BLOG: DADT Repeal Is Big Mistake

Bryan Dubois
Dec 22, 2010


This is, of course, only my opinion.

The Unites States Armed Forces exist for one purpose and one purpose only:  To wage and win wars.  Anything that runs counter to that objective lowers the effectiveness of the armed forces.  Allowing gays in the military won't necessarily harm a war effort, but having them serve openly in a combat unit would be just as detrimental as having women serve in a combat unit.  We don't allow that because mixing sexes provides an atmosphere of possible distractions that runs counter to the overall goal of creating unit cohesiveness. 

The military should not be part of some kind of social experiment, though it appears that some folks think they can tinker with the system because "it's the right thing to do" in their spectrum of social righteousness.  Their priorities run counter to the purpose of the armed forces.

Big mistake.

Again, just my opinion.

Other veterans, what say you?



Put the gays in other areas like administration if it bothers the combat soldiers so much. That one attorney who sued the library was an army attorney if I recall. Not all military soldiers are in a war zone. Why are people so afraid of gay people?  What about the bisexuals? What about the straights who cheat on their wives and girlfriends? I will take an honest gay person over some cheating, lying straight crook anyday. For the record, I am completely straight. The Supreme Being loves honest gay people but doesn't like straight liars and cheats. Gays have served in the military for centuries. Their blood runs red also.


The Israeli military seems to function quite well with gay service members.

What's your real issue?   

thinkagain's picture

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained racist or discriminatory remarks. Discussion Guidelines

Red Baby-Shoes

OK I really disagree with you. Think of it like this. You're in the foxhole with some fellow soldiers. some of them happen to be gay. what, you think they'llbe distracted because sense they are gay, they MUST be attracted to you? Don't flatter yourself. Gay men have Very high standards. If you want to serve your country it should not matter if your gay or not.


1. U.S. Armed Forces exist to defend our country, not "wage and win wars."  Yes, if war is needed then winning is the goal, but that is not why they exist.

2. You contradict yourself.  If gays would be "as detrimental as having women", then that would certainly "harm a war effort."  But regardless, your notion there is both sexist and wrong.  Keeping women from combat units is not because their propensity to distract weak-minded soldier's a result of some outdated paternal system that declares women unfit for the role and some other psychological reasons outlined here: Otherwise, why not have all-women combat units?  For that matter, Christian soldiers praying in foxholes on Sunday might distract Jewish soldiers, so we better separate them, too.  And the redheads...big distraction.  (This is a joke, lest some blogger run with these ideas.)

3. Unit cohesiveness is a goal of not just military units.  Profit-making companies, i.e. news organizations such as the Register, need unit cohesiveness to maintain productivity and keep the revenue flowing.  Should your paper ban gays from working there because they might be a distraction to certain employees?  I mean, I can think of at least one Register employee who might be distracted by gays and go on to produce out-of-touch opinion pieces that won't generate loads of subscriptions.

4. The Armed Forces have a history of leading social change (i.e. integrating African Americans and women and allowing them to serve in leadership roles).  It is not "tinkering" and it is not the "right thing to do" ONLY for some limited "spectrum of righteousness" when the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a months long survey of the troops themselves indicate that allowing gays to serve openly is the way forward.

Now, this is, of course, only my opinion, but this veteran thinks the author is using the advantage of his electronic pulpit to sustain bigoted views that 17 years ago were the "Big mistake" when DADT was put in place.

Red Baby-Shoes

Whoa, said it! Very nicely put. Yes, yes, yes...THIS.


As I have seen this 'argument' a few times since the repeal, here is my blanket response.  Take from it what you will, and bear in mind what my father (ret, Army) said about the vote - 'When bullets are whizzing by, I just care that the person next to me has my back, and I have his.  I don't care who he likes'. 

1. Gays in the military will not cause America to go backwards. Gays have been in the military THIS WHOLE TIME. They just get to talk about their partners *openly* when you talk about your hetero gf/bf in the foxhole.

2. To those who are complaining and served:  Why is it always the 10 lbs of ugly in the 5lb sack that are worried that the gays will hit on them in the service? These are the same mouth breathers who think all women want them. I'm from a military family, I've seen some of you boys - you've got the face of a scrotum and the personality to match. NO ONE wants you. Gays have standards baby, and even in war, you ain't it.

