Military

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Should Go

It's time to let gays serve openly in the military

|

America is one of many countries that forbid openly gay people to serve in the military. Others are: Cuba, China, Egypt, Greece, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Turkey, and Venezuela.

See a pattern?

With a few exceptions, those are not countries where free people want to live.

By contrast, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain all allow gay people to serve.

No country has America's in-between policy: Gays can serve—as long as no one finds out about it. Where did that come from?

It happened because Bill Clinton campaigned for the presidency promising to allow gays to serve. After his election, the Democratic Congress decreed that "the presence in the Armed Forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk … ."

So a compromise was born. The media labeled it "don't ask, don't tell."

Since then, nearly 12,500 service members have been discharged because of their sexual orientation. These have included 800 "mission critical" troops such as Arabic linguists (59 of them), Farsi linguists (nine), medics, pilots, and intelligence analysts.

In May, the House of Representatives voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," but only after the Defense Department studies the matter and the president, secretary of defense, and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declare that ending the policy would not reduce military effectiveness. The Senate has not voted on its version of bill.

So, should it be repealed? Here are some things to consider:

The American Psychological Association states: "Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention. … When openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness."

OK, of course they said that. It's the APA. But that doesn't make them wrong.

The Government Accountability Office studied four countries that allow gays to serve—Canada, Israel, Germany, and Sweden. It found that "military officials from each country said that, on the basis of their experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion or morale."

How would members of America's military feel about repeal of the policy? A Military Times poll found: 71 percent of respondents said they would continue to serve if the policy were overturned, 10 percent said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours. That's a pretty strong majority for acceptance.

Where do I come down on this issue? It's easy. I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. I don't think government should have any role in our sex lives.

Just as I see no reason why gays should not be free to marry, I see no reason why they shouldn't be free to be in the military. As I wrote in the conclusion to Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: "I want government to leave people alone. I think people should be free to do anything they want—as long as they don't hurt anyone else. I may disagree with their choices, but I don't think The State should take their choices away."

I draw my inspiration from Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek. He wrote a postscript to his classic, The Constitution of Liberty, titled, "Why I Am Not a Conservative," in which he said, "One of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal (today I call it "libertarian") position is based on courage … to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead … ."

I'm with Hayek. Unless we do identifiable harm to others, the State should leave us alone.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Advertisement

NEXT: The Inalienable Right to Saggy Pants?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t know what I’ve been told, foxholes at night get mighty cold!

    I don’t know but it’s been said, my NCO gives mighty good instruction on unit cohesion!

    Live blog tonight!

    1. But will soldiers till be able to make jokes about homos? Or will that be hate speech?

      1. Why would you ask that it already is a hate crime?

        1. OTOH, would it be a hate crime for gays to make straight-people jokes?

          What? It isn’t? Well, shit.

    2. Don’t ask, Don’t tell will morph into don’t drop the soap…

      1. I coached women’s gymnastics at Camp Woodward in PA back in the 70’s and early 80’s. I lived in a building called the coop. It was a big room with about 20-30 beds. Totally barracks style. Some of the men who shared that space — along with teen age boys I might add — were dancers from NY who were gay. Nice guys and no one seemed to mind. They also used the showers along with boys as young as nine. It really was a non-issue.

        1. The 70’s should be in jail right now.

        2. Can we hear from those 9 year old boys wether it was a non-issue? Maybe you were just too ugly to draw any attention.

          1. Here’s a cloth to catch your drool. You needn’t give it back.

      2. Yes, all gay men are rapists. I know I would be. Every time I see a naked woman, I just can’t help but fuck her, whether she wants it or not.

  2. Can’t find a single thing I disagree with here. Stossel’s right on the money as usual.

  3. Excuse me, aren’t yall hired killers? Shut up!

  4. “71 percent of respondents said they would continue to serve if the policy were overturned, 10 percent said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours.”

    By that measure, 28.5 percent, which would be roughly 650,000 members of the military, would get out as fast as they possibly could. Surely there would be more than the 800 mission critical soldiers you mentioned.

    I’m not disagreeing with your stance, obviously it’s time for reform, I’m just saying that it seems like you would want to leave out the fact that more than a quarter of the military would try to quit if you’re building a case for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

    1. Why aren’t these soldiers quitting the military now? Isn’t it common knowledge that gays have a right to serve as long as they hide their sexual orientation? Gay men and women are already legally in the military. That’s why I find it hard to believe anything close to 25% of members of the military will quit if the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is repealed.

      1. Exactly. And taking poll numbers like that as anything but an expression of opinion on the matter is dubious at best. Of course those strongly opposed will say they’d leave and those somewhat opposed will say they’d consider leaving. There’s a giant difference, though, between saying “yeah I’d leave” and actually making the real life-changing decision to give up your career or refuse to re-enlist if you otherwise want to. Expecting anything near that number to actually back up their anonymous opinions with action is absurd.

        1. Of course, it’s equally the case that those who answer the poll saying sure that’d be no problem might change their minds when confronted with the actual reality.

          Whether those who say they’d leave or those who say nah no big deal are more likely to be mistaken about their actual future decisions isn’t clear.

          1. No, it’s not equally the case. Sounds nice but if you stop to think about it for a second it’s not even a remotely logical conclusion.

      2. In the 90s, there was a survey done on businesses that hired low and minimum-wage labor concerning a minimum wage hike, and their potential response to it. The overwhelming proportion of those businesses surveyed said that, no, the raise would not affect their hiring practices. Many progressive economists (Brad DeLong and Krugman among them) ecstatically took this a proof that classical economics was wrong about minimum wage. The sane economists smiled serenely as the other shoe dropped: namely, businesses froze hiring until a substantial number of their minimum wage hires were weeded out through attrition, and a new equilibrium, with less employed workers, was reached. Moral of the story: don’t trust what people say, trust what they do, and look for incentives that they will inevitably confront.

        That said, I do believe that having gays in the military would mildly reduce combat readiness (particularly among our Marines and SF), though in the upcoming years, I think it will be eminently tenable.

