video?

This reminded me of Louis CK's take on the argument against gay marriage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow

The icing on the cake would be if they had former Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez come in and testify. He is against any gays serving in the military at all, even though he was in gay porn himself. His logic is so twisted, it would provide great theater.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvN_-ES4udk&eurl=http://video.google.com/...

Let me get this right. This women believes gays are somehow involved in sexual assault? How bizarre! It seems to me many Repugs and religious leaders have far more piccadillos than many other people. Today I read another republican opperative was busted in a sex-sting. Jeez! If someone is willing to join the armed forces then let them. Besides, I hear they are letting criminals in.

You are so right about this Donnelly woman. I watched her on C-Span yesterday. The more she talked, the more ridiculous she sounded. I believe she was an embarrassment to everyone there, and she didn't even realize it.

Elaine Donnelly like billo are the only
two people who can buy a new pack of
batteries for their pleasure and the batteries
self-destruct.

this woman has clearly been rejected by men and women, many times. no wonder she has such rage for anything sexual in nature and scope. she's not getting any.

We could also hang Matt Sanchez around their necks. Turn the rightwing poster boy for anti-conservative bias at Columbia into the poster boy for repealing DADT.

Throughout the '90s Sanchez worked as a gay porn star, calling himself Rod Majors. And just a few years ago, according to ads discovered by Alan Colmes, he prostituted himself for male clients in New York City. In 2003 Sanchez joined the Marine reserves, and last summer he worked as an embedded milblogger, writing from Iraq and Afghanistan. Sanchez has also written for Vets for Freedom. Pictures of Sanchez having sex with other men were plastered all over the internet, but Sanchez was never discharged from the military. According to Sanchez and supporters like Michelle Malkin, his sexuality isn't an issue for conservatives. Only "intolerant liberals" have a problem with it.

If someone with such a visible gay past is allowed to tour war zones with the troops without posing a morale problem, then why can't honorable gays who aren't admitted criminals serve in the military?

"HIV positivity?" What, does HIV have low self-esteem?

“In the near future some kid is going to ask his dad: ‘You mean they really stopped people for serving their country, not because they couldn’t perform the job but because they were gay? That’s dumb.’”

You don't have to wait for the future for this. This is 2008, it's happened a million times already.

just another fine example of 'give them enough rope...'

remember, kiddies - when a reich-winger wants to make a point, stand well back and keep the tape rolling...

The problem here is that Conservatives and the "people of faith" they pander to have convinced themselves that being gay is not a biological condition but an act of sin that is inherently immoral. This means they have come to internalize their demonization of homosexuality to such an extend that committing a crime, or a sin, and being gay are one in the same thing.

It is almost inconceivable to these people that a gay person can be moral and professional. In their minds, the very act of letting people know you are gay is a moral attack that they immediately put in the category of all other sexual perversions like rape, incest, molestation, sexual assault, bestiality. . . etc etc. It is an easy leap for them to go from "i'm gay" to "I want to sodomize you against your will." It's not even a leap. . . it's a baby step.

"people who do have religious convictions" would be driven out of the military by the "sexualized atmosphere."

Wow. I tell you what. If ending DADT would break the grip of the Christian Fascist subculture that has poisoned our armed forces for over 40 years, and has reached alarming levels recently, then that consequence alone is enough to warrant its immediate dissolution.

So an alleged lesbian assault in 1974 shows that openly gay women are more prone to assault than heterosexual women?

langdon @ 23:

Leadership @ 1:

It is against the UCMJ to have sex with ANYONE if you aren't married to them. Period.

A code that many branches of the military (such as cadets and graduates of West Point) are meant to live by is "I will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those among us who do."

DA,DT forces gay men and women to break that code and lie about who they are.

Two things:
1. The Navy is already coed on ships. Just think of 700 women locked up with 4000 men on an aircraft carrier for three months before reaching a port of call. Talk about pent up energy. Anyway, there are actually, on occasion, engaged or married COUPLES on those ships. They don't have sex while at sea. (Or, if they do, they have to do it in a broom closet while one of their friends stands guard.) Once they hit a port, they scramble to the nearest hotel and f-ck like bunnies until their leave is over. Meanwhile the single sailors are raking the streets for prostitutes. My guess is that if the armed forces manage to keep a lid on heterosexual cravings (or at least work around it) they can probably work around homosexual ones just as easily.

