Open Letter to President Obama and Every Member of Congress From LT Dan Choi

[babylonsister]

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/11/gay-soldier-dont-fire-me/

Open Letter to President Obama and Every Member of Congress:

I have learned many lessons in the ten years since I first raised my right hand at the United States Military Academy at West Point and committed to fighting for my country. The lessons of courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most important.

At West Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. It taught us to "choose the harder right over the easier wrong" and to "never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won." The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort.

Following the Honor Code never bowed to comfortable timing or popularity. Honor and integrity are 24-hour values. That is why I refuse to lie about my identity.

I have personally served for a decade under Don't Ask, Don't Tell: an immoral law and policy that forces American soldiers to deceive and lie about their sexual orientation. Worse, it forces others to tolerate deception and lying. These values are completely opposed to anything I learned at West Point. Deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force.

As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.

I am committed to applying the leadership lessons I learned at West Point. With 60 other LGBT West Point graduates, I helped form our organization, Knights Out, to fight for the repeal of this discriminatory law and educate cadets and soldiers after the repeal occurs. When I receive emails from deployed soldiers and veterans who feel isolated, alone, and even suicidal because the torment of rejection and discrimination, I remember my leadership training: soldiers cannot feel alone, especially in combat. Leaders must reach out. They can never diminish the fighting spirit of a soldier by tolerating discrimination and isolation. Leaders respect the honor of service. Respecting each soldier's service is my personal promise.

The Department of the Army sent a letter discharging me on April 23rd. I will not lie to you; the letter is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers.

My subordinates know I'm gay. They don't care. They are professional.

Further, they are respectable infantrymen who work as a team. Many told me that they respect me even more because I trusted them enough to let them know the truth. Trust is the foundation of unit cohesion.

After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I “negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard.” I refuse to accept this statement as true.

As an infantry officer, I am not accustomed to begging. But I beg you today: Do not fire me. Do not fire me because my soldiers are more than a unit or a fighting force – we are a family and we support each other. We should not learn that honesty and courage leads to punishment and insult. Their professionalism should not be rewarded with losing their leader. I understand if you must fire me, but please do not discredit and insult my soldiers for their professionalism.

When I was commissioned I was told that I serve at the pleasure of the President. I hope I have not displeased anyone by my honesty. I love my job. I want to deploy and continue to serve with the unit I respect and admire. I want to continue to serve our country because of everything it stands for.

Please do not wait to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Please do not fire me.

Very Respectfully,

Daniel W. Choi
1LT, IN
New York Army National Guard

[lazer47]

1. It is sad and a mistake, but his plea will most likely fall on deaf ears

[babylonsister]

3. I'm really hoping that's not the case. Maybe the other 59

West Point grads need to write letters, too.

[vaberella]

4. I disagree. O seems to be working on it, but he's fighting Old Guard system.

NP should be making some moves on this.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

9. He doesn't have to fight anything, he's the Commander-In-Chief

He gives an order and they have to follow.

[damonm]

34. Technically, you're 100% correct...

Practically, though, there's another question.
Obama has full, absolute legal authority (called "granted authority" in leadership training circles) to issue such an order. However, particularly early in the term, there is the issue of "earned authority" - central to effective leadership - and Obama does not (yet) have that among the military establishment.

Why, you correctly ask, would that make a Goddamned bit of difference? Short answer: in a better world, it wouldn't.

But in our world, it works like this: A controversial order given by someone with legal authority alone is likely to be overlooked or worked around by someone in disagreement w/ the order.
Now, if the order is given by someone with BOTH legal and earned authority, it will be treated virtually as the Word of God. For instance, take Truman's order integrating the military; he had both legal authority as C-in-C, AND earned authority as an Army combat officer - the order went through and was properly enforced.

Therein exists the struggle Pres. O would face in the full repeal of DADT. This is not to say he shouldn't - I grant you, it SHOULD be done - but this is the practical obstacle in the way right now.