      3. Gay’s do not have to hide their orientation in the military. They do, however, have to abstain from gay conduct. There is a difference between being gay and having gay sex. It’s the sex that’s outlawed in the military.

    2. Right, just like all those liberals who say they’ll leave the country if this Republican gets elected or all those conservatives who say they’ll leave if that Democrat gets elected.

      Rarely, if ever, happens.

    3. I bet most of those that said they would quit, would not actually quit. No harm in answering an anonymous survey with an idle threat. Over a half a million military personnel will not suddenly decide to carry through on that anonymous idle threat when faced with finding a new job, still wanting to defend their country, etc.

      1. I agree. These are grown ups. Let’s not treat them like children.

    4. It’s kind of a stupid poll to begin with. I seriously doubt very many service members would want to get out just because of letting gays be out in the open, they all know they’re already in there after all. It’s kind of like all those liberals that threaten to go to Canada if a Republican president is elected. Nothing ever comes of it.

    5. The size and expense of the US military should be greatly reduced anyway.

    6. “I’m not disagreeing with your stance, obviously it’s time for reform, I’m just saying that it seems like you would want to leave out the fact that more than a quarter of the military would try to quit if you’re building a case for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
      reply to this ”

      That number says they would quit. All the people who said they would move to Canada if Bush won in 2000 didn’t actually move there. Many of the Dems who said they wouldn’t vote for Obama if he got the nomination over Hillary ended up voting for him anyway.

      I doubt a quarter of the military is going to defect should gays openly be allowed. Leaving as a result of gays joining is a much larger step than saying you would in an anonymous poll.

  5. They said the same thing when we went and allowed the coloreds to serve with the whites. ‘Course, we didn’t have a volunteer military in my day.

    1. Actually, I knew a guy who resigned his Army commission over HST’s integration order.

      Also, during the draft era convincingly claiming you were gay would get you out of being drafted. It would also pretty much guarantee that you wouldn’t be able to get a job in any but a few fields after that.

      1. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they’re both faggots and they won’t take either of them.

  6. I agree with John Stossel in principle. However, having served in the military I know firsthand how many ignorant and socially conservative people enlist. Unfortunately, it’s going to take more time for them to mature and get past their silly hangups and misconceptions. Attempting to make this kind of change too soon might have terrible repercussions.

    1. But you can’t not make changes because some people are stupid. Keeping the army segregated wasn’t a good idea- even though there were probably a lot of racists in the army and the change might have had terrible repercussions.

      1. Well, yeah. But, let’s try to bear something in mind, that had the approval of the military’s top brass, the people most familiar with and influential within the organization. Honestly, I don’t know where the brass stands on this. Assuming they’re confident they can make it work, I’d say go with it. But, ultimately, the job of the military is killing people and blowing crap up, not making sure people feel they’re treated fairly.

        1. Appartently you haven’t had to sit through many EO classes or taken a look at our Afghanistan strategy.

          1. And those are working out just swimmingly, aren’t they?

    2. Alternatively, not making this change may just prolong and exacerbate the problem. We know it’s going to happen eventually, might as well just get it over with. Sometimes you just need to jump in the pool.

    3. How soon is too soon? I mean Jesus isn’t don’t ask don’t tell an intermediate policy to let them get accustomed? Its getting close to 20 years old.

      1. Well I think the legislative compromise would be to announce a concrete date for the end of DADT sometime in the future. Any enlistees will know that the military they join will have openly gay servicemen, X years in the future.

        1. Who the fuck cares whether some enlisted grunt has sufficient notice of the impending change? They enlist knowing they may be sent to Buttfuckistan to pick mines out of camel shit and nobody thinks to given them notice of that (Ok, we’re going to invade on April 20, 2014 – anyone enlisting needs to be aware of that!). So we can send someone to their death but can’t change the policy on gays serving openly without making sure everyone is properly warned?

    4. It will, but segregation always increases antagonism and fear.

    5. No better time like the present. Let the bitches who think gays are icky get the hell over it.

    6. i agree with you in principle, i just think NOW is not too soon based on the polling data i have seen, and the military people i have spoken to.

      not to mention that there’s a metric assload (no pun intended) of countries that allow gays to serve openly with no problemo (israel, for example)…

      also note that if bill friggin’ oreilly can call for DADT to be repealed, that shows a pretty broad swath of support.

      imo, the repeal of DADT will be much like the y2k virus. we will look back on it and go “why the heck did everybody make such a big deal about something that turned out to be anything but?”

    7. The servicemembers will adapt. We always do.

      I’m more curious how this will be implemented. Part of the reason for separate male and female lodging is to prevent fraternization, and sexual harassment and assault. That becomes a lot harder when the very bright line “one gender in the other gender’s area” is removed.

      I think DADT is going to be repealed, and I think a lot of homosexuals are going to be very upset when they find themselves being treated like females are (ex: no assignments to combat arms units).

      I also think it is going to put to lie the claims that there are huge segments of the homosexual population who were just chomping at the bit to serve, but refused to do so because they couldn’t “be who they are” while in uniform. I’m sorry, but if a gay person lacked the discipline to be discreet for three years under DADT, they lacked the discipline to succeed in the military in the first place.

      1. I’m sorry, but if a gay person lacked the discipline to be discreet for three years under DADT

        Yeah, because anyone who gets nabbed on DADT did so by being indiscreet. You do realize nosy people tattle on gay people’s private lives, don’t you? It could also be the smallest slip, the littlest “mistake” that ends their career.

        1. Not really. Mostly, you can be a closeted homosexual in the armed forces, particularly if you’re good at your job. I can tell you lots of Navy stories of guys caught necking who just got dressed down for “being out of uniform”.

  7. Unfortunately, rational arguments don’t work on irrational people.

    1. You can’t reason a man out of what he wasn’t reasoned into.

  8. I wonder how many folks at Fox Business Network won’t talk to Stossel for a few days since he makes it clear that he’s not a conservative in this article.

