Are certain GOP members refusal to accept the findings of the DADT report surprising?

John McCain is an idiot. John Stewart skewered him brilliantly using his own words in this clip that @syz linked me to.

It’s all about who they feel they need to pander to the most, isn’t it?

@janbb – I think this is a profoundly upsetting example of it – particularly from a former service member.

And unless people can see other reasons for it, I think that it’s one of the worst examples of what happens when we have career politicians.

Yep, pandering to their homophobic, reactionary base. It doesn’t have anything to do with a rational interpretation of the Pentagon report or anything else.

@IchtheosaurusRex – Am I sensing sarcasm?

@iamthemob Oh believe me, I don’t condone pandering, hypocrisy or lack of moral fiber in politicians.

I wouldn’t expect anything like that from you, @janbb – much the opposite, all the time in fact. ;-)

No…as I understand it, all “they” are asking is for time to prepare for this inevitable change. The implication is the current military structure mindset is not setup for including openly gay servicemen and women and that they feel that time will be required to reset the system(s) through changing the current policies and procedures and the training required to get everyone in the military ready for this change in policy. IMO seems like entirely reasonable request.

”Gates warned the Senate that it should act before the courts do, pointing to recent judicial action that threatened to abruptly end the ban—instead of giving the military time to prepare for integration of openly serving gays and lesbians through careful training.”

Nope. Scientific research is constantly being denied by a certain faction of the Republican party.

@Cruiser – the point of the Pentagon report, however, was to determine (1) whether it would interfere with readiness, and (2) lay out the method for doing so, if it was the best course. This “time” is exactly what the Pentagon asked for, and these same Senators stated that they were waiting for the information to make the decision.

Now, they’re stating it asked the wrong questions and that they should talk directly to the military (despite the comprehensiveness of the report) to determine whether the military members want the repeal. Now, despite the report, they’re stating that they’re vote will not change regardless of the general approval.

The report took a year. I really wonder what huge surprises people think are going to come out of this considering it’s notoriety.

Personally, I doubt that there will be a sudden outing. I’m pretty sure that people in the military who are gay will work in their own way to make the transition smooth.

@iamthemob In your link it seems McCain and friends feel this report was far from conclusive and lacked any clear solutions for the implementing the correct process(es) of repealing the law and the required procedures for doing so.

“The report, he said, “does not lead to one unequivocal solution.” ”

It is also quite obvious there is the old guard that is adamant about this issue of maintaining DADT. It was Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf that started this program under Clinton and McCain being an old Vet has also supported this program for their original reasons of starting it in the first place but he also has said the minute the Top Brass in the Military support repealing DADT he will push for that to happen but not any sooner until they do.

I am not gay, nor homophobic, nor have I served in the military, but I say leave it up to the men in Uniform, those on the front line getting shot at and their superiors to be the the ones demanding this policy change not politicians with agendas.

@Cruiser – My thing is…the Pentagon is top military brass. That’s why the GOP Senate members wanted to wait for their report. When we say leave it to the men (and women) in uniform…well, those writing the report solicited the views of nearly 400,000 active duty and reserve component Service members with an extensive and professionally-developed survey, which prompted 115,052 responses— one of the largest surveys in the history of the U.S. military.

The entire report is here. It contains 21 pages of recommendations for moving forward, covering everying from benefits to housing. Most interestingly, though, was what the report states in terms of what the military really doesn’t have to worry about – negative opinions from the servicemembers, as there are sufficient procedures already in place to manage them (see below):

****************************************************************************************************
In general, we conclude three things:

First, the reality is that in today’s U.S. military, Service members of sharply religious convictions and moral values—including those who believe that abortion is murder and those who do not, and those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who do not—and those who have no religious convictions at all, already co-exist, work, live, and fight together on a daily basis. This is a reflection of the pluralistic American society at large.

Second, with regard to Service members concerned about their own individual expression and free exercise of religion, we conclude that no modified or revised policy is required, particularly in light of the training and education we are recommending in the event of repeal. In our view, existing policies regarding individual expression and free exercise of religion by Service members are adequate. Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and co-exist with others who may hold different views and beliefs.

