In the UK there was a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on gays serving in the military which said this in 1999:

The ban on gays in the UK armed forces is a breach of human rights, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled. The Strasbourg judges said the ban broke the Human Rights Convention, which safeguards the right to privacy. Gay rights campaigners say it is a landmark case, and they hope the government will lift the ban by the end of the year.

What happened?

Did high-ranking officers stage a massive walkout?

Did the UK military all turn gay from contact?

Did the Royal Family refuse to send Prince Harry to the military?

Er, no.

BBC News has the results:

When the UK took the step of allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the armed forces 10 years ago, public opinion was in favour but the armed forces themselves were not. The situation is very similar in the US today.

Landmarks

Some 10% said they would leave the armed forces if gays were allowed to serve openly. Large-scale resignations from the UK armed forces were widely expected in some quarters, when the ban on gays was lifted - but in practice they did not materialise.

At least one British army brigadier publicly resigned in protest, citing "strongly held moral and military convictions" but most observers were surprised at how smoothly the new law - which was forced on the UK government by the European Court of Human Rights - was implemented.

"There was this expectation that there would be problems, but it just didn't happen. People just got on with their work," said Dave Small, who was in the Royal Navy at the time, but now works for the Stonewall Diversity Champions Programme helping the three armed services to adopt best practice in the area of sexual diversity.

--

Fears that allowing openly gay soldiers to serve on the front line would lead to a breakdown of discipline and cohesion within units also proved unfounded.

--

British Security Minister Lord Alan West, a former head of the Royal Navy, told the Associated Press in July 2009 that allowing gays to serve openly was "much better".

"For countries that don't do that - I don't believe it's got anything to do with how efficient or capable their forces will be. It's to do with prejudices, I'm afraid," he said.

It's always about hate when it comes to teh Gays. Maybe all the gay-bashers in America going to the media should read this and grow up. But that's asking a lot from the religious community in our country.

DOWNLOADS: (1595)

PLAYS: (4522)

Embed

On his Fox News show last night, Glenn Beck launched his latest campaign to unseat a member of the Obama White House: Valerie Jarrett, one of the president's closest advisers and a close friend of Michelle Obama as well.

Beck in fact devoted over 20 minutes of his opening segment to attacking Jarrett. He not only puts Jarrett at the center of the controversies Beck has managed to stir up and force resignations, but he says Jarrett is the reason the Obamas are flying to Denmark to lobby for Chicago as the host city for the 2016 Olympics.

It's straight out of black-helicoptersville, of course. But this has never stopped Beck in the past. Indeed, it's been the key to his success so far.

Somehow, I don't think Jarrett is going to be as easy to throw under the bus as Van Jones was. Now we may get to see, finally, how this White House responds to these kinds of attacks -- other than rank capitulation.

In the meantime, has anyone noticed yet that all of Beck's targets to date have been black?

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Just like it was coincidence that Beck couldn't explain to Katie Couric the meaning of "white culture":

UPDATE: White House blogger Jesse Lee has posted a factual response pointing out how reality-deprived Beck's attacks are.

"You won't have Miz Palin to kick around anymore."

Click here for larger.

Open Thread below...

Truthout:

The announcement yesterday that the top two lawyers for the Federal Election Commission had resigned helped spread an undercurrent of concern about the diminishing role of a once-prominent public voice on the intersection of money and politics.

The stated reason for the departures of FEC General Counsel Lawrence H. Norton and Deputy General Counsel James A. Kahl was that the two men had landed private-sector jobs at a large firm with offices in six states. Norton and Kahl, reached yesterday, said their resignations were not intended to send any broader message.

But those who monitor campaign finance law with some dedication said the departures coincided with a perceived shift in the way the commissioners have worked with the general counsel.

Paul S. Ryan, a lawyer who monitors the FEC for the Campaign Legal Center, said the general counsel was once free to opine publicly about pressing policy matters but that has not been the preference of the commissioners as of late.

"The influence of the general counsel has clearly been diminishing," Ryan said. The commissioners "no longer seek the general counsel's opinion publicly with respect to answering difficult questions of law."

Meanwhile, Michael Collins of Scoop Independent News gives us some good news on the election front: Three Wyoming Democrats Take a Stand for Democracy; They Ask for and Get a Recount in a Very Tight House Race. Now if we could get the same kind of concern for the democratic process in Florida.

Jim Stratton

"The last of U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris' key staffers appear ready to abandon her campaign for the U.S. Senate in a wave of resignations expected to start this weekend. Sources close to the campaign said Friday that the defections would touch virtually every level of her operation...."I've never seen staffers go like this," said David Johnson, a Republican pollster and consultant. "It's just imploding."...read on