    1. He also spoke against Arizona’s Immigration Law and is still on at FBN. I wonder how much he’ll be allowed to do before he gets called into the principal’s office.

      1. I’m guessing social liberals get treated better on FNC and FBC than economic conservatives get treated on MSNBC. And no, that ranting jackass Dylan Ratigan doesn’t count.

      2. It is obviously for money/ratings. Much of the right in are starting to lean towards Libertarianism and these opinions are gaining mainstream support. Hell, Bill’O said on Leno that the military should repeal DADT.

    2. After his articles on drug legalization and open borders, I think they’ve figured that out already.

      As I’ve said before, the thing that bothers me about DADT isn’t so much from a gay rights stance as much as it is an equal protection one. To wit, I’d be happy with them either repealing DADT or making it apply to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. I don’t wanna know if you’re straight any more than I wanna know if you’re gay (which is to say, I really don’t wanna know).

      1. I don’t wanna know if you’re straight any more than I wanna know if you’re gay (which is to say, I really don’t wanna know).

        I guess you disapprove wearing wedding bands and cringe every time a co-worker mentions his wife or girlfriend.

    3. FBN is not completely monolithic in its requirements that the social conservative agenda be followed by everyone. After all, Redeye with Gutman has the “leg chair” for pretty women on his show and that’s not exactly something a social conservative would do.

    4. That’s why he’s on FBN and not on FNC, less amount of people have FBN, so they can mostly keep Stossel quiet.

      1. you have no idea what you are talking about. you are aware that even bill oreilly (on FBN NOT FNC) has come out and said he supports the repeal of DADT and has asked president obama to do something about it?

    5. It may have occurred to FBN that some of their viewers are libertarians.

      So long as Stossel gets acceptable viewership, I doubt they’ll try to muzzle him.

      1. for fuck’s sake. even bill oreilly, who is far from a libertarian, has come out ON FNC (not their business channel, but their flagship) for repeal of DADT and has made a plea to obama to stop enforcing it.

        i suspect many of the people that criticize FNC don’t even WATCH it

  9. I agree with stossel but he omitted some key points that will change your perpective. If gays can openly serve in the military than they will eventually want to get married in the military as well. I personally can care less but until the federal government addresses gay marriage completely they will pawn this dicey issue off on military leaders. The federal government should not have any role in marriage but since they do they must clearly state their entire position.

    1. This is a good point because married couples get additional benefits in the military.

    2. Another point left unsaid is that the military’s law (Uniform Code of Military Justice) specifically prohibits sodomy (dumb, but it is in there and it is applied to heterosexuals too). So repealling DADT and allowing homosexuals to serve also requires congress to change the UCMJ.

      You also have all of the associated family programs available to dependents on installations.

      Will homosexuals be serving in states that recognize gay marriage, who get married to another person of the same gender, be able to apply for, and receive, dependancy allowances based on their same-sex spouse? If so, what happens when they are moved to a state that doesn’t recognize SSM?

      This isn’t really as simple as saying “Let ’em in!” and having it happen.

      1. The integration order from Truman came in 1948, and Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967, so I presume we already have a map for the issues surrounding marriage.

        What did the military do about mixed marriages in the interim?

      2. Doesn’t the UCMJ also prohibit all sexual positions except missionary? They aren’t prosecuting many people for that one.

  10. Yes, lets get rid of DADT, but also lets make sure that we have clear policies on harassment and conduct. The initial “I can’t believe that little homo is my boss” period will result in some number of predicatble beatings/assualts. Gotta be hard on preventing that crap up front if we want it to work.

    And yes, I’ve served. 24 years in USAF and there were a number of gays in my units. We all knew who they were and no one cared unless they slipped up and got caught without plausible deniability. Sad, but its the reality of the miitary.

    End DADT.

    1. Well said, Ray. I’ve always said that clear policies on fraternization and harassment as well as other conduct issues would render gays in the military a non-isuue.

      It’s my understanding that’s exactly how the countries listed as having no ban handle the matter.

      1. So it it will be ok if a soldier is guy, he just can’t pack the fudge in the barracks? Just asking

        1. No, they’ll have to limit on-duty and in uniform conduct. In theory, what you do lights out is not the issue.

          1. This is not true. Look up “fraternization.”

      2. No military to speak of.

    2. What if someone says “I can’t believe that little breeder is my boss”?

      Works both ways, or at least it should.

  11. I’m generally looking forward to a Republican return to power in November. I hope it will provide a check to the economic policies that have been enacted over the past two years.

    But when it comes to social issues, I’m worried sick. If there’s one good thing about Obama it’s that he’s (somewhat) committed to letting gays serve in the military. I’m afraid that if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” doesn’t get repealed before the midterm elections, Obama will feel pressured to abandon the issue once the (conservative-leaning) Republicans start gripping his nuts on economic policies.

    1. You’re assuming that the Republicans get a lot of votes.

      1. I’m not so sure it’s only an assumption:

        http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..e_map.html

        Sorry, don’t know how to hyperlink.

        1. <a href=”hyperlink“>text description</a>

  12. Guys, guys, guys… come on…

    there are legitimate economic reasons for DADT. In wars, when all the sailors and soldiers are on leave, and can finally relax and party, what’s one of the main things they want to do? Sleep with hookers! So they all go to a few big brothels. Now, when you’re dealing the the Madame of the house, there’ll be one charge for one lay, but you get a discount with the more “services” you buy. If one or two of the men in the unit want an entirely different kind of prostitute (a guy), then that’s a whole nother thing and gets charged the original full one-time lay rate. You lose the discount for those men.

    Our military has to save money somehow!

  13. And you think Drone Flights piss off the Taliban?

    1. that’s a feature, not a bug. not sure if you agree, but if this policy change pisses off the taliban! i say go for it

  14. I’ve read about 30,000 service people have been discharged since the DADT became policy.

    How many have been discharged for the asking part?