Third, existing DoD and Service policies and guidance pertaining to chaplains is adequate to accommodate a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In our view, existing policies on chaplains’ protections and obligations are adequate and strike an appropriate balance between protecting a chaplain’s First Amendment freedoms and a chaplain’s duty to carefor all. Existing Army and Air Force regulations state that chaplains “will not be required to perform a religious role…in worship services, command ceremonies, or other events, if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith.”348 At the same time, according to Navy regulations, “chaplains care for all Service members, including those who claim no religious faith, facilitate the religious requirements of personnel of all faiths, provide faith-specific ministries, and advise the command.”349 Overall, it is DoD policy that chaplains “serve a religiously diverse population,”350 and, to be considered for appointment as a chaplain, an individual must be “willing to support directly and indirectly the free exercise of religion by all members of the Military Services, their family members, and other persons authorized to be served by the military chaplaincies.”351

However, in recognition of the concerns expressed by chaplains and their endorsing agencies, the Department of Defense should, in the event of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, direct the Services to reiterate the principle that chaplains, in the context of their religious ministry, are not required to take actions inconsistent with their religious beliefs, but must still care for all Service members. Evaluation, promotion, and assignment of chaplains must continue to be consistent with these long-standing Service policies.
**************************************************************************************************

My problem is that this is a classic example of doublethink. We are told – “we should wait for the top brass and military to weigh in in this report” and then “now that we have the report, we should wait for the top brass and military to weigh in.”

Huh?!?!

@Cruiser

It seems the ‘men in Uniform’ (and women, too!) have already spoken, as is shown in the Jon Stewart clip that @marinelife posted. Haven’t fact-checked it but, you know…

Edit: Well, see @iamthemob‘s post above.

DADT will be repealed sooner than later. Everything that conservatives fight always get passed sooner than later, because even if we as a country go through dark phases progress is always made. The problem with this is that we have never seen a machine as big as Fox News with propaganda as horrible as this, so many other things will have to wait longer like legalization of drugs but DADT is inevitable.

@absalom 38–40% of the active front line soldiers DO NOT support repealing this DADT! Hmmm…If you were to “manage” a team of elite soldiers of who 40% were not in favor of gays in their unit and you were gay and the commanding officer and you gave orders to provide support to a unit engaged in a fire fight that is dire almost suicidal to rescue….what do you do when 40% of your squad says “NO F’N WAY”!! There is a dynamic and “espirit De’ Corps…that you or I will never understand and far be it from me to tell THEM how to select who they fight side by side to the death with.

Please remember this is not my reality, it is the facts and the front line soldiers reality. Go take your own poll, I am pretty sure about this as given by @iamthemob‘s links, I am not just hand waving or exaggerating!

The numbers in a vacuum aren’t really helpful unless we take them in context with the Pentagon’s (again – top brass people who the Congress had deferred their judgment to up until now) consideration and evaluation of them. Regarding negative leanings, the Pentagon reported:

Our assessment here is also informed by the lessons of history in this country. Though there are fundamental differences between matters of race, gender, and sexual orientation, we believe the U.S. military’s prior experiences with racial and gender integration are relevant. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, our military took on the racial integration of its ranks, before the country at large had done so. Our military then was many times larger than it is today, had just returned from World War II, and was in the midst of Cold War tensions and theKorean War. By our assessment, the resistance to change at that time was far more intense:

surveys of the military revealed opposition to racial integration of the Services at levels as high as 80–90%.22 Some of our best-known and most-revered military leaders from the World War II-era voiced opposition to the integration of blacks into the military, making strikingly similar predictions of the negative impact on unit cohesion. But by 1953, 95% of all African-American soldiers were serving in racially integrated units, while public buses in Montgomery, Alabama and other cities were still racially segregated.

Our conclusions are also informed by the experiences of our foreign allies. To be sure, there is no perfect comparator to the U.S. military, and the cultures and attitudes toward homosexuality vary greatly among nations of the world. However, in recent times a number of other countries have transitioned to policies that permit open military service by gay men and lesbians. These include the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, and Israel.

Significantly, prior to change, surveys of the militaries in Canada and the U.K. indicated much higher levels of resistance than our own survey results—as high as 65% for some areas27— but the actual implementation of change in those countries went much more smoothly than expected, with little or no disruption.