3.  To those who are complaining and never served:   If you are so flipping unhappy that the gays get to serve their country, I suggest you winch yourself out of your Lay-Z-Boy and march down to the local recruitment office. You love America so much you can't stand to let others proudly serve? YOU dodge bullets in some God forsaken location for a few years. These people are making the ultimate sacrifice for your bigoted self, and every other American out there. They are TWICE the men and women you will ever be.

4. The arguments made right now about gays serving are the exact same ones made in the 50's when the military was desegregated (It's a social experiment that will harm rank cohesion, people won't be able to trust one another, etc). It was a pathetic stall tactic then, and it is now.

They're here, they're queer, and they're saving your country.

Get Over It.


Amen and thank you to mjm and answered!!!  The are still some sane responders left on this website.  Merry Christmas!


 As a former Marine, I don't care what someone's sexual preference is as long as they got my back when the rounds are coming my way. That is what Esprit de Corps is all about.

Bryan Dubois

glassman, as a former marine, I don't care what someone's sexual preference is as long as they got my back when the round are coming my way.  This is why DADT was a better policy than having them serve openly in combat units.  You didn't know, they didn't tell, and it wasn't an issue to distract you from combat duties.  Not a single response has challenged my position on that.

Sex - of any kind whether it's homosexual or heterosexual - is a distraction on the battlefield.  If it's not, why don't the armed forces allow women in combat units?  Is it because the United States government is sexist?


Bryan;  So that was why under DADT almost fourteen thousand gay and lesbian military were *dishonorably* discharged for sexual orientation?  Fact is, the military was breaking their own policy over and over again. 

Frankly, if a soldier is so distracted by a woman or gay guy in their unit, I don't trust them to hold my groceries, much less a gun.  

It's pathetic that gays could not serve openly, but men and women with hetero partners could talk about their wives/husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends.  Under your thinking, all of those people are distracting their fellow soldiers with their sex lives - why haven't you been fighting to force heteros to stop talking about their personal lives? 


Okay, Mr. Dubois, I'll challenge your position on this.  If anyone is too distracted by sexual thoughts in combat units, they are the ones who are not ready for that responsibility.  If you are distracted by a gay soldier in your unit who is performing their duties well, then YOU are the one unfit for combat, not the gay person.  Now, if anyone, gay or straight, are screwing around in a combat situation, or even in combat training, then they should be out until they are mature enough to concentrate on the task.  That is why DADT was NOT a good policy.  If it somehow became known or suspected that a soldier was gay, DADT favored the accusing straight soldier whether they were the better (more mature, effective, etc.) soldier, or not.

And no, the government is not sexist in general, but there is no question that sexist attitudes still exist within the ranks.  It is true that policies cannot change attitudes overnight, but how will they ever change if an inherently unfair and wrong-headed policy is still in place while everyone tries to figure it out?

Pundit said it best so far..."Let's punish conduct not orientation."

Bryan Dubois

MJM,  other posters have mentioned the large number of people who have been kicked out of the armed services because of their sexual orientation.  How does one learn of another's sexual orientation?

Answer:  Sexual conduct.

Command doesn't like the idea of sexual activity among combat troops in the field.  Sexual activity in the field is why women are not allowed in combat units - and why gays were not allowed to openly serve.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with competence as some people - like Mr. Sandusky - are pretending.  This is about the possibility of sexual activity in the field.  If you have an all-male combat unit, which troops are the only candidates who could possibly engage in sexual activity with fellow troops?

Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with performance or competence.  The comments in this thread so far suggest that some are still attempting to fight this stereotype that has been defeated long ago:  Women and gays are supposedly incapable of fighting.  This, of course, is not true.  All of this pro-gay social justice drivel has zero to do with the reason women and gays were not allowed to serve in combat units.

MJM,  misconduct is the only thing that can be punished.  If you don't engage in sexual activity with fellow troops, you cannot be punished.

BTW:  Mr. Sandusky, which combat unit did you serve?  It wasn't a co-ed surface vessel, by chance was it?  I served on co-ed surface vessel too -- and one of the major events that happened on our ship during a Med deployment was a senior NCO getting court-martialed for running a heterosexual prostitution ring out of the ship's library closet.  I suppose your ship must've been much different than mine though, right?