[bluedawg12]

39. The House had a chance to act again, on the Military Readiness Act

it has come up in Congress something like three times already.

It was never allowed onto the floor for a vote this year by Speaker Pelosi and it leaves me very perplexed.

[zipplewrath]

2. Who has his back?

If there was only someone in the military, some commander, some government official who would "cover his back". Maybe if he tortured someone.

[bluedawg12]

24. Let's support President Obama's pledge to end DADT!

Wouldn't that be wonderful a whole DU thread full of support for the President and his campaing pledge, which he has been said to still hold fast?

[zipplewrath]

32. As soon as there's some action

There hasn't been much to support so far. Folks are still being expelled. Laws are advancing with out comment from the White House. He honored Rick Warren at his inauguration. I mean, I got excited as I could when tickets were distribute to the egg roll. But other than repeating his pledge, and suggesting folks will just have to wait, I'm not sure what there is to get excited by.

[bluedawg12]

35. Let's support the President to help him keep his pledge.

It's that simple. Wouldn't a nice page full of support on DU showing we have his back on this be wonderful?

[zipplewrath]

44. No

That's called "an election". We're beyond that. We're into the "hold them accountable" phase. How does the T-shirt go? Freedom isn't free, you have to pay attention. It's time to pay attention, not hold pep rallies. It's time to ask the tough questions. It's time to ask why he has the torturer's backs, but not this guy. Torture is illegal too and is suppose to take congressional action to change as well. But he's "got their backs".

[tbyg52]

52. I'm in!

:hi:

[bluedawg12]

58. Exacrlt! All good Democrats should support Pres. Obama on repeal of DADT!

:hi:

[mkultra]

5. showering

Ill probably get flamed for this but i do have an honest question that i think i may be blind to as i am not gay.
In regards to showering in an open bay shower, he mentions that there was no disruption created. I know that i wouldn't want to feel as if someone was checking me out in the shower. I hope this isn't just culturaly programmed bigotry on my part but i think that many men would feel the same way as would some women regardless of orientation or preference.

Does anyone have any guidance for me on this?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

8. Um...believe me, NONE of them are checking you out

The funny thing is, I've never heard a straight woman have this issue about showering with lesbians.

So, my guidance is, get over yourself.

[bluedawg12]

31. I did gain a few pounds over the week end.

I hope there are private shower stalls.

I'm feeling a little like I may be retaining some water. :rofl:

Oh and my hair looks like hell today.

Oh shit, I forgot to trim my toe nails.

Do I look fat in my uniform?

A pimple. Oh noes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl:

[cboy4]

61. It's always the unattractive people who make the most

noise about this.

[bluedawg12]

63. !

:rofl:

[mkultra]

64. and what if that where true

what there feelings matter that much less. Take a second break from savaging my honest question and consider what im asking. Do mean and women shower separately to protect women from men, or to provide peace of mind for women?

[cboy4]

69. You should pay more attention to your spelling lessons and

less about whether anyone wants to see you naked in the shower.

[mkultra]

82. thanks for the copy edit

now...how about a decent response.

[mkultra]

65. thanks for your help

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

87. You're welcome

:hug:

[meegbear]

10. I am a gay man who showers in an open bay shower ...

I am closeted at the gym and yes, we're all checking each other out (really) and nothing ever happens.

If/when they find out I am gay, I would tell them that on more than one occasion, I've been in the showers with them alone and nothing happened then - and it ain't gonna happen now.

[bluedawg12]

29. The main concern for gay women ( yes they do exist) is

"Damn! I put on a few pounds. Do I look fat?" :rofl:

[meegbear]

40. ...

:spray:

[mkultra]

66. sheesh , at last some honesty.

the fact remains that people are different and there will be varying levels of ogling. I personally think i would be fine once i got adjusted to it but its embedded in my psychy that i don't really want someone leering at my naked body that i myself would not find sexually appealing.

[Two Americas]

12. some "guidance"

You misread what he said, and projected your own issues onto the subject. My "guidance" would be to look at yourself - check yourself out, as it were - rather than look for answers outside of you.