Do you have a page reference for the 40%? Considering that the report is pretty comprehensive, picking out single numbers seems problematic. Further:

The perceptions gap we note here is also reflected in the survey data. The data reveals that Service members who are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian are less likely to perceive a negative impact of repeal on the key elements of unit task and social cohesion, and unit effectiveness. Conversely, those who have believe they have never served with someone who is gay or lesbian are more likely to perceive a negative impact. Likewise, of Service members who believe they have in their career served in a unit with a co-worker who is gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”317

The problem is – when you say that 40% don’t support it and that would translate into 40% abandoning their duty on the front line, you are hand waving and exaggerating. First, I really don’t think that you believe that at all. Second, the data doesn’t lend itself to that kind of assessment. Finally, you admit that the dynamic is alien to you. It’s alien to me too.

It’s not alien to the Pentagon. The people charged with determining the effects. And after all the data was assessed – they don’t think there is a significant need to change any of the major structures already in place to even handle the new situation.

Considering the fact that the Pentagon was asking that action be delayed until this report was completed as well, I don’t think that they were taking the situation lightly…I don’t understand why Senators are deciding to take it lightly now.

No. The new GOP is the enemy of just about any form of equality you mention. And their recent history has also been one of preferring ideology to the facts that pointy-head elites seem to cherish. No surprise at all.

@ETpro – This seems like a particularly egregious example, though. They specifically left it in the hands of the Pentagon and stated they were waiting until their assessment. Now, they’re saying they want to talk to the troops themselves – even though that’s what the Pentagon already did.

It’s just – it seems like they expect us to not understand that this is, really and essentially, a bold-faced lie.

It leaves John McCain roundly denouncing the position of John McCain—but what’s new about that. He is now against almost everything he was ever for and for everything he was against. The New GOP just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.

Shh – this ain’t about the right and left, yo. ;-)

@iamthemob That was rude of me to not cite my numbers source….I’m usually pretty anal about that! I got my info from a PBS interview of the principal players in this review process.

“The Pentagon study began 10 months ago. The question: What happens if Congress repeals the policy that forced more than 13,000 personnel to leave the military in the last 17 years? Some 115,000 troops responded to a mailed questionnaire.”

“Seventy percent said allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would have positive, mixed or no effect. On the other hand, 30 percent predicted negative effects. Among combat troops, 40 percent were opposed to the idea. And that figure climbed to 46 percent among U.S. Marines who answered the survey.

@Cruiser – not rude, considering that I had access to the report – there are simply a lot of percents in that thing.

But the main message from Pentagon leaders is this: “I think that our study, which was the most comprehensive engagement of the force on any personnel-related issue, demonstrates that most service members simply don’t regard this as an issue at this point. And many actually see positive effects of—of repeal in terms of unit cohesion and the ability to work together.”

There aren’t any real barriers to implementation that they perceive.

Now, Sen. Graham states that he wants to ask service members whether they should repeal DADT. The problem, of course, is those that predict poor results of repeal in the survey are those generally that don’t think they’ve served with a gay man or woman. Again, among those who believe they have, the approval rating is above 90%. The Pentagon recognized this by stating that the majority of the reactions seem to be connected with stereotypes held by the responders. Asking whether they should repeal it would result in a study skewed by a population that doesn’t feel like it’s already served with a gay comrade continuing to hold onto stereotypes and saying that they shouldn’t have to.

Of course, as the Pentagon mentions also, such a referendum would be unprecedented in military history. Also, the feeling was profoundly more negative in the military when race desegregation was discussed. However, we cannot ask an insular community with particular prejudices whether it approves of an equal-rights based regulation change. And, as the report mentioned, the military rose to the occasion during race integration.

@iamthemob This brings me back to my first comment here where the GOP leaders are simply saying there is a very necesarry adjustment period that will take time to make the changes needed to do this AND maintain a fully functioning Elite military force. If you had/have up to 40% of your front line fighting force dead set against having a gay person in the field or commanding them and you just flip a switch and tell sorry guys new rules because a bunch of Senators think this is a better idea here!! We are not talking about 5% or 10% of soldiers against changing DADT, it is nearly half of the fighting Marines!! Can you even fathom the potential problems and pitfalls this creates with this current mindset amongst the front line soldiers and commanders? This is much more than a doing the right thing here and much more complicated than the sensational bold print headlines are allowing for.