2. The DADT policy doesn't force gays to lie, it did exactly the opposite. Prior to DADT any gay in the military WAS lying, because they had to sign a piece of paper that said they were not gay. In those years the army could and did have worries about those people because: a) they LIED when they joined, and b) they were vulnerable to BLACKMAIL. The KGB could always blackmail a closeted homosexual, who faced jail time if found out, but they couldn't blackmail an open homosexual.

Republicans would not exist without fear and hate.

Didn't Bill Clinton come up with this policy?

Reno @ 29:

Election year. Gay hot button returns. surprised. not.

next it will be flag burning and all the evil immigrants.
Same shit, different election.

Yes, but THIS time it's our responsibility to SHOW the electorate how the trick works. Nothing angers people more than finding out they're being manipulated. For twenty years Republicans have been using weapons of mass distraction to distract people from POLICY issues where the party has a disadvantage, to EMOTIONAL issues, where they have a tactical advantage. Policy is cerebral, and the Democrats hold most of that ground. Emotion, and especially FEAR and ANGER almost always trumps logic, and the Republicans are masters at using it. So, the trick is to get people scared or (in this case) angry about something that is actually of very little value politically. HOW OFTEN do you see an AMERICAN burning an american flag??? And yet, this issue usually ties up Congress for MONTHS at every election cycle, as if it were the most pressing issue in America. Truth is, people shouldn't worry about how many AMERICANS burn the American flag, they should worry about how many people in foreign countries do, and that's a policy issue.

Anyway, if you can expose the fact that people have been PLAYED by the Republicans over these issues, it's a way of turning the anger about flag burning into anger against the party that's USED that honest emotion for cheap political purposes. You should use the term weapons of mass distraction (invented by Ted Kennedy) as often as possible when talking about these hot button issues because it reminds people that they've been screwed by the Republican party TWICE. Once with the invasion of Iraq to find WMDs that weren't there, and twice when they elected The Shrub to his second term over the stupid 'defense of marriage' act that was put on ballot initiatives during the election. The Bush gang was elected the second time largely with the help of gay bashing and flag burning as wedge issues. I think voters will get pretty angry about that, but only if you REMIND them who did it, and WHY.

DHSmd @ 28:

"people who do have religious convictions" would be driven out of the military by the "sexualized atmosphere."

Wow. I tell you what. If ending DADT would break the grip of the Christian Fascist subculture that has poisoned our armed forces for over 40 years, and has reached alarming levels recently, then that consequence alone is enough to warrant its immediate dissolution.

I doubt it would do that, especially as dobson and his ilk still have their hooks on the air force academy and possibly other academies.

There was a story on NBC world news tonight about the dropping ranks of African Americans in the military down from 22% in 2001 to 13% today. One African American in this story was asked why she thought that was and she said because the African American community didn't want to be sent off to fight in a war they didn't believe was their war. I'm with her on that. I'm white and I don't believe the Iraq war is my war either. It's Bush and Cheney's war for big oil, Halliburton, the defense contractors and other war profiteers. Let Bush and Cheney and the GOP war cheerleaders in congress send their kids, of course they would never do that.

George Bush has done more to comprome miltary readiness and responsible for depletion of the ranks more than gays in the military could ever do. Donnelly would better serve her cause by working to keep another Republican out of the White House than trying to keep gays out of the military.

Shays looked like he wanted to jump the table and strangle that Sargeant Major. "You don't understand why we're having these hearings??!"

I loved every minute of it.

Let's understand the sequence of future events.

1) Liberals embrace the repeal of DADT on the grounds of equal rights and fairness. It makes no sense to empower a bigoted mindset. The military needs good soldiers and changing the standards will increase enlistment and retention.

2) Conservatives cannot understand why your hair doesn't stand up on the back of your neck with the mere presence of a homosexual nearby. They do not utilize any logic until their hormone and alcohol ratio decreases. Attempting to understand a conservatives mindset is like trying to explain algebra to a chihuahua. The formula involves thousands of ancient myths, rumors, force-fed propaganda, unknown numbers of subliminal messages absorbed from TV, and dysfunctional family arrangements and other sex-perverted images they've emplanted in their mind.

So...

The democrats (aka liberals) submit a formal recision of DADT policy, effectively allowing the integration of homosexuals into the military.

The republicans (aka @$$holes) rise up in fury and wind, hail and rain come forth in mighty torrents!!! Those who are in strong districts, are the most vocal, assured of their re-elections. The others offer muted agreement, a few dissent.

The vote is close in the house, but it passes...