There is no way to eliminate the mere possibility of sexual activity in the field or anywhere else.  If that was the goal of DADT, then is really was a terrible idea (not to say revisionist*) to try and legislate something so abstract as a possibility.  So, as you say, "misconduct is the only thing that can be punished."  Quite right, and until a woman or a homosexual engages in misconduct in the field they should not be punished by banishment from combat duties.  I say again, if a hetero man cannot keep his mind off the possibility of sex with some woman in his unit, or the possibility of sex among other soldiers (men and women), then that hetero man is the problem and the one unfit for combat.

Furthermore, if banning gays from combat eliminates the possibility of sexual misconduct, as you seem to suggest, then we should have exclusively hetero women combat units.  After all, you do state that women are perfectly capable.

Also, the way you characterize talk of social justice as "drivel" is not flattering.

*DADT arose only about a decade after AIDS was first reported and the culture wars of the 80's really kicked up.  It was a product of fears, rooted in stereotypes of promiscuity among gays (because that was the first population to be diagnosed, followed by drug users and transfusion recipients), that homosexuality would somehow spread and kill us all.  Plus, homosexuality had been banned in the military from pretty much the beginning based on sodomy laws, so those sentiments lingered.  The fact is under DADT, no sexual conduct needed to take place.  If a soldier simply expressed they were homosexual, or expressed tendencies that way, they could be discharged without any evidence of sexual misconduct. In other words, they could be discharged for simply coming out.  Clinton's original draft of the policy was watered down by Congress to allow that, but he and the policy were wrong from the beginning for trying to forge some sort of compromise on the issue.


Democrats Rush to Make Money Off DADT Repeal Thursday, December 23, 2010
By Susan Jones


The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is selling this photo of President Obama signing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell on Wednesday, Dec. 22, 2010. (Photo from DSCC Web site)


( - Wasting no time to raise funds, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is selling a photo of President Obama signing the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The legislation eventually will end the military's ban on openly homosexual troops. 

"Ending this discriminatory policy is truly a monumental achievement," the DSCC wrote just hours after Obama signed the bill before a large and appreciative audience on Wednesday.

Supporters of the legislation are urged to "celebrate the repeal" by purchasing an unframed print for $25 or a "beautiful framed version" for $50.

The DSCC's fund-raising pitch calls the end of DADT "the biggest civil rights victory in years. It’s an example of America living up to our highest ideals of equality and fairness."


Moderators have removed this comment because it contained racist or discriminatory remarks. Discussion Guidelines


Reader, your analogy of the Israeli Army does not result in the increase of confidence level. After witnessing the failed attempt to rescue soldier Gilad Shalit and the incursion into Gaza with the result of the Israeli Army running out with their tails between their legs when confronted by Hamas and the urban warfare scenario, does not give me the impression that it will help our military.


Answered and MJM if we have always had gays in the military, then why DADT. Why fix something that wasn't broken.



The concept of DADT was originally that men and women were being hounded out of the military for being gay.  So the concept was raised that if the military leaders didn't ask, and the soldier didn't tell, gay soldiers could still serve.  Unfortunately, the military DID ask, and pry, and badger, and eventually hounded out almost 14K skilled soldiers for their sexual orientation.  What the repeal of DADT is doing is saying 'Your love of another man or woman does not matter.  It does not affect your ability to serve'.  A bullet and IED doesn't care who you love - why should the military?  The system was broken the minute people cared more about what happened in the bedroom, versus if an individual could do their job. 


Moderators have removed this comment because it contained racist or discriminatory remarks. Discussion Guidelines

Erie Countian

I recently saw a political cartoon. It depicted 3 flag draped coffins and the caption read "Which one is the gay one?"  So please, cool it with the homophobia and get over it, people.

6079 Smith W
From my understanding, one of the major reasons why women are prohibited from a direct combat role is because American males have been socially taught and have a tendency to feel protective of them.   And because of this almost universal cultural standard, it could tend to place male combat personnel at unnecessary risk.   What's to stop hetros*xual combat personal from displaying the exact opposite concern and reaction toward their homos*xual comrades? And don't think that it hasn’t happened or won't.    We like to talk about gays having the straights backs in combat, how about the reverse?   In their hubris, the political ruling class likes to think that they have the power to dictate and change morality with the stroke of a pen. It takes decades and centuries – if ever.   For example, busing black children across town to mostly white schools failed to improve their test scores; how exactly will allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the military help to improve it’s overall effectiveness?  

Also, as has been bantered about: With the repeal of DADT, will ROTC now be allowed back on many of our most liberal college campuses?  

brutus smith

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines


 Let's punish conduct not orientation. Inappropriate sexual behavior in the military will always be punished, more harshly than in most workplaces, I'd imagine.