We are not talking about 40% dead set against it, either. The statistics were not related to the question of whether it should happen – the 40% relates to whether they think it will have a negative effect. This is an amalgamation of responses covering both “more negative than positive” and “very negative.”

Did you see the report? Not asking with sarcasm – it just seems that you’re taking the percentages as blanket statements. The actual results are much more intricate and incredibly comprehensive. With this 40%, the Pentagon stated that implementation would not be a problem. The Pentagon – which has stood by DADT and has had a history of homophobic regulations. The heads at the Department of Defense, therefore, looked at those figures, and are saying “This is not a problem.”

Now, I can’t fathom it – but the Pentagon surely can. That’s who’s saying it should go through. Not me.

Sick to my stomach.

@absalom – They’re not even really against that – the percentages about whether there will be a negative effect from repeal.

(from the report)

To be sure, these survey results reveal a significant minority—around 30% overall (and 40 – 60% in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties)—who predicted in some form and to some degree negative views or concerns about the impact of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Any personnel policy change for which a group that size predicts negative consequences must be approached with caution. However, there are a number of other factors that still lead us to conclude that the risk of repeal to overall military effectiveness is low.

Also…regarding those on the front lines…

Given that we are in a time of war, the combat arms communities across all Services required special focus and analysis. Though the survey results demonstrate a solid majority of the overall U.S. military who predict mixed, positive or no effect in the event of repeal, these percentages are lower, and the percentage of those who predict negative effects are higher, in combat arms units. For example, in response to question 68a, while the percentage of the overall U.S. military that predicts negative or very negative effects on their unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done” is 30%, the percentage is 43% for the Marine Corps, 48% within Army combat arms units, and 58% within Marine combat arms units.17

However, while a higher percentage of Service members in warfighting units predict negative effects of repeal, the percentage distinctions between warfighting units and the entire military are almost non-existent when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with someone believed to be gay. For example, when those in the overall military were asked about the experience of working with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, 92% stated that their unit’s “ability to work together,” was “very good, “good” or “neither good nor poor.”18 Meanwhile, in response to the same question, the percentage is 89% for those in Army combat arms units and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high percentages.19 Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special operations force warfighter told us, “We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”20

@iamthemob No I did not read the report, but I am supporting the GOP’s argument that this change in DADT policy is more than just doing the right thing here. It is changing the policies and mindset not only within the military itself but the American public as well. Again we are not talking just a few people not wanting to do this. It is the right thing to do, it is just a monumental task with a lot of changes in policies and procedures that just doesn’t happen overnight and that will obviously ruffle for than a few feathers across the board. As the powers that be who are there and been there it is a sensitive issue that a lot of people are still dead set against. The way it is now is the Military is working well, extremely well as it is and to say implementing something like a change in DADT policies and procedures will be disruptive is a gross understatement, and can we risk that kind of disruption at a time when we have servicemen fighting battles?? Not a smart move IMO and I have to agree with this request to find a better solution to this problem that clearly demonstrates policies and procedures that will be less disruptive than what is being suggested by this report.

@Cruiser – But you haven’t read the report. It lays out how the transition can take place. It shows what can be used, and what might need to change.

And this is what the GOP was waiting for this past year. The Pentagon/DOD has done what it deems necessary – and they’re the ones that the GOP stated were the ones qualified to do so.

When you say that “to say implementing something like a change in DADT policies and procedures will be disruptive is a gross understatement” you’re (1) disagreeing with the people in charge of the armed forces, and (2) doing so without seeing what the top brass has suggested be implemented.

The problem is, DADT is not “policies and procedures” plural. Repealing it would simply mean “If we find out or you reveal that you’re gay, you will no longer be discharged.”

The Pentagon conducted an unprecedented investigation – and there’s no significant “dead set” against it contingent in the ranks according to them. The GOP said that it wanted to wait until the Pentagon came back to tell them whether repeal could go forward. Now, they state that the report should survey whether the service thinks it should happen, when they already know that it will work based on all current and analogous evidence.

The Pentagon, the group charged with it, thinks it’s a good idea. What argument is there against that?

@iamthemob Not really worth arguing semantics here. What appears to be the resistance is what it will take to change the current “military” mindset including the current system of the military geared around DATA. The GOP and top Military brass know this can’t be done overnight and as the people who sat in on the review have said quoting Mc Cain again…”“The report, he said, “does not lead to one unequivocal solution.” They are looking for better solutions and the time to implement them than what was laid out in the report! Seems pretty simple and reasonable to me!

