Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Marine Commandant opposes lifting US military gay ban

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Vicki Morley 3 Nov 2009, 12:27pm

    Disruptive?
    What is disruptive is forcing hundreds of men and women, risking thier lives for their country, to suppress who they really are for the sake of their job. Actually it’s not disruptive – it’s repulsive.

  2. Mihangel apYrs 3 Nov 2009, 12:35pm

    disruptive in the same way as letting those uppity niggers serve with da white man.

    They made that work; a professional army and cadre of officers can make this work. If they want to.

  3. Jean-Paul Bentham 3 Nov 2009, 12:36pm

    “Many military seniors are said to be apprehensive about lifting a ban at a time of stress for the service, although President Barack Obama has promised to repeal it.”

    So that’s where the real opposition is comimg from!

    And here we were blamimg Obama!

  4. Vincent Poffley 3 Nov 2009, 1:13pm

    Utter twaddle. For a start, what has the strategic situation in Afghanistan got to do with whether there are openly gay people in the military? How on earth does openness about solders’ sexuality affect combat-effectiveness on the ground? Are there large groups of Taliban militants holed up in the hills somewhere, who are holding off from attacking the US army because they approve of their homophobic recruitment policy?

    No, actually what lifting the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell travesty will do is IMPROVE the military effectiveness of the US army in the field. Why? Well, as we know from previous reports, an awful lot of those discharged were Arabic-language specialists and other vital personnel. But more than that, every soldier matters when you’re in a war zone. From the lowliest infantryman to the generals and strategists, they all matter. Simply discharging good fighting troops for no good reason is a recipe for disaster.

    As for the ridiculous claim that it might “lower morale”, I think the troops in Afghanistan have rather more pressing concerns at the moment than who their squad-mates are sleeping with. I know a bisexual US Marine, who is out there at the moment as it happens. From what he tells me there simply isn’t time for homophobia when you’re fighting for your life, and the mutual respect and dependence of one soldier on another that is fostered in such situations generally makes a mockery of all such petty prejudices.

  5. Bishop Ioan 3 Nov 2009, 1:57pm

    Let’s boil this down to its vile essence–they don’t WANT the status quo changed because it will invade their comfort zone. Well you had better get ready because the day is going to come when you will have to accept the reality of openly LGBTQ servicepeople.

    As for Obama not lifting the ban because these fundietards don’t want the apple cart upset…I am sure many brass didn’t want an integrated Armed Forces back in the late 1940s, either. Didn’t hold Pres. Truman back. He did it anyhow. Obama is just too much of a pussy to stand on his own two feet and do what is right.

  6. Brian Burton 3 Nov 2009, 2:18pm

    Another case of Donkeys leading Lions. It’s the same with UK M.O.D. Donkeys all!

  7. Simon Murphy 3 Nov 2009, 2:37pm

    Obama’s cowardice on this issue is appalling.

    He could and should have issued an executive order cancelling DADT.

    His willingness to betray his pre-election promises allows homophobic scum like Conway to challenge the president’s authority.

    LGBT people must NOT vote for Obama in 2012 if this ban is still in place. So far he has not earned their vote.

  8. Conway is stalling for time here; his reasons for his criticising openly gay armed forces personnel just doesn’t hold water – he knows it and anyone, gay or straight with a modicum of intelligence, knows it too.

    Obama must now show the world just what he’s made of and, OK, make many enemies along the way.
    If he wanted to be popular, he should have gone for Stand Up.

  9. Sundancer 3 Nov 2009, 5:53pm

    Are you kidding? Hasn’t the US military already relaxed age, academic, and criminal background requirements in order to attract enough service men and women to the two war cause? Does anyone not believe that this has lowered our overall military preparedness? Is there any evidence that admitting to being gay has anywhere near comparable effects?

  10. It did not cause any disruption to the British army if anything it made more people open and honest. It saved money on the endless CIB investigations into peoples sexuality and kit searches to find evidence.

    The moral question Conway needs to think about is:

    Is it fair to send LGBT troops into battle to give Afghans human rights when the US military denies them the same rights?

  11. Time for every gay person in the US military to come out and demand discharge under DADT.

    And the policy will change in a hurry

    And all those good christian soldiers will learn that the guy who saved their lives, lives with them, works with them etc is gay.

    And the church will become the victim. A whole large group of Americans who will understand that conservative churches in the west are as hatefilled as the taliban etc.

    GET OUT OF the Service NOW – stand together, or you will hang separately.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all