    1. DADT was not about who anyone was sleeping with. It was a test to see who was stupid enough or so caught up wtih themselves that they couldn’t keep their mouth shut. Did the 30K not understand the rule or did they think their business was too important to not share with the world. Everyone should take a big steaming cup of “shut the fuck up” about their personal business

      1. you actually bring up my only problem with DADT. The most certainly DO kick people out even when said people never “told”. I remember reading about a soldier who was kicked out because they found out about his wedding from facebook. Is facebook some official part of the military now? No. As long as he never told his superiors or other troops to look at his facebook, he never actually “told” anybody.

        You should be allowed be as much of a flaming homo as you want, just not in the military. But the military is going OUTSIDE its bounds and looking at people’s behavior in civilian life. That goes well beyond “Don’t ask don’t tell”

      2. not really. someone intelligent could try to keep it quiet and still get caught.

      3. I think a more accurate description of the policy under DADT is “don’t let us find out”. As I have gathered, a lot of people have been kicked out because someone found out, without any asking or telling on anyone’s part.

  15. I’m currently in my second branch of service(ARMY, Coast Guard, 3years each), and I can say most soldiers and sailors I know don’t care. Some may be uncomfortable at first, but they would get over it. This morning I was asked by the DoD, along with 400,000 other military personnel, to take a survey about how we feel about repealing the don’t ask/don’t tell policy. At the end I was given the option to give a personal statement on the matter. This was my response:

    “I think this is a great idea that is long overdue. Sexual misconduct is a problem regardless of sexual orientation, and should be treated as such. I do not believe sexual orientation will affect an individuals drive to fight and die for our country, nor do I believe it will seriously affect other service members ability to accept them as part of our military family. Most of the homosexuals that I have known are competent, motivated, intelligent individuals who would add a lot to the military. Anyone who is brave enough to join the military is mature enough to handle the repeal of don’t ask dont tell. I hope this gets repealed.”

    1. +1,000,000

      1. number of gays in the military?

  16. And here I thought Stossel was Libertarian. As it turns out, he’s a LIEbral DEMONcrat baby-murdering rat bastard that wants to destroy traditional families and turn the Greatest Fighting Force in the History of the World into a Pride Parade.

    Could you imagine if the 300 Spartans had to fight alongside homos? They wouldn’t have lasted 5 minutes!

    1. don’t foregt in ancient greece it was way cool to have a couple of young boys, a goat and a few melon on the side along with the wife. it’s a well known fact the greeks will fuck mud.

      1. Got to it before me

    2. Weren’t the Spartans raping little boys?

      1. pretty much anything with a pulse…including a pile of rocks (if they thought there was a snake hiding inside)

    3. Are you ceing sarcastic? Because the Spartans were homos.

      1. being

    4. You have clearly never heard of the Sacred Band of Thebes.

  17. “Grab their ass and take their gas.”

  18. Well… Technically you can do whatever gay shit you want in the military – as long as you call “no homo!”, which makes it not gay

    1. If it’s underway, it’s not gay.

    2. Gay-chicken?

      1. Also acceptable.

        1. What about listening to Coldplay?

  19. My primary concerns involving this as an issue have to deal with the sexual harassment policies under UCMJ and the unfortunate enforcement of politically correct speech.

    If homosexual conduct is normalized and protected, the same type of politically correct dancing around the issue of sex around females that service members experience currently will become an omnipresent inescapable threat to good conduct and the feared Inspector General witch hunts will become unavoidable.

    Retention will suffer, and the already risky hopes of military careerists for continued promotion will become more unlikely yet.

    Productivity will suffer. While homosexuals could indeed serve productively under a strictly professional, well disciplined command structure, the U.S. exchanged that for the politically correct one we now have.

    1. The biggest threat to retention right now is the Post 9/11 GI Bill…

      In a command of 220 people, 22 did not re-enlist after the new GI bill to go to college (myself included). The 3 years before that we had a perfect retention record, though we had at least 6 very open homosexuals in our command.

      I understand that this is a very small-scale comparison but it still shows clearly what made our golden anchor turn to haze grey…

    2. “If homosexual conduct is normalized and protected, the same type of politically correct dancing around the issue of sex around females that service members experience currently will become an omnipresent inescapable threat to good conduct and the feared Inspector General witch hunts will become unavoidable.”

      I understand what your saying. But also having served with a few open homosexuals, I don’t think it will be as big a problem as you think. Granted they were females and it was in the Coast Guard, so the situation was a bit different. But I don’t think the soldiers in my Scout platoon in the ARMY would have made it that big an issue. Maybe we would have had to tone down the gay slurs we threw at each other from time to time and other stuff, but I do not believe throwing a gay man or 2 into the mix would have ruined the cohesiveness of the group. We were too close, and most of us still are. Some of the UCMJ policies will have to be looked at, but I believe it will be OK.

      1. Finally, a comment from someone who is not worshipping at the altar of “I’m OK, you’re OK”.

        Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, at least in the combat arms of the Army and Marine Corps would be a disaster. In civilian life, I don’t give a damn who does what to who in the privacy of their bedroom. In the military it is a whole different story.

        The American military is unique in that from its inception, it was specifically designed and chartered to be a separate society – a society WITHIN the g

  20. UCMJ
    Ugly Crusty Man Jumpers?

  21. this is what I call a target rich environment…

  22. I don’t like flamboyant men. I don’t like them around me.

    I don’t like rap music. Don’t want to hear it.

    I don’t like facial piercings. Don’t want to see them.

    Sometimes I don’t like what happens with freedom. I will fight and try not to die for the right of all the above people. Sometimes freedom is messy, and our opinion of other peoples freedoms should be kept to ourselves, except to support them.

  23. What the study can’t take into account is that some gays may enlist simply because they would not have to worry about being found out.

  24. Per the author: “the Democratic Congress decreed that “the presence in the Armed Forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk … .”

    Another view: Virtually ALL Republicans in Congress and a minority of Democrats thought it would create an unacceptable risk.