The racial integration of the military was one of the greatest "social experiments" of all time, by the way, and at that time people of Bryan's ilk were saying blacks would be a distraction.

I don't know about Veterans, but front line combat troops, including front line combat Marines, overwhelmingly do not care if their brother in arms is gay. So says the military's own surveys.  

Where did you see combat Bryan?

brutus smith

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines


Let me rephrase my question. If the consensus of the opinions is that gays are already in the military and people have served with them found no problem, then why repeal DADT? It couldn't be an attempt by the democrats to secure another voting bloc along with their monetary donations?


No worries, Goofus.  As I said, the repeal was because the military was consistently breaking their own rules within DADT - they were prying, and dishonorably discharging people as a result of it.  Almost 14 thousand were discharged since 1997 because the military *was* asking, even when they weren't supposed to. 


Sorry answered I was typing when you were.


I was listening to a high ranking officer of the military on Frank Beckman"s show on wjr the other day and he didn't care what they were as long as they were good soldiers. He was concerned with discipline and performance reports. He was called to the carpet for a pretty much career ending negative performance report on a lesbian captain he explained she was a terrible soldier. The only thing that saved him was a glowing recommendation he gave to another lesbian officer. If a superior officer perceives one to be a bad soldier and this soldier is gay, what's going to happen. Are we going to have to put up with bad soldiers in our military?


 If anyone thinks that having overtly sexual young people around each other in any occupation will not lead to "hooking up" and a breakdown in discipline they are fools. If the parts fit and the people are able to fit together they will. The only thing that kept people off sex in the military, besides the saltpeter in the food was the fact that there were nobody to hook up with. I run a great big store and i have a ton of young people working here. I practically have to throw buckets of cold water on them time and again to keep them from copulating. It is just natural for kids growing up today with what is on tv and radio, they just do that. You take some fellers in the military, virile young men, push them to high levels of physical fitness and get all those hormones pumping and flowing and these fellers are going to be amorous. I think the biggest trouble you will have in the military with the gays is they will just be hooking up with each other all the time, and yes it worked for Alexander the great and his army but not today. But to think that it is just the military that suffers is foolish. Everyone of these factories, especially Whirpool in Clyde is a singles bar with machines. It is just what goes on when there is an opportunity. Unless all of your workers are saved they will be hooking up.

Return of Dragon

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained racist or discriminatory remarks. Discussion Guidelines


 I am a US Marine "Once a Marine,Always a Marine". who served in the `70`s.  We had gay Marines in our unit and knew who they were. They were good Marines so nobody said anything. They didn`t "put the make" on anybody.  I served with Marines who cheated on their wives,beat their wives and girlfriends and were into some very kinky stuff.   BUT,they were good killers and that is what counts when the stuff hits the fan.  As far as having eachothers back,it goes both ways. If a gay Marine has my back,then I have his. Period!!!!   There are much more important things in war than someones sexual habits.  I would rather sit in a foxhole with a gay man for a week,in the rain and mud,with rounds flying over my head,knowing my back is covered,than to walk down the street with some of you commentors on here. I am not gay in any way and never have been attracted to men.  I am very secure in my manhood and am not afraid of being around a gay person.   As long as it isn`t a child or an animal,,I don`t care who anybody has sex with as long as they are good people.


I have mixed concerns about this.  I know of a few gay people involved in gay relationships and they are some of the best employees I ever had.  To me it is about performance and work ethic by EACH individual.  What they do in private is their business.  If their performance is stellar and they perform as expected, can shoot straight, fly like an insane ace and willing to die for this great nation, then I am for anyone.  This will be a wait and see thing.  I really do not see any open ticket for gays to "hit up" on others with impunity.  But, I could be wrong.  As a Christian, I do not agree with it.  As someone who worked with them or had them work for me, I could care less.  EVERYONE is responsible for themselves.  I am NOT of the liberal mindset that you have CONTROL over me or OWE me welfare, reparations, free housing, free health care, free food, free college, a job, unemployment benefits, a car, appliances or a lifetime membership in the freeloaders club.      


Its not a Social Experiment, Canada, Britain, and Isreal, all allow gays to openly serve. Its like ,been there done that, this is not a new thing.


