Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Pentagon to begin year-long review to repeal military gay ban

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. the.kitty.channel 2 Feb 2010, 6:49pm

    A “year-long review”? To see “what steps could be taken?” Yes Minister! Why not appoint a Royal Commission, headed by someone “reliable”, to look into all sides of the matter, taking evidence from whomever it is necessary to hear, consult with ologists and iatrists, and the General Staff, and their Graces and Holinesses too, take a balanced view, and report in thirty years?

    Honestly! What’s to consider? Don’t they already *have* procedures for married military? And for unmarried ones too? Could they seriously put gay personnel in non-heterosexual quarters?

    Typical time-wasting.

  2. Jean-Paul Bentham 2 Feb 2010, 7:16pm

    I must agree with kitty, but I am glad to see the issue in the headlines.

  3. BrazilBoysBlog 2 Feb 2010, 7:50pm

    Yes, but it´s the wrong headlines? This is just more time-wasting by this administration. I agree, whats there to consider? Just look at the British armed services if they want to know how its done.

    I think the most telling comment made was… “However, they may warn it will take years to fully change the policy.” Quite!

    “He is expected to suggest removing the provision for gays and lesbians to be outed by a third party and raising the bar of evidence needed to fire someone for homosexuality.”

    Oh, right, and what would he suggest? all-out barrack room copulation?

    I think the words “needed to fire someone for homosexuality” is the offensive part…. Gatesy!

    More lies and spin… Can Obama lie?

    YES HE CAN!

  4. Don’t forget that US is very different from UK. There is a huge ‘God’ dimension in US. Reversing the DODT policy overnight frightens the horses and plays into the hands of the opponents. Whether we like it or not setting up a review gets all the opponents objections aired before the decision is made, allows the objections to be exposed as having no foundation and we all move on with much less danger of the whole thing being reversed when the political climate and party changes. We have to balance up idealism with pragmatism.

  5. the.kitty.channel 3 Feb 2010, 12:05am

    Hmmm, in that case why was Mr. Yes-We-Can electable at all? Or was that short for Mr. Yes-We-Can-Provided-We-Get-All-Objections-Aired-Before-A-Decision-So-As-To-Expose-Them-All-As-Unfounded? As with No-We-Won’t-Make-Social-Provision-For-The-Sick-At-The-Bottom-Of-The-Heap-Whom-Nobody-Cares-About-Because-Verily-I-Say-Unto-Ye-That-Is-Nothing-But-Pure-Soviet-Style-Communism. Except that the objections *were* unfounded but prevailed and left a super-power unashamed to have third-world provision for its indigent sick people.

  6. Kitty

    Yes I know – annoying – but politics is about the achievable in the face of opposition and there sure as hell is plenty of that. The final outcome will be the test. I hope I am not having to apologise to you in a year’s time !

  7. BrazilBoysBlog 3 Feb 2010, 12:30am

    Well-said Kitty. All this bi-partisan bullsh-t is incredible. This president was elected on a huge wave of popular support. With an incredible mandate from the people to effect change and get things done…. To fulfill his election commitments.

    Yet he was more interested in pandering to the GOP in an attempt to prove everyone was ´working together´. Since when were the Republicans ever going to help him? The party of ´NO´.?

    I don´t know about you, but I got the impression that the American people were not interested in what the Republicans had to say (not a lot) about things, after years of the Bush administration? This president had the chance, and the mandate from the people to LEAD. Instead he has just followed and allowed the republicans to wreck everything America put him into office to do for them.

    Sometimes, (in a leaders position), you do not wait until everyone agrees with you, you just DO IT.

    Remember, this, (like so many issues facing us today), is not about ´how or when,` It´s about ´why´.

    Why? Because it´s about equal rights and treatment of all.
    Why? Because it´s the RIGHT thing to do!

  8. Yep! Told you so! (face it, most us us DO like to be able to say that once in a while, folks!) I said a few days ago I’d be reading Back-track “The Liar” Obama’s promises to ‘get rid of this law in a year’ for the third year running in 2011. And so we have it. The Pink News staff can just cut-and-paste this headline for every January edition for as long as we bother pay attention to what this lying, false-gay-friendly foreign president says.

  9. the.kitty.channel 3 Feb 2010, 2:00pm

    Maybe I was a trifle hasty in voicing my disappointment. Trouble is that DADT was introduce by Pres. Clinton in 1993 as a compromise.

    Prior to that, the military had rejected the idea of homosexuals serving in the army, and this was enshrined in US Code 10 G 654, passed by Congress in 1993 and known as the MIlitary Personnel Eligibility Act. Pres. Clinton’s Executive Order in December 1993 enshrined his compromise.

    This means that the argument of Mr. John F. (above) is not unreasonable.

    And in turn it means that the report of Admiral Mike Mullen ( http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/02/02/top-us-military-commander-says-gay-ban-must-be-lifted/ ) who stated that repealing the 1993 law was the “right thing to do” is an important milestone.

    Maybe attitudes in the military are indeed beginning to change. But I won’t be holding my breath.

  10. Brian Burton 3 Feb 2010, 2:57pm

    What an Obama Bodge-up!…. The Bastards would have to change in the face of an order from the commander in chief which is Obama.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all