Most agree with me...

[R13]

Washington (CNN) - Nearly seven in ten Americans think that people who are openly gay or lesbian should be allowed to serve in the military, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey indicates that 69 percent of the public favors allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military, with 27 percent opposed.

Full results [PDF]

"That's a dramatic turnaround from the early 1990s, when the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was first being implemented," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "In 1994, only a bare 53 percent majority felt that gays and lesbians should be allowed to openly serve in the military."

Support for allowing gays in the military is much higher among Democrats than Republicans, but the policy wins support from a majority of Republicans as well. More than eight in ten Democrats say that gays should be allowed to serve; 62 of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents agree with that view.

The poll's release follows Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut announcement Monday that he would be a sponsor of legislation next week to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which has been in place since 1993.

"The change in views on gays in the military dovetails with overall changes in public attitudes toward gays and toward homosexual behavior," adds Holland.

In 1994, a majority of Americans thought homosexual relationships were morally wrong; only 41 percent believed that homosexuality was not a moral issue. Now, for the first time since polls began asking this question in the 1970s, half the public thinks that homosexuality is not a moral issue.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.

-CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: 69% OK with gays in the military - Blogs from CNN.com

[R13]

So does the top General...

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commanding general in Iraq says he thinks everyone ? gay and straight ? should be allowed to serve in the military "as long as we are still able to fight our wars."

The comment by Gen. Raymond Odierno is among the first to come from a senior military leader currently leading troops in battle since the Pentagon announced earlier this month that it will study the issue.

Odierno helped lead a troop buildup in Iraq that reduced violence and has paved the way for a planned reduction of U.S. forces.


Odierno told reporters Monday that he had not had much time to think about whether gays should be allowed to serve openly. He said the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" has been a "non-issue" to him.

Congressional lawmakers this week will press the military's top uniformed officers for the first time on whether they think repealing "don't ask, don't tell" makes sense or would be too disruptive.

The testimony from each of the service chiefs on Capitol Hill will be crucial to the debate in Congress on whether to repeal the 17-year-old law, which bans gays from serving openly in the military.

President Barack Obama says the policy unfairly punishes patriots who want to serve their country. Defense Secretary Robert Gates agrees and has begun a yearlong study on how to mitigate the impact of lifting the ban.

lawmakers, who are divided on whether to end the ban, say they want to hear from the service chiefs. They are the ones who would be in charge of putting any changes in place and responding to any fallout.


"The armed forces have always placed military effectiveness above individual needs," said Rep. Gene Taylor, a conservative Democrat from Mississippi who says he is unconvinced that the ban should be lifted.

"This is one of the core concepts that has made the U.S. military one of the most effective combat forces in history," he said.

[R13]

Washington (CNN) ? U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman introduced a bill Wednesday that would officially repeal the military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gay and lesbian service members.

A separate repeal bill was previously introduced in the House of Representatives.

"To exclude one group of Americans from serving in the armed forces is contrary to our fundamental principles as outlined in the Declaration of Independence," Lieberman recently said in a written statement.

It "weakens our defenses by denying our military the service of a large group of Americans who can help our cause."

The legislative push comes in the midst of a Pentagon review on how to successfully implement a repeal of the policy, which was enacted under President Bill Clinton in 1993. Top Defense Department officials will testify before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday to discuss the review.

"Don't ask, don't tell" bars openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals from serving in the U.S. military, and prevents the military from asking a service member's sexual orientation. However, if the military finds out - from any source - that a service member is gay, the person can be discharged.

President Barack Obama and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen support a repeal of the policy. Some senior members of the military, however, have expressed concern over the impact of a repeal of the ban on unit cohesion and morale, among other things.

Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the Pentagon had taken the first steps to prepare for a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Laying the groundwork for a repeal will take more than a year, he said. In the interim, he noted, the Defense Department will start enforcing the policy "in a fairer manner."

The defense secretary told members of the Armed Services Committee that "a guiding principle of our efforts will be to minimize disruption and polarization within the ranks, with special attention paid to those serving on the front lines."

Gates also said that the Pentagon will ask the RAND Corporation to update a study it conducted in 1993 on the impact of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

Since the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was implemented, more than 13,500 service members have been discharged, according to Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia. In 2009, there were 428 discharges under the policy - the lowest rate of discharge since implementation, he said. The highest year was 2001, with 1,227 discharges.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans believe openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military, according to a February 12-15 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll. Twenty-seven percent are opposed to such a change.

In 1994, shortly after the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was implemented, 53 percent of Americans believed openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military, while 41 percent were opposed.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Senator introduces bill to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy - Blogs from CNN.com

[simple man]

Yeah, I saw a posting on a radical muslim site - don't surrender, they are taking gays into the army. New meaning for "Rape and Pillage"?

[R13]

It's a very outdated law and nothing less than discrimination.

Even Mexico City is more tolerant than a state like VA.

[R13]

Washington (CNN) -- The House of Representatives approved a plan Friday that would pave the way for an eventual repeal of the military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars openly gay and lesbian soldiers from military service.

