Dan is stuck in some kind of medieval hotel with no internet access, but he has let me know (via carrier pigeon) that Slog can’t let this moment go by un-noted.
So, please note: as of about half an hour ago, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is officially over. Gay Americans can now serve openly in our nation’s armed forces. And it’s about damn time.
The president had this to tweet:
The White House also posted this video, highlighting the impact this ridiculous policy had on several servicemen and women:
Happy No More DADT day!
🙂 Evolution Is a beautiful thing.
Hide the women and children! The gays have guns now!
But seriously, good for them. Again, my heart goes out to those I served with who were removed under this policy, including one particular sailor that my life directly depended on.
Hip Hip Hooray! I will now go back to watching Canadian CBC TV show on Sir John A. Mcdonald.
touching. thanks.
Agreed, Kim! Hugs for everybody!
Hugs indeed!
L’shana haba’ah b’Yerushalayim!
Hopefully in two years, all these people can get married to their loved ones.
Admittedly, we’re gonna feel pretty silly when we get conquered by Mexico because our military is now too gay to fight back.
I hate to be the one to point it out, but the tweet was not from the White House, as would befit an official statement of celebration. No, it was from the Obama reelection campaign. The video was not posted by the White House either, but by the Obama reelection campaign.
The White House twitter feed does not mention it. The White House website does not mention it.
At this time of great relief President Obama shared the news with us not via the Office of the President of the United States, whitehouse.gov, but via barackobama.com, where you can make a donation. It does not mean this is not a fine moment. But still.
A Republican President never would have done this, just remember that when you vote.
Well, I’m too damned old to go back in and finish my service. But I’m glad that nobody else will have to choose between living in the closet or abandoning their military career.
@10 Actually, some would.
As to the story: Great, now everyone has the chance to go die in pointless wars that politicians send great US citizens to for no real reason.
@10, as 12 points out, some would. Interestingly, the same ones who wouldn’t be so eager to kill innocent men, women, and children overseas as Obama has been doing since he was elected.
Did you guys see the last five minutes of “The Playboy Club” ?
It has a whole gay subplot.
NYT article about the no-longer-anonymous guy behind OutServe and the end of DADT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/aft…
@12, 13 Which republican presidents would those be? Nixon? Reagan? Bush(s)? Maybe your talking about Hoover or would it be Lincoln? Which Republican president has not sent soldiers into conflict and also extended equal rights to LGBT soldiers and sailors? I have no idea who you are talking about and would really love to know.
I suppose if the White House staff had been responsible for the video, they wouldn’t have biffed the captioning in so many places.
I’m truly happy for the new day dawning, but sad for all the derailed careers and/or loneliness endured in service.
It won’t all be smooth sailing (or flying, or marching, or swimming) from here, though. See comments on this:
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/battle-ra…
Yay! just think how many more people can fight in Obama’s wars now.
@16, by “a Republican President,” I didn’t think @10 meant “a Republican President from history,” but rather “a President who’s Republican.” In which case, both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson qualify, if they had any chance of getting elected.
Are there any electable Republicans who would have supported the lifting of DADT? Certainly not. And while the lifting is worthy of celebration, that doesn’t mean I’m going to pretend that Obama deserves praise for the way he’s handled it, or any other aspect of his being the Commander in Chief of the military.
@12: Huntsman has zero chance in hell of winning the primary.
@ 17 rob!,
Yeesh. The comments on Yahoo News are too high-brow for that hate-crazed, sub-moronic crowd, which reopens the whole question of “why would you wanna serve a KKKuntree that hates you and wishes you would be polite enough to die already or simply cease to exist?”
I see the media narrative is celebratory. It’s on the main page of Google News and being hailed through a story of a Navy officer marrying his now husband in Vermont at the stroke of midnight. Coverage is overwhelmingly positive.
We are winning.
In the Navy, you can sail the seven seas…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7…
FINALLY!!! Gays can go and fight for the corporate state!!! So…how many of the writers at the Stranger are going to sign up and fight the corporate wars?