  25. I agree with Stossel’s conclusion. If you’re going to allow women to serve, there’s no obvious reason not to let gays, too. I’m sure the issues caused by sexual tensions between het men and women are far more important than those between homo men, or women.

    But arguing this on “libertarian” grounds of the government “not telling people what to do” is nonsense. The government isn’t telling anyone what to do, because it doesn’t tell anyone they have to join up. It just says what kind of people it’s looking for, and in principle, should make that decision based on what makes the baddest ass army in the world. If it turned out that the best possible army was made up only of blue-eyed blond men of Germanic ancestry with a fondness for shiny black boots — and enough of those can be induced to join — then so be it. The issues of social equality or sending the appropriate signals to The Children are wholly unimportant compared to the importance of having an army that can beat the hell out of anyone else.

    Actually I suppose the true deep libertarian point of view is that the government shouldn’t be running an army anyway. Gives it too much power, too much inclination to meddle abroad. Let it do R&D and set standards for weaponry, and hire mercenaries when necessary, I suppose.

    1. Agreed, minus the last paragraph. Then again, that might be why my subscription to Libertarian Ideology wasn’t renewed.

      It is the same reason we don’t allow racists, Communists, Nazis, and others to serve (at least, in principle): the military is looking for a specific type, and if you’re not it, it doesn’t want you.

    2. The problem with this is that the military is wrong. Its an intolerance issue, not a “we don’t think gays would make bad ass soldiers” issue. As far as I know, women can’t serve on the front lines because of cleanliness/gynecological issues – Iraq gets dirty; and we didn’t have proper showers for the first 4-5 months. I know many women who would make better soldiers than some men that are in, and I’m sure the same goes for gay men and women. And arguing this on Libertarian grounds has to do with respecting and tolerating peoples personal preferences.

  26. Ending this article with a generic “Hayekian” quote from Hayek is bullshit.

    Find an quote from Hayek about the courage of gays in the military or stop abusing his name.

    Wanting anyone to serve in the military because you’re a “libertarian” really is laughable.

    1. Funny, I don’t think Hayek is quoted enough, in or out of context.

    2. “Wanting anyone to serve in the military because you’re a “libertarian” really is laughable.”

      Thats bullshit. Being a Libertarian is also about tolerating and respecting peoples personal preferences. its perfectly compatible. And I think Hayek would agree, so the quote works.

      Is a Goldwater quote good enough for you?

      “You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”

  27. Every “gays in the military” debate reminds me of the movie Brain Candy. So…without further ado:

    No secrets here, remember? No secrets between sailors.
    You are scum! Do you hear me, soldier?
    Terzinsky.
    – Yes, sir? – See the two enemies by the wall?
    Got ’em.
    You’re my best man. Here’s the plan.
    You go over there and fuck them, we’ll stay here and masturbate.
    – Yes, sir! – Go!
    There goes a man!

    Who’s on tonight, Fist, Mr. Meth, how about you hmmmm?

    1. Was that brain candy?

  28. Stossel is doing the sex episode, not just teh gays!.

    1. Let’s fuckin shatter some wisdom(experiencing delay)

  29. “Are the rules for sex in America dumb?”

    NO! Americans like talking during sex.

    1. Fisting is verbatim in a christian nation, please change your handle. How about ‘puppy etiquette’.

    2. “Are the rules for sex in America dumb?”

      Only when they’re gagging!

  30. I am not listening!

  31. All these picture zooms are making me dizzy.

    1. That is so you don’t see any titties which could scar you forever.(a lot worse than dizziness)

  32. Dude that is fucked up, you never call the cops like that…no take backs with the state, bitch…poor guy, a fucking shame.

  33. Man, this story is sooo fucked up.

  34. It would be hard not to murder mommy-in-law.

  35. I wonder how holiday visits to the mother-in-law’s go.

    1. Listen to The Doors “This Is The End” @ the Whiskey and replace “Hello Dad!” with “Hello Mom in law”

  36. There is always a bootlicking statist willing to get some face time on national tv.

    And, yes we do create laws to protect the innocent, however rare the instances are.

  37. Oh yes, you’re gonna catch a few innocents in any widely-cast net, so stop fretting about it.

    1. When all you got is a hammer, evey one looks like a nail.

  38. Prosecutors that don’t go after cases…bitch please.

    Oh, don’t like the law…vote the bums out, sounds like mng.

    1. Visual Balko has a nice smile and makes me want to kiss flowers rather than throw myself down stairs. Like Blind Melon “No Rain”– suicide lyrics/Happy bumble-bee-girl video. His proper nickname involves this concept.

  39. “You got railroaded by my cast iron law? Tough fucking shit. Kids have sex illegally!”

    1. ZERO TOLERANCE!

  40. It would be pretty awesome if the prosecutor’s grandfather was arrested, and this prevented her from being born. Kinda paradoxy!

  41. Voting the bums out does nothing to help that dude get off the offenders list.

    1. Won’t change the laws either…my point.

  42. Uh-oh, Wendy. Balko’s in the house.

  43. *shakes fist at sky*

    BALKO!

    *lightning strikes, loud thunder*

  44. Citation please, Wendy.

  45. We should put everyone on the sex offenders list and take them off when they prove they’re not perverts.

  46. Let’s take the most nightmarish scenario to hastily make wide reaching laws that give the state more powers. Not to mention the unintended consequences.

  47. “No one is safe.”

    Well, technically, adults are pretty safe around pedophiles.