Re-read the article and see if you can find where you misread it.

Here is the relevant passage:

"After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I 'negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard.' I refuse to accept this statement as true."



...

[bluedawg12]

19. These "fears" have been professionally rebutted but the rightwing passes this on

and even though people seem to know the rightwing talking points, few seem to avail themselves of the answers that have addressed these issues over 16 years ago.

*sigh* Well, here is another chance to get the message out for the 1,000th time this week.

[damonm]

22. And what is truly Ironic...

is that the man who originally INSTILLED "good order and discipline" in American troops during the Revolution was himself openly gay - Freiderich Von Steuben. He also knew more about battle tactics and strategy than even the Brits did.

[bluedawg12]

28. Equally ironic, President Obama favors repeal of DADT.

He is a thoughtful man, I am certain he would not take that stance without cause.

[damonm]

36. True, as well he should.

But I confess I don't see the irony here.
I was referring to the attitude that being a gay soldier/sailor/airman/marine is "prejudicial to good order and discipline", when it was a gay man who instilled the order and discpline in the first place. Now THERE's irony.

[bluedawg12]

37. Your irony beats mine.

I favor the repeal of DADT.

The President is in favor of it.

There is irony in resistence to repealing it on the basis of old cliche's and unfounded fears from members of our own party when the head of our party is in favor of repeal.

[Two Americas]

45. so where is the obstacle?

Where is the resistance? Where is the opposition?

This reminds me of something I heard Dick Gregory say once. He said that there was as much racism in the North as there was in the South, but it took different forms. In the South people did not care how close he got, so long as he didn't get too big. In the North people didn't care how big he got, so long as he did not get too close.

I see a similar divide on GLBTQ rights. There are those who say they "support gay rights," just as people in the North say they are not racists. But the liberal approach and the conservative approach to the issue are, in my opinion, two different ways to suppress rights. The more "friendly" and pleasant sounding approach, the "don't get me wrong I support gay rights BUT..." liberal approach may be the more destructive, and may reflect a more deeply ingrained homophobia.

Rural people are suspicious of all whom they see as outsiders, so the prejudice is obvious and can be ugly. However, they are intensely loyal and tolerant of all in the community. I saw that happen over the last 30 years, as immigrants from Latin America have been accepted into the community. Initially the racism and the resistance was much more obvious and intense than anything you would ever see in suburbia. However, it was not persistent and not very deep. Whatever bigotry there is in suburbia though, while papered over with pleasant-sounding liberal bullshit, cannot be so easily overcome.

Women and Hispanics are the two fastest growing groups of new farm owners. If people want to farm, if they hold up their end of the community bargain - always help your neighbor, run the farm responsibly, make sure everyone in the county eats, follow the rules, pay your bills, respect your neighbor and his or her freedom to control their land, hunt, and go to their church, then you are completely accepted in a way that people never are in suburbia. Women and poc are still hitting the ceiling in upscale suburban circles, despite years of liberal rhetoric on the subject.

An interesting thing I noticed in the white farming community out here, where there are quite a few Hispanics and women who are farming - they are no longer seen as Hispanic or as women, they are "seen" as farmers, talked about and treated as farmers. Remarkable. In a suburban setting, even if women and poc are treated kindly, they are still seen as women and as poc. In fact, "treating them well" - "don't get me wrong I support gay rights, BUT.." and "some of my best friends..." promotes and maintains bigotry in my opinion. Whether you treat women and poc and GLBTQ folks well, whether or not you "like them," whether or not you "support" the "right causes" and say the right things, you are still looking at human beings as though they were pets. Many liberals see this as the difference between themselves and conservatives - conservatives think pets should be managed with threats and discipline and punishment, while liberals think pets should be managed with kindness and treats and rewards. That difference is the difference between how liberals and conservatives see minority people, and GLBTQ folks, and women, and poor people, and we see that in the things people say here about GLBTQ equality. Both are demeaning. Both are bigoted.