Oh, and all those people who said the military sky will fall?
Bet you $5 that on 9/20/12 the consensus will be, in hindsight with gays serving openly, that “Not a single shit was given,” and things continued normally… aside from the presence of gays.
@12, examples please? Please tell me which Republican president living or dead would have ever considered extending any rights to gays. If you can’t do that can you give me an example of a current presidential candidate polling at more than 5% that would do it, and don’t give me this Gary Johnson bullshit. That guy’s got as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as I do and Ron Paul would never do it. If you can’t do that how about any Republican serving in national office who would? How about a fictional Republican? Anybody?
@26: Shh it’s ok. Don’t listen to Kitten, she’s really just not that bright..
Yippee, one more step for equal rights!
War still sucks and we are taking this country down the exact road the Soviets did in the name of ‘strength and safety’.
What a wonderful thing. Indeed we are winning.
@26: Shhhh…breath, it’s ok. Don’t listen to Kitten, she’s been at the glue again.
Oops! double post, my bad.
All you OBAMA WAR IMPERIALISM NO BLOOD FOR OIL types are just as annoying as the right at this point. I’m a leftist who supports the state and service, ideas that are apparently lost on you. You can’t be happy about anything because Obama isn’t doing EXACTLY what you want RIGHT NOW. Grow the fuck up. Can’t you allow anyone a moment of happiness for something good?
It’s okay, Lissa, I really don’t think it’s possible to overemphasize how idiotic everything KittenKoder types is.
I’ll second that, Sam.
@19 is correct.
So tell me, is it okay for some Republicans to say that all Democrats are gay babies who need their diapers changed because they are incapable of feeding themselves? I would hope not, but if that’s okay, then I digress and you can continue your blind hatred …. and I’ll just start siding with the Republicans more.
My point was this, why was this the first issue? Stopping the pointless wars first would have been more helpful so they didn’t need so many soldiers to send to their deaths.
FYI …. there are actually a LOT of Republican supporters who wanted to get rid of DADT just for that reason, they believed it was unfair to send their own kids to die but the gay people getting a free ticket out … just in case you missed it.
@34 – Why should we care who you side with? If anything, your consistently moronic comments would lead me to believe that most people would be looking to do the opposite of whatever you wanted to.
Besides, didn’t you say in another comment thread that somebody’s comments had already turned you into a republican? How does this new statement change that one? You’re MORE of one now?
@35: ” they believed it was unfair to send their own kids to die but the gay people getting a free ticket out”
And then they vote for draft-dodgers. Brilliant.
@32 &33: Thanks boys! I know it’s mean to mock the afflicted, but Kitten just irritates the crap out of me…
@37 Which only strengthens my point. 😉
@36 “More of one now” …. that just proves my whole point of people being blind followers. I said I would support more of them, I am not a politician nor am I a party, I am a voter. There’s a huge difference. People often wonder why someone would support someone “who’s in a different party” … it’s because they are voters not the party nor a politician. Even politicians support other politicians in different parties. It’s because we should be looking at issues, not parties. The blind following of parties is stupid, ignorant, and illustrated by people who say “the (whatever) wouldn’t do that” or “the (whatever) always does this” …. it’s childish and a huge detriment to the US.
@35, we don’t have a draft, so gay people ‘getting a free ticket out’ is meaningless. A null set. And the question wasn’t ‘Republican supporters’; it was ‘a Republican president’. Find me a past president or presidential candidate (polling above 10%) from the last 20 years who supported repeal. Actually, @12 you said ‘some’, so go ahead and find us three.
Go ahead. Anytime. We’ll be here.
@39: I mean the candidates whose parents got them exemptions, (“fortunate sons”, etc.) not who actively defied the draft.
@41 I also said Republicans, not Republicans who have been presidents …. most people who try to be president never get it regardless of what color you are. As for the “free ticket out” … there are cases other than a draft where soldiers believe a war is illegal, though I doubt it’s been used as such, it was a possibility. I’m not saying DADT was a good thing mind you, just there’s a dark side to everything.