  48. Bitch is over the top…really, she is living in a fantasy world.

  49. Ha, Wendy got out-tough-on-crime’d by Balko.

  50. Ricky don’t lose that number.

  51. Stop giving your nervous guests swivel chairs, John.

    1. Nice

  52. I am a libertarian and respect and agree with Stossel, but I think most people have been tricked into their current opinion because they are ignorant of the full ramifications that repealing DADT and liberal / LBGT community see the military as an easy target. Two points that are not mentioned but will cause significant problems within an overburdened military are what to do when gay servicemembers want to get married, and what to do with military chaplains. Gays and chaplains cannot amicably co-exist in the military. For the devout “seperation of church and staters” this could be the way to remove chaplains from the military altogether. This is a realistic concern because a Catholic priest working for the army must condemn homosexuality otherwise he’s in violation of the Vatican. If he sticks to his message he must discriminate against gay servicemembers.
    I believe the gay marriage is an even more problematic issue if the federal government does not address this before repealing DADT. The military cannot openly tell someone they are allowed to die for the country but not get married. Repealing DADT without effectively addressing this issue will be a de facto law permitting gays to marry across the nation. I can care less about that but the problem is that our military leaders, young men and women under significant stress already, will be caught in the middle of this battle. I believe the LBGT community is fully aware of this and is what justifies their momentum on this particular issue at the direct expense of our military leadership. The real libertarian question this brings up now is why is the government at all involved in marriages in the first place?
    I expect a little more scrutiny of this issue from one of the more outspoken libertarians of the day and frankly I am ashamed of the author and many of the commentors on this site.

    1. Whoa, Mr. Steppin’ on toes…succinct is the name of the game when ‘Stache is on.

    2. Your over thinking it.

    3. Lets see here:

      * Chaplains get along with gays right now. They know it and the gay forls know it; they’re just prevented from taking official action. And they’d do just fine in a post DADT world, even if they aren’t comfortable counseling gay service men and women. One of the oddities of the job is that sometimes you have to minister to those who (you know) don’t share your faith. So they do the best they can. I’m sure some are better at it then others.

      * The movement to put an end to discrimination against gays in the military dates from a time when gay marriage was a little spark of hope on the horizon. And given as how the federal government current does not recognize gay marriage even when some of the state do, the homos in the military isn’t going to be the wedge. Full faith and credence will kick in once the courts decided to adhere to it and not before.

      In other words: same as it always was.

      1. In other words: everything is going to be OK.

      2. You have no idea what you are talking about. Here is the basic logic spelled out for you: Vatican condemns homosexuality, priests must adhere to Vatican law, priests condemn homosexuals, gays openly serve in the military, catholic priests openly serve in the military, priests condemn homosexual soldiers. If a Catholic priest subverts the Vatican by telling a homosexual he is anything other than immoral than he is not a priest. Obviously one member of the military cannot tell another member of the military that he is immoral because of the way he/she was born. This is clearly unlawful discrimination and creates a hostile work environment. The current system allows the two to co-exist. Ultimately I do think gays should be allowed to get married and serve in the military, but if the government does not correct the record on its previous mistakes they will only make the problem worse. This is a point I expect true libertarians to appreciate and underlies a more fundamental problem that government involvement in religion / personal lives / marriage does nothing but pervert it. Your response lacks clarity and substance and amounts to a liberal talking point. And your refute to my point about gay military marraiges was nonsense as well.

        1. “Here is the basic logic spelled out for you: Vatican condemns homosexuality, priests must adhere to Vatican law, priests condemn homosexuals, gays openly serve in the military, catholic priests openly serve in the military, priests condemn homosexual soldiers. If a Catholic priest subverts the Vatican by telling a homosexual he is anything other than immoral than he is not a priest.”

          Chaplains are not of a particular faith. They are supposed to be there to counsel soldiers of all faiths. Counseling a homosexual in a military setting is not going to be a problem. They can and will coexist. Some UCMJ policy may have to change, but if they are motivated to let anyone who is willing to to fight with us, it wont be very hard.

          1. I am aware that chaplains are not affiliated with a specific religion but if gays are allowed to serve in the military than at least Catholic priests would have to be kicked out. Anyone’s inability to foresee the conflicts that would arise between gay military members and federally sponsored representatives of organized religion is beyond naive and indicates an underlying political agenda.

            1. Of course it an underlying political agenda. Never said otherwise. And it obviously an underlying religious agenda on the catholic priests part. The Chaplains I knew are not going to refuse to counsel someone because of this. The mission is more impotant than petty religios differrences. That should be the focus.

        2. I may be wrong but as far as I know the military does not marry people. A marriage performed on a military base is just like any other marriage in that state or territory. If DADT is repealed and the service members can produce a legal marriage license the military will treat them as married.

        3. Maybe you should do your homework on the Catechism before stating that priests condemn homosexual soldiers. The homosexual orientation is not condemned, just the homosexual activity, according to the Vatican. Thus, the chaplain should only be condemning the activity if it’s occuring on active duty, which would get the perpetrating soldier kicked out anyway under military conduct guidelines. Just the orientation is not sufficient enough for the chaplain to be judgmental.

  53. What is going on here, the kid’s mom looks like a character from Kill Bill

    1. One must confess! That dude is creepy lookin. Stache was smart to have made him bring a halo… I mean alibi…I mean wife.

  54. You can’t really fault Mickey-D’s on that.

    1. True. He should of said, “I thought it asked if I was a registered burger flipper, which I am”…that would of totally worked, and he’d be managing that bitch by now…with his pick of underage pussy.

  55. THIS ZOOSK COMMERCIAL IS TOO SEXUALLY EXPLICIT!

    1. Are you two watching a movie together and quoting it on here? Color me confused.

    2. Are you two watching a movie together and quoting it on here? Color me confused.

      1. John Stossel also hosts a show on Fox Business Channel…it is on presently

        Tune in…we totally sync up CREEPY!

        1. Ahh. To bad I don’t have FBN.

          1. I never thought of what the Stossel thread would look like to someone not watching the show…probably looks pretty weird.

            1. its kind of amusing now that I know whats going on. I don’t have a TV right now, or anything to do up here, except the internet and my books. Thanks for the entertainment.

  56. You were glad, why?

    Oooh titties are coming!

  57. “I can’t turn on my TV without seeing sex!”

    People having sex in front of your set? Left your remote under a copy of Penthouse?

  58. F-bomb, what?

  59. “This is cable… in fact, we can have sex right now and the FCC can’t do anything about it… So what do you say, Penny?”

