Mil Recruiters told to accept gays.

[Duckie]

Though we're getting off subject, I'd note: Well, yeah, but they'd look like assholes for doing it if the Democrats had the better media preparation and presentation. Granted, that probably underestimates the virulent homophobia of the average american and the right wing bias of the media (who'd love a crypto-homophobic "is she qualified to make judgements about her own people impartially?" story), but this was back when I believed things as crazy as the idea that Obama would do something daring, liberal, youth-appealing, and cool to try to set the tone for his presidency.

For on topic: What's going on with the military now? Didn't a few gay people slip back in in the time during the ban on the ban? If so, what happens to them?

[Bakustra]

Though we're getting off subject, I'd note: Well, yeah, but they'd look like assholes for doing it if the Democrats had the better media preparation and presentation. Granted, that probably underestimates the virulent homophobia of the average american and the right wing bias of the media (who'd love a crypto-homophobic "is she qualified to make judgements about her own people impartially?" story), but this was back when I believed things as crazy as the idea that Obama would do something daring, liberal, youth-appealing, and cool to try to set the tone for his presidency.

For on topic: What's going on with the military now? Didn't a few gay people slip back in in the time during the ban on the ban? If so, what happens to them?

Last off-topic: I think that Americans aren't quite so homophobic, (~50% support gay marriage), but that politicians feel they need to appease the loudest segment of voters, who are pretty homophobic.

They're going to stay in. The Secretaries of the Armed Services, the Secretary of Defense, and the President are the only people that can sign off on removing people. So I doubt anybody will get kicked out, since it would look like an absolute dick move.

[Cecelia5578]

I ...understand that a legislative repeal is required for permanent repeal.

Why? Most states didn't repeal their anti-abortion laws after Roe v. Wade, or the Jim Crow laws after Brown v. Board of Education. I don't understand why people keep saying this requires a legislative repeal when other court cases didn't.

Hey, did you read what I wrote? For that matter, Jim Crow provides an excellent example. Brown v. Board of Education only negated education specifically. Later cases and laws had to address other cases.

I'm not sure any parallels between Log Cabin Republicans and any of the civil rights/abortion cases is relevant. All of the Warren Court's major civil rights cases (and the later Burger Court's RvW) involved significant issues of Federalism. There's simply no way you're going to have 50 different laboratories of Federalism trying to skirt around the edges of a court ruling on DADT, as you did with those other landmark cases.

[Bakustra]

I was thinking more that Brown v. Board only addressed one part of civil rights, much like Log Cabin Republicans.. only shot down section b) as I understand it (it'd be hard to challenge section a) through the courts anyhow).

[mizuno]

It probably varies greatly depending on each unit. And of course your chain of command. I've heard of units where everybody "knows" somebody is gay and doesn't care, thus nobody officially knows the person is gay. That sort of thing.

This is my unit, we have several confirmed or suspected homosexuals and we really don't care as long as the person is pretty cool and isn't a useless lazy piece of shit. We have one guy nicknamed Bob Marley who is the chillest guy known to man, my 1st Sergeant and I saw him walking hand in hand with a male "friend" to his barracks room with a bucket of KFC (lol) and didn't bat an eye. Another gay guy in my unit started trying to fake mental problems when we
found out we were deploying to Iraq.. everyone hated him so much and I heard some pretty nasty slurs thrown at him. His homosexuality was an additional thing to hate about him but wasn't the root cause of his persecution, being a piece of shit was.

I could go on and on, one of my platoon sergeants at AIT had a lisp and wa kinda flaming. No one cared, he was a great NCO and was someone you could reply on for help and advice. Plus the way he said "my soldiers" every morning during formation cracked us up. His lisp was something to love about him

[Phantasee]

It probably varies greatly depending on each unit. And of course your chain of command. I've heard of units where everybody "knows" somebody is gay and doesn't care, thus nobody officially knows the person is gay. That sort of thing.

This is my unit, we have several confirmed or suspected homosexuals and we really don't care as long as the person is pretty cool and isn't a useless lazy piece of shit. We have one guy nicknamed Bob Marley who is the chillest guy known to man, my 1st Sergeant and I saw him walking hand in hand with a male "friend" to his barracks room with a bucket of KFC (lol) and didn't bat an eye. Another gay guy in my unit started trying to fake mental problems when we
found out we were deploying to Iraq.. everyone hated him so much and I heard some pretty nasty slurs thrown at him. His homosexuality was an additional thing to hate about him but wasn't the root cause of his persecution, being a piece of shit was.

I could go on and on, one of my platoon sergeants at AIT had a lisp and wa kinda flaming. No one cared, he was a great NCO and was someone you could reply on for help and advice. Plus the way he said "my soldiers" every morning during formation cracked us up. His lisp was something to love about him

Are you suggesting your unit morale has not been ruined by all these homosexuals in God's Own Army??? WHO KNEW