@42 I didn’t say anything about the draft, did I? I was merely pointing out that a lot of Republican supporters (voters) saw DADT as a bad thing as well. 😉
@43, I refer you to #10, which specifically said ‘Republican President(s)’. Then to your follow-up at 12, where you said “Actually, some would.” Please read your own posts. Possibly you meant to say ‘Well, R-Presidents, no, but many Republican voters are fine with it.’ But that is not what you said.
There have been very few servicemembers begging off going to Iraq because they believe the war is illegal. Very few gay servicemembers have said they were gay in order to get discharged in order to avoid shipping to a war zone. Conversely, many gay servicemembers have been outed against their will and thrown out of the service, some with Dishonorable Discharges or Other than Honorable Discharges.
When you say ‘there’s a dark side to everything, what do you mean? Are you saying there’s a dark side to the repeal of DADT? I agree–there might be. It’s possible that a few of the hard-core macho guys will react poorly and someone will get beaten badly. It’s possible that some asshole homo will sexually harass folks in their chain of command. These things can happen; there’s dicks in every walk of life. What did *you* mean?
@44 I mean … stop generalizing so much.
@45, what? Generalizing? That’s what you’re going with?
You’re going to have to be more specific. Generalizing about what? How am I doing it too much? You’re killing me.
@46: It’s ok clashfan, don’t let Kitten upset you so. Seriously, she doesn’t seem to have any filters and just posts what ever blather is sloshing around in her glue addled brain without actually thinking about what she is saying. Plus she seems to think that if something has happened to her personally (corporate subsidized housing, a letter taking 10 days to get some where) it is indicative of a larger trend rather than realizing that as sample set of one, her experience is statistically null.
She’s like and old granny saying that since she once got a bad can of peas she’s never going to that Piggly Wiggly again, no sir! Can’t trust ’em! But despite reports of the competing grocer in town selling tainted meat, since she only buys peas from them, they’re just jake in her book.
Treat her like Will in Seattle and let her mutter to herself in the corner.
@47: ” realizing that as sample set of one, her experience is statistically null”
Even still, she subscribes to the pseudo-libertarian belief that revolution is superior to reform in all cases because of her unshakable faith in The Truly Free Market.
@48 Actually, no, I don’t like the idea of a physical revolution one bit, I’m way too lazy (honestly I am) and would hate to have to defend myself from anyone, that’s what I expect the cops to be paid for. While I do believe that a truly free market would be nice (if anything to see what actually does happen) … that is kind of besides my point.
You know, every person is unique, even within a group of those like them, they are ALL different really. This suppressing one’s own uniqueness goes both ways, generalizing misses a lot of important issues, especially with politics. People fear having their own masks removed so much, they refuse to look behind another’s mask. Or is it that people are just scared to look at themselves without the mask? Generalizing is looking at only the masks. No side is innocent, none of them are, none of the groups have avoided dirty tactics. I thought we were beyond “the ends justify the means” mentality, I guess I’m wrong. Republicans are not all the monsters people make them out to be, and Democrats are not all innocent like many here seem to wish they were. It’s a huge mistake seeing only party labels.
@49, what are you talking about? No one is saying that all Republicans are monsters; my dad was an R for many years before the party moved away from him. Pop’s not evil.
We’re saying that a Republican president would not have repealed DADT. You argued with this assertion. When asked to back this up, you avoided the question. You want specifics? There’s your specifics.
@49: “I don’t like the idea of a physical revolution one bit”
That’s not what UAR is talking about.
@49: “You know, every person is unique, even within a group of those like them, they are ALL different really.”
I’m discussing your preference for market-driven solutions for life and governance. You’ve led a bad life, therefore the government is to blame, private industry couldn’t be worse!
Revolution and tearing down the flawed systems and replacing with ANYTHING else (does not matter with what) is therefore preferable to reforming those flawed systems.
Your ideas are not unique in the history of the world, no idea is. Certainly not the modern big-L libertarian economics you advocate to replace most protective bodies of the Federal government.