I was in a combat unit that earned a Presidential Unit Commendation amoung other awards, that had both women and gay individuals (some were even both....).  Obviously the gays could not be "open and practicing" but we were adults and acted like adults. To think that if the person standing next to you being female or gay or both hampers your ability to do your job is....well kind of ignorant.

To ask someone to change or hide who they are so that other adults can feel more "comfortable" is kind of ignorant.

brutus smith

 Reagan played on people's worst fears. He unleashed people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to exploit the fears and use them politicly. People like bryan have picked up the torch and keep these fears alive. They actually can't see that their fears pushed on others has actually harmed our country to a point that we have now become a 3rd world country. That's what they do in 3rd world countries, promote and instill fear in people.

Captain Gutz

mjm writes "...if a hetero man cannot keep his mind off the possibility of sex with some woman in his unit, or the possibility of sex among other soldiers (men and women), then that hetero man is the problem and the one unfit for combat."

Hetero men will be unable to keep their minds off these things 100% of the time. How about all combat troops consisting of ONLY gays and women? Keep the heteros behind the lines in support roles.

brutus smith

 bryan can you document these instances in combat history where the actions of gays or women lead to our defeat?


Bryan I would comment, but are you a Veteran?

We know Smith6079 isn't.


Byran check these bloogers & see if they hold a DD-214.


(You did ask for Veterans comments).

Kinda like having an "educated" person give advice on how to raise a child; yet they a parentless.

6079 Smith W

@ kURT:

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only approximately 10% of the U.S. population are veterans. 

So how exactly does it make sense in your mind that Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Lady Gaga and others who are non-vets are expertly qualified to decide on DADT for the benefit of the military?

Reid tweets to Gaga - "We did it!":

Have a wonderful Christmas Pork Chop.

Lily Von Schtupp

Mr  Dubois:  I think you have been rightfully spanked for this biased blog based upon the number of posters who have served in the military and didn't give a rat's behind their fellow soldiers sexual proclivities.

In fact--me thinks thou dost protest too much........ 


Lily Von Schtupp

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained obscenity. Discussion Guidelines


 SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!  Well, unless of course they are different from us in any way.


No pretending


BTW:  Mr. Sandusky, which combat unit did you serve?  It wasn't a co-ed surface vessel, by chance was it?  I served on co-ed surface vessel too -- and one of the major events that happened on our ship during a Med deployment was a senior NCO getting court-martialed for running a heterosexual prostitution ring out of the ship's library closet.  I suppose your ship must've been much different than mine though, right?

I served on a nuclear powered carrier....we were part of a number of missions over Kosovo and Iraq and many times we had aircraft comeback with "less ordinance than they left with".  We did not have such things as prostitution rings.  I can only remember one person being punished for having a relationship with a junior person.  That was because these two were in the same division.  We had rules, no dating if you were in the same division, but otherwise it was ok as long as it was made known.  I believe that the same rules are in place at most other workplaces throughout the country.  

Maybe we were unique in the fact that we were a group of mature acting adults that were more focused on our mission and our jobs that if Mary Jane Rottencrotch down in the weapons magazine was wearing panties or not.


Also, under DADT you did not have to engage in sexual activity to get busted.  You just had to declare that you were a "practicing homosexual".  Using this loophole many people were able to "steal" taxpayer money.  See a first time re-enlistment bonus for nuclear qualified engineers, like myself, was around $30,000.  So what some guys would do is reenlist while we were in a hostile fire zone so the bonus was tax free.  Then a few months later they would go their chain of command and declare themselves "practicing homosexuals" or say that they "practiced last night at a friends apartment".  If they kept this story up they would be discharged and be able to keep their full bonus (some of the second term bonuses for nukes are up to $100,000 now).  So some guys and girls would abuse this loophole. 

All in all DADT was as effective as an screendoor on a submarine.


 DADT was terrible legislation. I'm glad it's gone. We lost way too many expensive to train linguists who suddenly became gay.

If someone is gay and serves with distinction and keeps their personal life in it's place, excellent. Their peers will respect them and they'll advance. It's pretty much how it is now.

If they are flamboyant and not professional, then it'll be a shame when they go overboard during a deployment, accidently of course, and are never heard from again.



this is a somewhat lengthy response by me.. concentration and attention to detail required to not "get me wrong".. note: i read comments from the bottom-up as that is the order in which they were posted..