@Cruiser – this isn’t semantics. The report stated the institutions that would handle issues occurring transition. It’s done.

When you ask for “one unequivocal solution” then you set the impossible bar. What you’re asking is “I want the report to show that there will be no homophobic reaction to out gay military members.” Unfortunately, the military is a microcosm of the U.S. – so what would have to happen is to figure out how to combat the various societal causes of homophobia. Before repeal of DADT.

Essentially, that guarantees DADT is permanent.

What the report showed, and the only thing it could show considering the size of the population, was that there was minimal risk to overall effectiveness should DADT be repealed.

The solutions in place, of course, require the repeal to work. Just like handling issues arising from racial desegregation require, first, that the army be desegregated. The Pentagon’s report stated, unequivocally, “We’re ready to handle any issues DADT repeal would raise, and here are the mechanisms how.” Of course there will be problems – but there is minimal predicted harm.

There IS no one unequivocal solution to the issue – it’s an issue that’s been boiling for thousands of years. The thing that they want a solution for is homophobia – if they do end up getting that, halleluiah.

What they have is a report stating that our military is prepared to stop discharging honorable men and women because it is revealed that they’re gay…and that it has the mechanisms in place to deal with current members of the military that might react in a negative way to that. That is one thing that they need to stop doing. It’s so simple, and the report says they’re ready for it to happen if the Congress decides to repeal the law.

Seriously…what better result could they have asked for?

@iamthemob I run a business and the morale of my employees is critical to having a happy productive workforce. This report and the analysis of it clearly shows that right now today….up to 40% of the front line forces are not in support of either repealing DADT and or the procedures being suggested to address it. Either way that is a problem….a HUGE problem. Try and illustrate to me how you would maintain an elite effective fighting machine when 40% of your employees are now pissed as hell at you for changing the structure of their job you hired and specifically trained them to do???

Sure you can say tough shit soldier do your job….but I shudder to think of the back lash and morale problem I would now have on my hands.

@Cruiser – it is neither. They weren’t asked whether there should be a repeal, and the procedures were decided and reviewed based on the survey so it was information they hadn’t seen – it is that they think that there will be a negative effect. And again, the results are skewed because 90% of people who had served with someone openly gay had a view that repeal would have a positive change.

So, let’s use you as an example. You have to hire a new group to deal with certain inefficiencies. However, the group you want to hire has a mixed review amongst your workers. So you have your HR director survey the employees. Almost half think that this will be negative for their work. However, 90% of those who have worked with the group before has a favorable impression of them. You know that there will be some feathers ruffled. However, you know that it’s going to happen eventually. You also have looked at your HR director’s report on the in-house HR procedures and also know, having hired an unpopular group before that the current procedures are sufficient to handle the problem and the past experience was successful. Your HR director, who knows the temper of the employees and the procedures for the transition, has said that current attitudes aren’t good, but there should be minimal issues with taking on the group.

However, you decide that you want to do a survey of the employees to see if they want to hire on the group and want to try to change their attitude before you do the hire.

You are the GOP. Your HR Director is the Pentagon. You have to give the final word.

So – knowing that your employees are overwhelmingly positive when they work with the group, but that most think there will be a negative effect if they come (most not having worked with them) – is it a better option for you to delay the hire to try to change their mind, or use procedures to deal with problems after their hired, and let them convince the other employees they haven’t worked with yet themselves.

I’m sorry – again – “pissed as hell”? That was not even close to what was in the report. Again, it was a range of “more negative than positive” to “very negative.” The report indicated that they were negative in their outlook because they held gay stereotypes – even after it was suggested to them that they may have worked with gays before, as they respond “Yeah, but we didn’t know they were gay if we did.”

How are we going to solve this if not by having them work with gay soldiers.

And I’ll add – I don’t think, again, a bevy of gay soldiers will be declaring their status. I’m betting that they’ll be careful themselves as they’re on the front lines too.

We’re not hiring gay soldiers. We’re just not firing them if we find out. That’s what this is.

So all we’re saying “tough shit” about is “Yeah, well, if one of your fellow soldiers wants to tell you that they’re gay…you have to deal with it.”

