Smooth Transition for Military Gays in U.S. Allies

How does the US army work with the Canadian army, which allows gays to openly serve, and since 2005 to even get married. It didn't change anything in the armed forces and the few cases of harassment were treated like any other harasment case. But even before allowing gay soldiers the military agreed to pay for sex reassignment surgery for members of the armed services, the soldiers were required to meet the same criteria as a civilian and with the same steps being taken for transitioning. It nevr hurt our armed services, it riled a few conservatives about the expenditure but then it was pointed out that even civilian transitions were paid by the government. These Admirals and Generals think nothing of making inappropriate advances on female staff and most of them have never served with the rank and file in the field but they make judgements about 19 year old boys who aren't worrying about the sexuality of his bunkmate but whether he is going to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The funny thing is that people in the U.S. Armed Forces are already serving alongside openly gay men and women because they are serving with allied forces in Iraq and more so in Afghanistan. In fact I was under the impression the some barracks in Afghanistan were shared by U.S. and Canadian forces (which includes openly gay service men and women). If this is not an issue and if they can be professional and operate properly under these situations then why would this be an issue within their own ranks? What about NORAD? I assume the U.S. doesn't stop Canada from allowing openly gay memeber from their military to serve in NORAD postings. This whole thing is a bunch of BS and shows how immature and cowardly American leaders are. Those in the military have clearly shown they are more than capable of professionalism, the politicians should follow suit.

Virtually all republican congressmen will discredit the report because of its source. They don't care at all about its merits. (Sorta like their reaction to Elena Kagan.) And, of course, they can always say "but the US is different". Still, this provides yet another study to point to for those who want to repeal DADT.

If Clinton had issued an executive order to end the ban on gays in the military, Sen. Sam Nunn (D) Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would have organized half the Democrats in the Senate, and all the Republicans, to write a law that would have overridden it. He had more than enough votes to do it and wouldn't have hesitated for a second to do it. DADT was the compromise. I'm not a Clinton lover by any means, either one of them, but I do think that Bill Clinton did do all he could do given the traitorous Democratic congress he was dealing with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that's the way it went down.

Clinton should have issued an executive order in 1993 to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly and let the chips fall where they may. I am thoroughly disgusted with this lingering argument about gays and lesbians in the US Military. This matter speaks to a much larger social issue and problem: a VERY unhealthy attitude toward sex and sexuality in our nation. It also speaks to a large and undisclosed population comprised mostly of men who to the outside world are heterosexual but inwardly have homosexual desires and yearnings. Volumes have been written on this very topic. It is long past the time when the US should have moved forward on this entire issue. Geez! Did you see all those straight Military guys doing the Lady Gaga routine? They obviously are cool with camping it up a bit. And, doubtlessly at least one of them is gay; perhaps the one leading the group. LOL! Some of our greatest warriors in history were homosexual or bisexual.

One of the big ironies in all of this is that the Pentagon is fond of boasting that our soldiers are the most disciplined and professional in the world. They then turn around and argue that those same soldiers are a bunch of emotionally-fragile rednecks that cannot cope with change or anything different in their midst! Amazingly few people point out the absurdity of their position. Soldiers are not divided into different units based on race, religion or political affiliation. Now even gender segregation is fading, for example they will be letting female officers serve within the cramped quarters of submarines. Yet when it comes to gays homophobia is considered a fundamental right that must be protected. A racist soldier would not be allowed to refuse to serve alongside soldiers of another race but a special accommodations are supposedly needed for homophobes!

All these allies, all these previously (free) studies we could be using, why are we spending millions more to do another study? (Besides the obvious answer). We are told over and over we have the best trained, most competent military in the world... So if other, lesser, militaries can implement this without problems, it's either as easy as they say, or our military is being over rated. What must the soldiers of other countries think? How can our allies begin to trust in our professionalism when we can't even manage to fight next to our own countrymen. This becomes more ludicrous by the hour.

If nations like Spain, Germany, Canada, England, France, Ireland, Australia, Israel, Brazil and over a dozen other countries can all allow openly gay troops serving in their armies.....why not the USA?

While this is nothing we haven't heard or said before, it's nice to see that it came out of a study....oh wait...AGAIN. It's not cost or resources or cohesion readiness that's slowing this thing down. It's pure, unadulterated direct (right wing) and indirect (left wing laissez-faire) game of political hot potato that's not even luke warm anymore. More plainly put, they're bigoted political cowards who need to grow a set in order to do the job that they were elected to do: Lead.