NOTE: i notice mjm has made more than one comment.. my comment to him was regarding his first comment near the bottom of the page

first off i would like to say that my opinion on the matter is undecided.. it should be left up to people who actually serve in combat units.. i cannot speak for them because i have no experience in what their life and job entails.. and neither should any of you if you do not know either.. do not assume that you qualify as being capable to make intelligent decisions for these people if you are not currently one of them..

as far as whether or not the end-goal should be equal rights for openly-gay servicemen/women.. yes it should be.. but how to get there is something i doubt should be left up to some (if not many) of the commenters here.. and i am intitially going to assume the generals are right that it should not be done in a fast-track manner during a time of war.. that seems reckless.. HOWEVER.. i would also add that it would be truly awesome if we COULD successfully fast-track a transition of this type during a time of war.. it would truly be inspiring.. and a sight for our enemies (and friends) to behold..

@ red baby-shoes: how stereotypically ignorant of you.. sorry, but.. it is the same with gays as it is with heteros.. some make good decisions and some make bad.. in both camps i see some with high standards and some with low.. i know some drug-addicted gays as well as heteros.. i see both gays and heteros who are sloppy in appearance.. and who sleep around with people frivolously and un-protected.. and there are violent offenders and rapists and molesters on both sides as well.. so, come out from under your "pretty" rock you are living under before you attempt to influence public opinion..

@ mjm: i agree with you on point 1 but you went downhill from there.. as to point 2, he/she did not contradict themself.. he/she is clearly stating that having gays in the military (in general) is not harmful but they are saying that openly serving in combat units would be a bad idea.. where is the contradiction?.. and sexist? are you serious?.. i have to wonder if you are emotionally stable enough to contribute viable ideas to this discussion.. because you already could not connect the dots to figure out that the structure of his idea was not contradictory to itself.. and now you are calling it sexist to suggest men and women in combat together might result in distractions.. you need to calm down.. as for point 3.. it is irrelevant and it makes you appear to be grasping at straws.. because how well a business in a civilian environment runs is in no way applicable to how a combat unit runs.. it is just ridiculous to try and compare them and i should not have to explain to you why that is the case, should i?.. as for point 4.. i am not interested in what some survey is claimed to be suggesting.. i would rather see a website setup where all  who serve in combat units have to log in and vote on the issue.. or some better idea along those lines

@ answered: perfect example of how "blanket responses" do not work.. i really wanna pick your comment apart like i did for mjm but i have not even made it halfway up the page of responses yet and yours might not be worth the time.. anyone who says "mouth-breathers" is disqualified anyway.. the most healthy way to breathe is inhale through the nose and exhale through the mouth.. case closed until a new study proves otherwise.. and as for your other insults.. even if gays serving openly in combat units was not moving backwards.. your entire comment is definetely inching that cause backwards

@ bryan dubois: oh look, the first comment that is relevant.. an actual servicemen.. who isn't making emotionally-charged statements..

OK, i could be wrong but as i look further up the page it looks like some healthy debate is actually going on.. but there may be a few more tards, i do not know.. i am out of time tho


VERY WELL SAID illuminoctis


Think about this. Think long and hard. Just how much time does a person spend involved in sex in an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year....   Think about it.


No matter , it is now law. The issues will have to be dealt with and the military's mission will be met. I wouldn't want to be in charge of the logistics or who sleeps where or how it will be implemented. They have accomplished the mission after being downsized in the early 90's and stripped of resources needed for their mission. They got it done. I'm retired so I don't have to go through it. The active duty military does. I would like to see a different situation, but the military does not dictate their accomodations. If in fact gays will just do their jobs and keep sexuality out of the workplace, then everything will be fine. It never happens that way when you live 24 hours in your work place. The civilians decide what is good for the military, and it usually reflects the standards of the public's situation. This is one case where it doesent, the public still won't accept gays fully, like the military does now. Gay marriage couldn't pass California, but with the military forced to allow gays, the gay agenda now has more clout to get marriage pushed through. It's all politics, with our active duty men and women used as pawns. 


@ illuminoctis:  Accusing fellow commenters of stereotypical ignorance, emotional instability, and of being "tards," while claiming you have no intention of insulting them makes me wonder if you might just be trolling here.  But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assure you that I have concentrated on and given attention to detail to your comments and I have thought thoroughly about this issue.  Despite your devastating critique, as well as your concern for everyone's emotional well-being and future intellectual habits, I stand by my earlier comments (and those further up the forum if you get the time to read them).