The senate attempt will play with the threat of a filibuster and maybe a Bush veto, but it will pass with extra margin.

Bush will begrudgingly sign into law the repeal of DADT. The final bill will include funding for the Selective Service Administration and registration of all 18 years old will see renewed enforcement.

The order to draft 19 year olds will be issued thereafter.

"Didn’t Bill Clinton come up with this policy?"

Nope. Colin Powell came up with it. Clinton tried to end the ban on gays in the military but wasn't able to get past Powell, the Joint Chiefs, Sam Nunn and the rest of Congress.

sully18 @ 47:

This woman,Donnelly,has a real problem with her own shame.For every HIV positive there is an HIV negative.And "taking pictures of people in the shower;" sounds like a lot of fun after a good battle.You have to have something to break the tension.
And how about a transgender military parade of the Gay Brigade.

"Donnelly treated the panel to an extraordinary exhibition of rage."A right on the money statement,as toxic shame +fear+anger=rage .Donnelly and her ilk represent all toxic feelings.

"taking pictures of people in the shower;" sounds like a lot of fun after a good battle?

Anyone think this is a weird statement?

Maybe they fear gays in the military because being gay might be contagious? We all know how many Republicans have gone that route, so it has to be "the Gays" fault. As far as sex, women soldiers are sexually assaulted on a regular basis. I think they would want to deal with that real problem, rather than their imaginary problems with gays in the military.

Someone taking a picture of someone else in the shower? If you are showering next to the person anyway, you don't need a picture. Good grief!

I just want the best fighting force available. Believe me, there are many women who make better soldiers than men. Sex and gender preferences don't matter - it's the individual and their particular abilities that count.

Actually, strike that sentence above. I just want the best fighting force to be available to come home.

I'm as straight as Lindsey Graham, but if I were in the military and those jokers gave me a "stop loss" order, I'd be telling everyone I saw I was gay--even if they didn't ask.

jon @ 18:

Pictures of Sanchez having sex with other men were plastered all over the internet, but Sanchez was never discharged from the military. According to Sanchez and supporters like Michelle Malkin, his sexuality isn't an issue for conservatives. Only "intolerant liberals" have a problem with it.

If someone with such a visible gay past is allowed to tour war zones with the troops without posing a morale problem, then why can't honorable gays who aren't admitted criminals serve in the military?

The funny part is that Sanchez is strongly AGAINST gays serving openly in the military:

Question: Incidentally, do you agree with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy or do you believe gays should be able to serve openly in the military?

Matt Sanchez:

General Order #1 prohibits sex and pornography in a combat zone for multiple deployments of up to 15 months. Fortunately, the military frowns on that whole lisping and snapping thing, no one shines boots anymore and the term "drilling" means something entirely different in the Marine Corps.

I'm not sure how many homosexuals are willing to sacrifice (sex) and an entire season of "Ugly Betty." But it doesn't look good, every gay activist has waived a white flag on the Don't Ask Don't Tell quagmire.

Personally, I'd settle for gays serving, if Congressman John Murtha would stop outing himself as a Marine....

Source: RightWingNews

My name is Elaine Donnelly. I am a bogus expert on military affairs and a congenital busybody. I attend hearings in Washington and go around the entire USA to spread disinformation and prejudice. Please give money to my absurd charade of a non-profit organization so that I can continue my nefarious activities; otherwise, my miserable life would serve no purpose and I would have to kill myself.

Thank you and God Bless America. -E.D.

Leadership @ 1:

Boy am I going to catch hell for this. I am a veteran. I am a progressive. It is against the UCMJ to have sex with ANYONE if you aren't married to them. Period.

This whole gays in the military is bullshit. Gay people are everywhere. Who you fuck means nothing to me unless it's kids or animals. But, what the fuck does a gay man or woman expect to gain from coming out or not coming out. Soldiers aren't supposed to be black. white , red, brown or pink. They are GREEN!!!!

This is all bullshit. Take the oath, do your job, fuck whoever you want, keep it to yourself, whoever you are.

You are right. Everyone in the military should be green. But something is the matter when people that are gay in the military and are highly training are being kick out. It tells me that the military is looking to kick them out. I know one it first came law my husband told his boss that he would not report anyone for being gay. He felt if that person was doing his/her job than that was good enough for him and it should be good enough for the military. That is the only time he told his boss that he would not take an order. He new there were some in his unit but they were very good workers. He felt the same way you did that if a soldier is cheating on his spouse than it should work the same way.