    1. If Stossel were to skullfuck her, then I would clap for him.

      1. That is sooooooo wrong, dude.

        Applause is a sure way to break someone’s concentration in that situation.

        1. After, I would wait until he was done…duh!

      2. I’m not sayin she has a promiscuous skull but if Stossel were to skullfuck her, he would get the clap.

        1. This as well, good observation.

  60. She probably thinks that the internet should be censored also.

  61. Well, if I own them…I want to see titties and hear “f-bombs”…you meddling cunt.

  62. Oh, please. Her funbag didn’t even slip out.

  63. Wendy and Penny are too uptight. John should offer them mustache rides.

  64. “We get to decide what we want to see.”

    And by we I mean me and not you and your remote control.

    1. ‘zackly….

      so lady, if “we” decided we like those European commercials during the dinner hour, then “we” can allow them ?

  65. Skinemax stole my childhood.

  66. It steals their innocence…man, it is going to be hard to argue against that total fucking nonsense.

    I can’t watch adult programming because parents can’t control what their kids watch, and what they watch “steals their innocence”(with no evidence to back this up)…To quote Reggie Dunlop; Lady, your fucked.

    1. That shitty smile says “I used to get attention by being hot, now I get attention by fucking senators and stealing freedom.”

  67. Got Milk?

  68. Every Reasonable person…I am going to drink, why not?

  69. 4 fucking years for making movies, makes me want to puke in my fucking pants!

    Not to mention the years of litigation and lawyer fees that max hardcore had to go through.

  70. Stossel has toned his devil’s advocacy down too much. It’s not obvious anymore.

    1. His attempts to give both sides time seems to be in favor of the statists.

      Fuck they have all of the media and government and populace, let’s be an echo chamber with some ridicule of bootlicking guest.

  71. He should have been kicked out of the military for associating with Kathy Griffin.

  72. “I AM GAY.”

    Geez, you don’t sound very happy.

  73. Uncomfortable, can’t handle hanging out with gay dudes=not ready for combat.

    1. Its very, very true.

  74. Is this something you creeps do every Thursday?

    1. Sho ’nuff, check out the end of every Stossel thread.

      1. I’ve really been missing out.

        1. Especially since you don’t have Fox business, which also has Judge Napolitano on now,

          1. Ya I’m aware of the shows and times. And reason must be deleting your play by play analysis of the show.

  75. I really need gay interpreters.

  76. Maginnis just got pwned by Choi.

  77. Are you a cunning linguist?

  78. If the police aren’t protecting us from penises then what are we even paying them for?

    1. maybe because they are gay cops?

  79. Her home business is just her running that treadmill on a webcam.

  80. No matter how silly the law, it can only be enforced at the point of a gun.

  81. This talk about unpasteurized milk totally killed my boner.

    1. You must not watch Stagliano’s movies.

  82. John hasn’t seen me perform in the public square.

  83. You don’t see it John, because you missed those two sentences in the entire bible that explain how wrong it is. Don’t look behind that curtain…it contains all the rules in the bible that we totally ignore(because working on sunday doesn’t make me feel icky).

    1. The Mexican one?

      Total tie-in with immigration issues.

      1. Ummm, In response to Fist’s post below.

  84. If you’re going to do a sex-charged show, you have to include Hayek, naturally.

  85. Good show, but I think Stossel faked his climax there.

    Peace out.

  86. Why would any thinking homosexual want to go to war and kill people and start a Nuclear war?

    A German woman speaks out against war

  87. I definitely agree with you about gays in the military, but I am very disappointed that you chose to include Singapore in your list of countries that are persona non grata. I’ve been to Singapore many, many times. It’s a really nice place. Yes, in some ways it seems more authoritarian than the U.S. (but mostly on issues that are relatively inconsequential in the grander scheme of things). Generally, Singapore is less much regulated and taxed than the U.S. It’s a great place.

    1. “With a few exceptions, those are not countries where free people want to live.”

      South Korea wouldn’t really fit in the group either.

  88. I agree with this article. Gays shouldn’t be condemned for openly saying they’re gay, but if it makes other soldiers uncomfortable, then they shouldn’t flaunt it too much. One’s sexuality should take a back seat behind duty in the military. But think of the advantage against the terrorists: They’re terrified of gays, and they’ll be even more terrified when one points an Scoped M4 at their face.

    TIMBAP_AKJ

    1. “they shouldn’t flaunt it too much”

      This is for the ranking officers to dicide and enforce, not the voter or legislator. They train soldiers to act however they want soldiers to act.

  89. Absolutely no legitimate rationale whatsoever for either banning gays or maintaining DADT if you have anything going on in your mind other than a provincial homophobic queasiness you should be embarrassed about. There, that wasn’t so hard. We all love freedom, right? As an ACLU liberal I can handle defending the rights of Nazis, so I expect libertarians can handle this.

    1. libertarians should have a problem with repealing DADT for logical reasons. I believe my comments above state why this issue should not be over-simpliefied. ‘Homophobic queesiness’ is not part of the equation.

    2. Tony,

      It’s not a question of whether libertarians can “handle this”. It is a question of whether the military can. And that “provincial homophobic queasiness” you refer to is a part of the organizational culture or what is an extremely effective organization. I don’t think it’s in the least bit unreasonable to put weight to the question of whether that part of the organizations’ culture can be dispensed with without impairing their ability to successfully achieve their core function. Particularly when the sum total reason for the change is a targeted self-esteem boost.

      1. Anti-black sentiments were much, much more widespread before and during integration. They’re soldiers, they deal with worse things than serving alongside openly gay people.

        “Self-esteem boost” is just offensive. Gay soldiers are required to live a lie in order to keep their job, and they can lose it without telling or anyone else asking. It’s a stupid policy. Bigotry should not be sanctioned and especially not enforced by the US government.

        1. Tony we actually completely agree for once. Like I told the DoD myself.

          “Anyone who is brave enough to join the military is mature enough to handle the repeal of don’t ask dont tell.”

