't going to happen.

I never say never, particularly when this has been so successfully touted as a 'civil' rights matter, that label almost guarantees enough shaming and guilt to get americans behind it,,,

There are over 1,420,000 Active military personnel AND just under 465,000 Guard AND just under 380,000 Selected Reserve. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm)

That’s a total of about 2,264,900 military personnel. At a full 3% the homosexual count of military personnel is about 67,947.

The U.S. population is about 308,400,000
(http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/12/30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing)

That would make the entire homosexual population about 9,252,000

Currently the entire heterosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘heterosexual’ population.

Likewise the current homosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘homosexual’ population.

I think that’s remarkable - despite DADT both the heterosexual and homosexual military personnel are nearly equivalent representations of their perspective populations.

Of course I used what’s considered the highest end of homosexual population percentages. It may be possible that the military would see an increase of homosexuals but we are talking –possibly hundreds, not more than that.

Considering the similar representative split it would not make sense to think that the non-military homosexual population would be any more interested, capable or otherwise acceptable in military service than the same representation of non-military heterosexuals.



I think you misunderstood the quote about 'seperate showers', the remark was made for purpose of 'refuting'it. In other words the military has absolutely no intention of making such changes.

Either military law and the code of honor will be adhered to or those who don't like it will find work elsewhere.

Appearently it is NOT LIKE heterosexual f & M showering together, becasue it hasn't caused any problem yet despited the fact that many homosexuals are known to others in their unit.

I believe you have posted a couple times that you think military persnnel should be consulted - well they were but now you don't like what they have to say.

Even if it was a year(He talked about ending DADT in his campaign)that is more then enough time to get what ever you need passed.I think 3 months would be more then enough time to research what ever you need and to write any bills you need to get through Congress.


Isn't this repeal really less about gays and more about allowing relationships with people you are working and living with?If the gays were allowed to have relationships on their command why couldn't men and women also have relationships?If we allow same sex relationships how is that going to effect the mission?One person is going to eventually be shipped somewhere else after their 2 or 4 year of duty is over.What if these two men are fighting in combat and one is killed right next to the other?I think it would be safe to assume the one left alone and broken hearted would be almost useless in combat.Do we need people going into Wars who just had lover spats a hour ago?What if these two gay men or two gay women are on a small isolated command and get into a fight and can't stand living together?Where are you going to put this upset gay man who refuses to sleep in the same room as his ex BF?The womans barracks?


I think those who have never been in the military simply don't understand the logistics of keeping hundreds of men sane who have to live next to one another.You already have a thousand problems with racist people who can't stand blacks and blacks who can't stand whites.You have people who are cranky,who have worked all night long,who are jerks by nature,and now you are going to throw in out and proud homosexuals in the mix?


I think most people also forgot why DADT was put there in the first place.It was because gays were coming out of the closet in the military and they were being killed,beat,and harassed.I don't see why the killings,beatings,and harassment would be any different now then it was back then if they were allowed to be out and proud.You would probably see more violence towards gays since most hid their homosexuality very well and were not targeted.

Is that just an opinion or was it in responce to a post?