Actually, stories here about abused pets get more sympathy and attention than stories about abused minority people do. You don't hear people say "don't get me wrong, I don't think dogs should be beaten and starved, and I like dogs, BUT..."


...

[bluedawg12]

48. The obstacle seems to be "fear" the orphaned lovechild of Republican rule.

There is left over rightwing bigotry based on emotional fears that as a Candidate then, and now President Obama saw through and hence his sentiment that he was a "fierce advocate of gay rights."

Let's not forget the last eight years have not been kind to gay people (understatement).

But he needs us to cover his back. To support him on gay rights issues as so many do on other Democratic issues.

When I see age old questions like showers and housing and others that were answered in 1993, crop up in response to a thread such as this one about Lt. Choi, in an ideal world I would expect to see nearly 90% support from active DU members. Meaning, of all the folks logging on today and reading the OP, not just within the OP.

It's as if someone, or someones were still channeling Sam Nunn's anti-gay message back in 1993 and keeping it fresh and alive in 2009. Odd.

It's not that the question isn't valid, it's that it's been answered so many times and it is out there, with just a quick search. Maybe we need to do a better job in getting the word out. Gays can serve with honor and coexist with heterosexuals in the military.

Never-the-less, this is a party platform and the head of our party is for it, then, at least a simple OP such as this one, about a young man who served with honor and who told the truth about who he is as a human being would be greeted with an overwhelming response in favor of him and the repeal of a bad law, i.e. DADT.

I think members of the Democratic Party do read DU and do get a feel for the popular sentiment and that's why it is important to stand behind the President in what should be an easy matter supporting him in supporting the right of gay American's to serve openly in the military without lying, or hiding who they are.

Where is the obstacle on an individual level? Can't say. That's where people need to look into their own hearts.

Hey, BTW, abused pets and other progressive issues are not either- or, LOL. Recall please, the "dawg" in "dawg!"

:hi:

[Two Americas]

57. no offense intended to dogs, nor dog lovers

It is the mistreatment of human beings I am objecting to, not good treatment of our critter friends.

[bluedawg12]

59. We should treat gay people at least as good as we treat critters!

That's something we can all get united behind!

Woof. :)

[mkultra]

93. who put forward that ideal?

is it your strawman or just a topic you think also needs to be addressed?

[mkultra]

85. wow, really?

i had no idea. So the giant von steuben parades are kind of like quite gay pride parades. That would blow the fundies minds.

[mkultra]

67. i think you jumped to quick

i know i didn't take the circumstances directly out of his story and frankly this question shouldn't diminish his contribution. Im just asking a question to which i would like the answer. I will continue to dig through the jackall yelp until i find something useful.

[Two Americas]

91. oh

I see. An innocent question.

OK, my guidance:

Get over it. It is all in your mind.


...

[mkultra]

92. i dont think so

If it where so simple, men and women would be showering in bay showers together right now. The issue is far more complex than can be ignored. I do not think its reason enough to hold up repeal of DADT, but i do think its an issue that people might want to think through as it will come up in the debates.

[KitchenWitch]

13. Believe me, he is just not that into you.

Now if you could be less "into" yourself...

[Name removed]

68. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kaleva]

14. I've thought the same thing.

There's a reason why men and women live in separate berthing areas and have separate bathroom and shower facilities.

[bluedawg12]

27. Welcome to DU! Apparently President Obama does not think the same thing.

He is for the repeal of DADT.

Your fears are unfounded and this question has nothing to do with Lt. Choi, who has served with honor.

[mkultra]

70. the questino at hand

does not tarnish or diminish his service. It is just a question that needs an answer in the minds of some. Please explain your premise. Is it that you believe that group showering doesn't make people uncomfortable when in the presence of those who might ogle or is that the feelings of those are invalid?