@Cruiser

No I did not read the report, but…

And here is where it becomes difficult to have an actual discussion.

this change in DADT policy is more than just doing the right thing

This is totally specious. I want people to recognize the verbal gymnastics in statements like this, employed so the speaker can rationalize a wrong and a right. How can it ever be more than ‘doing the right thing’? What else are we supposed to be concerned about? Does this statement admit that repealing DADT is, in fact, the right thing? If so, what the hell are we arguing about?

It is the right thing to do,

See above.

it is just a monumental task with a lot of changes in policies and procedures

What about this is logistically monumental? Maybe it’s monumental socially and culturally, but not logistically. And what are these numerous policies and procedures that must be changed? The only real change will be to the DADT policy. The rest is appeasement and paperwork.

just doesn’t happen overnight

How about 365 nights? The wheels have been turning for a long time now. It’s overdue, and some of us have been waiting 17 years.

and that will obviously ruffle for than a few feathers across the board

And so what? We’re going to deny rights in lieu of ruffling?

as [sic] the powers that be… it is a sensitive issue that a lot of people are still dead set against

You are repeating this phrase, ‘dead set,’ as though you know of the extent to which certain cohorts of the military remain against the repeal. Kindly refer to @iamthemob‘s earlier posts and see that the numbers are not so high, and dissidence not so mordant as you might be suggesting.

The way it is now is the Military is working well, extremely well as it is

Should we wait for the armed forces to be plagued with other problems and then spring this on them again? Wouldn’t this probably be the best time to introduce the repeal? If they are working ‘extremely well’ (as in together, I’m sure you mean), then who’s to say they can’t maintain that camaraderie or ‘morale’ they possess now? Shouldn’t we take their efficacy as a sign of maturity, as an indication that the best time for this is now?

What is the point of waiting, anyway? It has been a long time, and yet the GOP and John McCain, who’ve had their requests filled for forestalling and review, insist on further review and further forestalling. What will time change?

to say implementing something like a change in DADT policies and procedures will be disruptive is a gross understatement

This is a gross overstatement. What will be disrupted? Is the U.S. military that petty, that sensitive, that poorly put together? It seems like you have such little faith in them. But this issue is beyond benign.

when we have servicemen fighting battles

I have a hunch that those ‘battles’ are a little more important to the ‘servicemen’* than men** who might want to service them. (God I am lame, just kill me now before I start rhyming again.)

*And women, holla.
**Or women, holla.

But seriously, what? These are the women and the men of the military, and I suspect they have been trained to handle experiences far more jarring than gay people.

less disruptive than what is being suggested by this report.

Are you looking for, like, zero disruption? 40% of the military isn’t going to abscond or mutiny because DADT is repealed. What kind of disruption are you talking about? Will we hear of feathers ruffling or of bigots whispering? Would the Pentagon & Co. even be proposing a plan if they weren’t sure the military could handle it?

Mc Cain [sic] again…”“The report, he said, “does not lead to one unequivocal solution.”

And McCain is pretty much wrong: wrong to imply that everybody is still very divided on this and wrong to presume that a truly perfectly unequivocal solution is even possible when politics is involved. That man says what he needs to. He has been estranged from the military and no longer knows or seeks to do what’s best for it. He and others of the GOP are attempting to participate in something they’ve really had nothing to do with (should any politician?), and I actually find it kind of appalling how McCain can say that these clearly very thorough reviews (which he demanded) are inadequate. He is like a malingerer.

40% of your employees are now pissed as hell

What the fuck, man? Try to speak responsibly. See above regarding absconding and mutiny (i.e., false threats). If someone is going to throw a fit about this then he doesn’t deserve to be in the military. It’s the people you keep talking about, the mysteriously pissed 40%, that threaten to ruin the morale and the camaraderie with a phobic and juvenile response to a goddamn policy that – if you think real hard about it – doesn’t even have to affect them. It’s those people who we should worry about (and help out!), not the policy they’re reacting to. Thankfully I am quite a bit more than 40% certain that the livid constituency you speak of is entirely imaginary.

I shudder to think of the back lash

Then you are letting an already baseless and imagined fear preclude a very necessary repeal and a very necessary step toward the final frontier of civil rights.

It is cowardly.

——-

Apologies if I’ve repeated you, @iamthemob; I just kind of skimmed your posts while responding to @Cruiser.