The measure passed in a largely party-line, 229-186 vote as part of a larger defense authorization bill despite a growing controversy over allegations of wasteful spending in the legislation. Most Democrats backed the bill while most Republicans opposed it.

Attention now shifts to the Senate, where the Armed Services Committee approved a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal earlier in the week. As in the House, the committee was divided sharply along partisan lines.

The plan is a compromise under which the repeal would occur only after a military review of the question and subsequent approval by Obama, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Opponents of the repeal language argue the military should first carry out the review ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that is scheduled to be completed in December. Only then would military leaders have the necessary information from force members to develop a plan for carrying out the repeal, they claim.

Under the compromise, the military would be given time to complete its review as sought by Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen. Gates and Mullen both said this week they could accept the compromise language.

A recent CNN poll seemed to suggest that Americans are ready for the change. The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Tuesday indicated that 78 percent of the public supports allowing openly gay people to serve in the military, with one in five opposed.

Threatening to derail the plan, however, is House members' insistence on spending almost $500 million on a fighter engine that neither the White House nor the Pentagon wants. Funding for the engine was included in the House's version of the legislation but not the Senate's.

A White House spokesman warned before the House vote on Friday that President Barack Obama would veto the bill if funding for the engine isn't removed. Gates has blasted the proposed funding for the extra F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine, calling it a "waste of money" that doesn't meet the fighter's performance needs.

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee said Friday that he hopes Obama wouldn't veto the plan if Congress failed to remove the controversial funding.

"It's difficult to believe the president would do anything other than look at the entire bill, not just one provision," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan.

Levin wouldn't predict if the engine funding would still be in the bill by the time it reaches Obama's desk. "We are a long way from having a product," he said. "Some of the things which I would think (Obama) may not like may be dropped along the way."

Supporters of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy have been pressuring congressional Democrats to act now, fearing the party will lose its House or Senate majority in November's midterm election and be unable to pass the measure afterward.

The compromise emerged late Monday from a meeting at the White House involving administration officials, gay rights groups and Pentagon officials, sources told CNN.

There were also talks on Capitol Hill involving White House lawyers, Pentagon officials and staff from the offices of influential House and Senate Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the sources added.

A senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the Pentagon review process told CNN it is well under way, with a survey going out shortly to about 70,000 troops and families to solicit their views.

In addition, the official said, town hall meetings already have been held around the country and more are expected, while a website provides a place for troops to write in their views.

The military needs until the end of 2010 to figure out how to implement the repeal in terms of housing, medical and marriage benefits, as well as issues involving the reinstatement of gay soldiers previously discharged under the policy, the official said.

A major problem might be determining how to reconcile the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" with federal law that defines marriage as between a man a woman, the official added.


House passes 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal - CNN.com

[centennialdawg]

I have nothing against gays serving in the military. Hell, my 1SG was gay, black, and female! Never had a problem with her during Desert Storm. Of course, I was nowhere near her during the fighting as I was "detached" from my unit and "attached" to the 503rd
MP Company and then on the front lines with 3/27th F.A. while she was in the rear, out of harm's way.

She was actually pretty sound with her decision making abilities and did listen to her platoon sergeants. She could fight along my side anytime. The only problem I did have, and still do to a major extent is the fact that I feel some(gays) only want in to try and prove something to the gay community. And that is to get people to think they look good in camouflage.

I have no doubt that I had several gays serving right along side of me and they fought well. Afterall, when you get right down to it, serving your country in whatever capacity you can should be something to be proud of and not something to prove just because you are gay. BTW, I still stay in touch with my old 1SG even today and it has been 20 years. She and her mate are happily married. I knew she was gay right from the start and did not say anything about it. She just seemed to have a good head on her shoulders. Why should I have said anything and cause her to lose a career that I knew she truly loved and destroy her.

[simple man]

It's a very outdated law and nothing less than discrimination.

Even Mexico City is more tolerant than a state like VA.

Just noticed this- check and see what "good ole" Mexico does to folks that cross their borders and come into their country.

[R13]

Just noticed this- check and see what "good ole" Mexico does to folks that cross their borders and come into their country.

What? A possibility of fine and jail? Same thing here.


No reason they shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military though, no reason at all. I don't know what disqualifies them, if they meet the requirements, whats the problem? Never should have been an issue, ever. Religion dictating laws though, shameful.

[simple man]

What? A possibility of fine and jail? Same thing here.


No reason they shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military though, no reason at all. I don't know what disqualifies them, if they meet the requirements, whats the problem? Never should have been an issue, ever. Religion dictating laws though, shameful.

I like the Mex laws they use on other folks, better than I do our own.
McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill vs. Mexico's Immigration Law - HUMAN EVENTS

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven?t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it?s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve

our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

• in the country legally;

• have the means to sustain themselves economically;

• not destined to be burdens on society;

• of economic and social benefit to society;

• of good character and have no criminal records; and

• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country?s internal politics;

• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Poblaci?n, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

• Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

• Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

• Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

• The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

• Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

• A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

• A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

• Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

• Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

• Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article