As a straight person, I think it could have been a teaching moment, but it isn't an obvious one. Some subtle questions could have been asked, and if they answered one way, then sure, set them on the right path. But if they went the other, then it would have certainly been a "too much too quickly" situation.

The problem is that this is looked at as a civil rights issue, and one of fairness, and nothing to do with what is best or required for a military to do what it does.

Morale, close quarters, bonding of soldiers, etc., are just as important a set of issues.

The military needs to reserve the right to eject anyone, for any reason.

Military service is not a right.

The same issues exist in adding women to the military, in the same quarters as men.

The problem with the "military effectiveness" arguement against allowing gays is that there is no support for it in actual experience.

During my time on active duty, early to mid 80s, I knew quite a few”semi closeted” people. Two of my Team Sergeants were roommates and had been for years, I was pulled aside when I joined the team and told they are a couple and if I found myself unable to work with them to speak up now, or never bring it up. These people were much more valuable to the team than I was at that time and nobody was going to risk them getting thrown out for a punk like I was. Every one up to the Coronel knew they were gay and no one cared, they were one of ours and that was that. Mark’s (the senior of them) greatest fear was to be a poster child for some activist’s agenda. He always said” I am an American, a Soldier, Black, Baptist and Gay, in that order”. “DADT was fine by him as his sexuality was his business and no one else’s”. I guess I have always looked to his answers as the basis for my own beliefs. I do not care what you screw as long as it is not a child and you should be able to serve, I also do not believe you have to be out to the world unless you want to.

Clarification, these men are my friends and while I got out, they stayed in and were in during the Clinton era. Both retired shortly after 9/11 after 30+ years in

There is a way to handle this that could work over time:

All gay units. Or at least units where every one knows there will be a lot of gays in the unit. And hetros who don't want to be in the unit can decline. No early outs for gayness.

My bet is that they would be one of the very best units in the force. The Tuskegee Airmen paved the way for blacks in the military by compiling an outstanding record.

In my wild youth, about 25 or so pounds ago, I on a few occasions had same-sex "relations" with active duty military. So it would be massively hypocritical for me to do anything but oppose DADT with every fiber of my body. My respect for the homosexual soldier is even greater than the ordinary soldier -- and, yes, I prefer the clinical term "homosexual" to the adjective "gay," which connotes a lifestyle these guys aren't living -- because a homosexual soldier is someone who so loves his country and is so motivated to serve her that he is willing to do despite being told that his kind are not welcome.

The right policy is no sex on military premises and no sex on base or off base between people of different places within the chain of command. Hetero or homo doesn't matter. Obama can end homosexual discharges (no pun intended, believe me please) without formally ending DADT. I hope he quietly takes that initial step on Day One.

Listen, Eric. I lived in the Castro District for 5 years in the 90s - right AT 18th and Castro (great apartment)... You can't find a conservative who is more sympathetic (or who could give less of a shit) if there were gays in the military.

The problem with gay folks in the military is the same thing with being a guy in a fraternity: If you take ANY behavior too far, it gets way, way too ridiculous, quickly. But. Frat guys - or the vast majority of them anyways - eventually get over the fact that they can screw girls as often as they want. Whether through shame, or peer pressure, or whatever, most of them turn the dial back from 11.

Many gay guys, however, never get over the idea that they can have sex whenever they want. And, with too large a minority of gay people, there's no such thing as *too* ridiculous. You simply can't convince them to restrain themselves. Couple that with the fact that criticizing gays is totally forbidden for PC reasons and you've got a recipe for disaster.

As a straight guy who happened to live in the Castro, there was simply no way to "check" or stop the uber-over-the-top gay jackass who decided to make a show of how "gay" he was.

It's not a matter of whether you're gay or straight. It's a matter of whether you can agree to moderate your ridiculous anti-social behavior, or not.

I couldn't give a hoot whether someone is gay and in the military. But until gay people start respecting the idea that straight people have a reasonable expectation that gay folks grow up and act like adults with jobs to do, instead of people who define themselves by which orifice they insert their peckers into, I'm not going to be able to convince myself to care.

Again, I don't care if someone is gay. But, puhleeze, if I can tell someone is gay then I know damn well that a gay person can tell I'm straight. And I have EVERY reasonable expectation they leave me alone about it.

Oh what contortions Andrew Sullivan must be going through! Not only did he support Clinton first time around based partly on ending discrimination against gays in the military, only to be sold out completely & with an added kick in the ass of Bill signing the Defense of Marriage Act, but NOW to have Obama back treadle on the same issues?

As to serving in the military as a gay man, I can only speak for myself. I didn't flaunt it, but I didn't exactly hide it either.
USAF, trained Lowry AFB 1968 - Weapons & Munitions, assigned Clark in the Philippines, Udorn in Thailand, etc. honorable discharge 1972.
If you did your job & butched it up a little, you were OK.
(And yes, my "specialty" required a top security clearance, but I didn't know Bill Ayres so no problem.)

My two cents:

DADT is antiquated and should be removed. I can think of no valid team building/morale purpose behind it. While serving as a company commander, I had a young automatic rifleman come out to his leadership, who immediately informed me. We took what steps we could to protect the information, on the off chance that there would be retribution against him from his teammates - I know we were unsuccessful in keeping our secret, but there was no retribution. What there was, was support and a closing of ranks behind their buddy. I counseled him for hours to see if he could live with his sexual orientation and still serve - he was a damn good soldier and had the potential to be a good leader one day. I selfishly didn't want to lose what he brought to my team. Unfortunately I lost that struggle with him and was forced to separate him from the service. That young man was a good soldier, a fine and moral person and a combat veteran.
In my opinion, DADT is a relic from a peacetime army and is no longer useful in any way. Men who fight together, men who know that the homosexual man in their team will have their back in combat, they don't see gay - they see a battle buddy who will keep them safe.

It always irks me to read or hear somebody refer to DADT, as you did, as "the military's" policy. It is Bill Clinton's policy, and the policy of Congress. The military, strange to say, is following public law in this regard. But the military has something of a quirk about that sort of thing.

So credit, or blame, where it is due. You support DADT, or oppose it, don't be a Code Pinkish moron and harrass recruiters. Write your Congresscritter.