• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants

Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants - Yahoo! News


WASHINGTON – A Pentagon spokeswoman says recruiters have been told that they must accept gay applicants, following a federal court decision striking down the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
Spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said Tuesday that top-level guidance has been issued to recruiting commands informing them that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule has been suspended for now. Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium could be reversed at any point.



I think at this point it's over. It's sad to see that it took a judges order instead of giving the military time to prepare for the change.
 
I suspect that before the appeal process is over, the legislature will act. The military evaluation is due Dec 1, so early next year is not an unrealistic scenario.
 
I suspect that before the appeal process is over, the legislature will act. The military evaluation is due Dec 1, so early next year is not an unrealistic scenario.



Lets hope they put the support system in place to make this transition as easy on the troops as possible.
 
It's more sad to see that it took a judge to do what Obama promised the gay community 'He' would do.

My understanding is that he opposes the ruling because he thinks its better to do it through congress. So in an odd way, he is attempting to keep his promise. I personally think he should just drop it.
 
Failing to do it himself?




No if he did it on his own via executive order (which to me would have teeth, and show leadership), like that other president with integration, he might he felt and I am speculating, lose votes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mac
I see. Well, speaking only for myself, I would have approved of his using an executive order to end the enforcement of the discharges while the end of the actual policy was debated and decided upon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mac
No if he did it on his own via executive order (which to me would have teeth, and show leadership), like that other president with integration, he might he felt and I am speculating, lose votes.

You might have a point, except that he has been consistent that it should be done by the legislature so that it cannot be undone by another executive order. Expecting things to be done as they should is not lacking in showing leadership, though that is a nice bit of spin.
 
I wonder if when all is said and done... does Obama claim credit for ending DADT?

If it never gets beyond the courts, I don't think he could claim it honestly.
 
My understanding is that he opposes the ruling because he thinks its better to do it through congress. So in an odd way, he is attempting to keep his promise. I personally think he should just drop it.

With the current supreme court I think this must be done legislatively, or it could be easily reversed.
 
You might have a point, except that he has been consistent that it should be done by the legislature so that it cannot be undone by another executive order. Expecting things to be done as they should is not lacking in showing leadership, though that is a nice bit of spin.




It's more opinion than spin. I doubt the next president would reverse that EO for the very same reason. Republican or democrat.
 
With the current supreme court I think this must be done legislatively, or it could be easily reversed.

Its still possible that it will be. Personally, I don't care how it happens though, as long as it happens.
 
I think at this point it's over. It's sad to see that it took a judges order instead of giving the military time to prepare for the change.

Perhaps, but I'm OK with it. And soliders generally adjust well to orders.
 
It's more opinion than spin. I doubt the next president would reverse that EO for the very same reason. Republican or democrat.

I doubt it as well, but doing it legislatively is the proper way. To further the story, going into this year, this was one of Obama's issues to get done, the military then asked for time to do the review that is now finishing up, Obama decided that was a reasonable request(and I agree, and have said action should wait till after the review). It's not a lack of leadership, it is that processes do take time.
 
I doubt it as well, but doing it legislatively is the proper way. To further the story, going into this year, this was one of Obama's issues to get done, the military then asked for time to do the review that is now finishing up, Obama decided that was a reasonable request(and I agree, and have said action should wait till after the review). It's not a lack of leadership, it is that processes do take time.



I can see that. I still think it was a lack of cajones on his part, not to say any other president prior or after would have same cajones, but I see your point.
 
I doubt it as well, but doing it legislatively is the proper way. To further the story, going into this year, this was one of Obama's issues to get done, the military then asked for time to do the review that is now finishing up, Obama decided that was a reasonable request(and I agree, and have said action should wait till after the review). It's not a lack of leadership, it is that processes do take time.



I can see that. I still think it was a lack of cajones on his part, not to say any other president prior or after would have same cajones, but I see your point.
 
Is there going to be a new MOS for interior design? j/k
 
It's more sad to see that it took a judge to do what Obama promised the gay community 'He' would do.

I agree. I think that Obama is trying to hard to appear as the good guy to both sides, so he's trying to be bipartisan on a lot of issues. The same is true of a lot of politicians. Ultimately, that means that he will end up going back on a lot of his promises. I honestly think he can kiss his chances of re-election goodbye at this point. Unless some kind of a miracle happens and he decides to live up to his campaign promises.
 
I don't understand the OP. Is there a box on the application form where you check off "gay"?
 
Back
Top Bottom