          Trust me, we can handle it. There are bigger things soldiers have to worry about. Who someone chooses to have sex with is of little importance.

        2. They’re soldiers, they deal with worse things than serving alongside openly gay people.

          Except over a quarter of them have indicated that they don’t view their duties as worse than dealing with gay people. In fact, they have indicated they’ll quit, rather than continueing to serve under those terms. Whether you or I like their attitude on the matter or not is beside the point. If don’t-ask-don’t-tell is repealed and it has the effects predicted (even implicitly by Stossel), the military’s ability to carry out its underlying mission will have been undermined by the change.

          1. Check out polling done before racial integration.

            1. Again, relevant to my argument, how?

              1. The bigotry among soldiers was FAR more prevalent, and your excuses are the same. There is no evidence whatsoever that allowing gays to openly serve undermines anything. The current policy is much more destructive. Unless perhaps American soldiers are uniquely prejudiced, and you feel it’s necessary to continue feeding their prejudices?

                1. There is no evidence whatsoever that allowing gays to openly serve undermines anything.

                  Well, I don’t know how you view things, but I’d say a quarter of your workforce threatening to quit is pretty solid evidence that the organization’s ability to achieve its mission will have been comprimised. Bear in mind that, unlike in the 1940s, we do not have a conscript army that can be readily replaced.

    3. If you truly defended the rights of Nazis then you would oppose stricter penalties for Hate Crimes.

      My guess is you don’t, because liberals are hypocrites. It’s not that you love freedom, it’s just that you have a different moral code that than social conservatives that you want to legislate…one that (just like them) means freedom and political equality for some, less for others.

  90. The 2010 FIFA World Cup is right around the corner,nike air max has been releasing footwear to coincide with the world’s watched sporting event,Therefore, production of new and different styles of air max shoes,nike air max shoes, Classic exposition, I have also mentioned it in my blog article. But it is a pity that almost no friend discussed it with me.I am very happy to see your article.

  91. correction:

    “is a part of the organizational culture or what is an extremely effective organization”

    should read

    “is a part of the organizational culture of what is an extremely effective organization”

  92. I agree with Stossel but let’s then also abolish an tax policy that affects families. I think it absurd to offer a tax credit to have a child and with this on the books I don’t see gay marriage passing as then partners get a tax break for adopting and the problem gets worse. Get the government out of persons’ and families’ lives completely.

  93. I’m straight and beyond military age, so by way of full disclosure, neither decision (to allow gays to serve or not to allow them to serve) will affect me. If 1/4 of current personnel would quit, I think it may be worthwhile to question the motives of those who would push the issue. If I were of age to serve in a voluntary military, I would not volunteer to serve once the change is made. Do I have a good reason for that? Probably not, according to the proponents of idea. I’m already tweaked about only males having to register for the draft and I think I’d just exercise my right to say no, and have no mean no. (That is an unassailable position nowadays, is it not?)

  94. I like the article, but why open with comparisons to other countries? Who cares what other countries do? Our policies should be based on what is right, and banning gays is wrong, regardless of the positions of other countries.

  95. Why does saying other countries military allow gays mean anything.

    The US military is the best in the world, both in technology and discipline, in fact if you look at what a lot of right wing Jews say, they will tell you the Israeli military is very undisciplined specifically the women.

    Anyways, its a breach of contract to repeal DADT.

  96. The don’t ask, don’t tell policy is absolutely the correct policy to have in this environment. You should not have any reason to express your sexual preference in the military, ever. I’d say that applies to any professional work environment. Under no circumstance, in the course of military activities, is it neccesary or proper to behave in a way that demonstrates whether you are straight, gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual. As a leader in the Army, it doesn’t matter to me at all what your sexual preference is. You are there as part of a team of professional soldiers, with a mission to complete. Fraternization among troops, regardless of the nature, is detrimental to the mission.

    Ideally, we would have a military where there was never any fraternization, sexual harrassment, or inappropriate behavior that distracted from the mission. We could treat everyone as a soldier, with no gender(or race, or any other attribute) distinctions. We would not have to have separate barracks and showers and facilities for males and females. That’s a fantasy world. It doesn’t exist. If a we open the doors and encourage even more open sexuality in a an environment where NO sexuality belongs, it will negatively impact our military’s cohesion and effectiveness. This policy should remain in place. It bars no one from serving.

    1. Tony, perhaps you should read that post up there…

  97. I don’t like gay people. I think two men having anal sex is an exponent of depravity. But as a libertarian these people are free to have butt-sex all they like. However just because I acknowledge their right to engage in such behavior does not mean I am going to endorse it. On the issue of gays in the military, I do not support it. Nor do I support woman in combat. Call me a bigot, call me a chauvinist, whatever, maybe I am, so sue me. I dont think homosexuality should be illegal, and under the current policy its not, so long as the queers keep their mouths, and their buttholes shut tight. A libertarian does not have to be nice to gays to be a libertarian, they simply must believe in those peoples rights to be gay. Thats the extent I will go, I personally think gays are disgusting and vial people. And if I offend you to bad, I have a right to offend you protected by the 1st amendment, you do not have right to not be offended.

    1. “Call me a bigot, call me a chauvinist, whatever, maybe I am, so sue me. I dont think homosexuality should be illegal, and under the current policy its not, so long as the queers keep their mouths, and their buttholes shut tight.”

      Oh, Andy, do you always talk this kinky when discussing politics?

  98. Homosexuals can’t swim, they attract enemy radar, they attract sharks, they insist on being seated at “the captain’s table”, they get up late, they nudge people whilst they’re shooting. They muck about. Imagine… the fear… of knowing you have a gay man on board, when you retire at night you think to yourself “God… will I wake up and find everybody dead?”. You can’t run a ship like that.

  99. I intention certainly share this article with my friends. Thanks as a service to the info.http://www.itunes.com/download

  100. Would love to forever get updated great site!also I have a blog about fat loss and burning fat, hope that we can exchange.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.