[SacredCow]

15. Well, as a gay man....

I get pretty uncomfortable when women check me out at the beach, or pool, etc... Or, even worse- when they actually HIT on me!!! So when will I get to see straight women banned from beach areas so I can sun and swim in peace? :sarcasm:

mkultra- despite what you apparently believe, we gay men are NOT thinking about sex 24/7. I shower in the locker room at my gym several times per week, and I've yet to make anybody uncomfortable. I know the "men's bathroom rules of engagement" as well as you, and I behave appropriately. As do all of my friends who use the same gym.

In other words- get over yourself. You're not SO good-looking that every gay man looks at you and loses all self control.

[mkultra]

71. please try to address the question i asked

not a phantom ideal that you have projected on me. Your beach scenario lacks two major components that would make it a viable model. The question at hand is about the feelings of those who would be made uncomfortable by the thought of people they are not attracted to being able to view them naked.

[SacredCow]

86. Did you not see the sarcasm tag?

So because of the hang-ups of a few, a clearly discriminatory policy should remain in place, huh?

What is the big honkin' deal if someone that you're not attracted to sees you naked? I'm not attracted to my doctor and he's seen men naked on a few visits (and done some pretty intimate things to me, to boot!).

[mkultra]

88. im not defending DADT

Personally, i think its a gateway that allows the government to dismiss soldiers due to orientation regardless of service. My question is solely about the logistics of a fully integrated military. My contention is that many people are uncomfortable with the idea of being viewed in a sexual manner when it is unwanted. It is an offshoot of the separation of men and women during showering.

I'm just curious about what people think of this topic. Should all soldiers regardless of sex nad orientation be put into group showers together or should the military require separate showering facilities for each individual solider. What are your thoughts.

[SacredCow]

89. In all honesty, there's probably not one answer for all situations....

In barracks, why not have something like what my gym has? There are individual stalls, AND an open area showering facility. That way, each person can choose whether they want to be seen showering, or not. Will that work in, say, a tent city in the middle of a desert? Perhaps not, when space is at a premium. But single-stalls (even ones that could be used by both sexes) would probably work.

As for the separation of men and women, I would surmise that 95% of the reason for that goes back to the puritanical values of it being taboo to see the opposite sex's "parts." Is that a reasonable standard to hold ourselves to in 2009? Is there anybody in the military today that HASN'T seen someone of the opposite sex naked (or at least a picture)?

[mkultra]

90. i would mostly concur

I think that moving towards a more grouped setting with micro privacy would need to be the necessary shift. I personally agree with your take on male/female separation but would reconciling this "tradition" have a chilling effect on female enlistment?

[bluedawg12]

16. There are an estimated 65, 000 gays in the military currently.

There has been no reported rash of ass checking, if even 1/2 of those were gay men at aroun 32,000 service members.

Is the underlying assumption that gays are unable to discipline themselves? To act in accordance with military bearing?


Those right wing notions were disproven in 1993.

[mkultra]

72. the question at hand

has nothing to do with sexual abuse or some kind of crazy uncontrolled gang rape scenario. Take the question at face value please without your personal overloads. Im just asking a basic honest question about comfort levels and logistics.

[Lex]

17. Why do straight guys have such an aversion to being "checked out" anyway?

Does it mean that automatically something is going to happen next?

I don't get it. It sounds a bit self-involved, if you want to know the truth.

[bluedawg12]

20. Lt. Choi was dismissed without a hint of any sexual harrassment at all!

He was dismissed for being honest about a bad law.

My question is, why don't we support President Obama to keep his plege to repeal DADT?

:hi:

[Lex]

21. Exactly.

:hi:

[bluedawg12]

25. Lex, wouldn't a DU full of support for President Obama's pledge to end DADT be great?

We just need to show some support for the POTUS!

:hi:

[mkultra]

73. thanks for the first somewhat decent response

no, the question does not assume any further action or abuse. It may be self involved or it may not. The simple fact of human nature is that people of all sorts do not like to be "ogled" by those whom they do not find attractive. As a counter question, i woudl ask why men and women aren't required to shower together?

[Lex]

80. "why men and women aren't required to shower together?"

Well, do you think it's to protect men from women?

[mkultra]

83. please explain in more detail.

my understanding regarding the premise that repeal of DADT will not require significant changes is that the recommendation be that the military deal with sexual harassment as a form of conduct rather than as a characteristic of a class of people. It almost sounds like you are saying that heterosexual males are a predatory class of people that require bifurcation.

[bluedawg12]

18. Here is an expert opinion from 1993 on your question:

http://www.beyondhomophobia.com/blog/2008/07/23/from-1993-to-2008-dadt-and-the-house-armed-services-committee/

Thus, it seems appropriate to revisit a previous set of hearings in which the House Armed Services Committee heard about social science research relevant to military personnel policy. They were held in May of 1993 and were chaired by Rep. Ron Dellums (D-CA).

I was invited to testify before the Committee on behalf of the American Psychological Association and five other professional organizations (the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Nursing Association, and the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States).

What follows is the bulk of my oral statement (with some introductory and background material omitted):

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to provide testimony on the policy implications of lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military….

My written testimony to the Committee summarizes the results of an extensive review of the relevant published research from the social and behavioral sciences. That review is lengthy. However, I can summarize its conclusions in a few words: {u]The research data show that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service, and there is nothing about heterosexuals that makes them inherently unable to work and live with gay people in close quarters.

<snip>

The military should:

--establish clear norms that sexual orientation is irrelevant to performing one’s duty and that everyone should be judged on her or his own merits;

--eliminate false stereotypes about gay men and lesbians through education and sensitivity training for all personnel;

--set uniform standards for public conduct that apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual personnel;

--deal with sexual harassment as a form of conduct rather than as a characteristic of a class of people, and establish that all sexual harassment is unacceptable regardless of the genders or sexual orientations involved;

--take a firm and highly publicized stand that violence against gay personnel is unacceptable and will be punished quickly and severely; attach stiff penalties to antigay violence perpetrated by military personnel.

[mkultra]

74. my question doesnt delve into sexual abuse

it merely asks a simple question about comfort levels. For example, why are men and women not required to shower together?

[CreekDog]

23. you think just because people are straight they aren't checking you out?

:eyes:

what a cute little world you inhabit. :P

[bluedawg12]

30. Well, we haven't seen his pic.

It is possible. :rofl:

[mkultra]

75. i dont usually shower with people

who are checking me out sexually unless i choose.

[damonm]

26. The question to ask is this:

Do you, as a heterosexual male, want to have sex with EVERY female you see? Obviously not.
Assume that goes for gay men with regard to you.
That is all.

[mkultra]

76. that is not all

the answer is no and your question has nothing to do with my question. A more appropriate question might be:
Do i, as a heterosexual male, want to have sex with EVERY female i see when showering together in a group shower.
Still the answer is no. But how do the women feel about my presence.

[Creideiki]

41. When I was in training

and doing the openbay showering with a bunch of Marines I was way too tired to check out anyone or have any thoughts remotely about anything but getting through and to what needed doing out in the barracks. Even better, the thought of actual sleep! There would have been no way that I would jeopardize my precious sleeping time with making any kind of advance.

When we were in the field and sleeping two to a tent, the same thing. Way too concerned about getting to sleep so that the next day would go well.

When I was on a submarine, it never would have occurred to me to use the showers for anything like that.

Now, did I recognize during idle moments that some of the guys in my commands were worth looking at? Sure. Then again, the women in my commands were also dealing with the same thing.

But it's not like the showers were some kind of hook-up area. I was always running through tactical maneuvers and the like instead.

[bluedawg12]

42. Thank you for your service to our country as a gay man and Marine, you served with honor

and as a Marine I bet you kicked ass! :evilgrin:

[lazer47]

43. Please Jezuus, save me, we might have been in the same shower

:sarcasm: :toast:

[mkultra]

77. my question isnt about sex in the showers, but thats intresting.

my question is about showering together and the comfort levels involved.

[QC]

46. OMG! That gay homosexual man saw my peenyus! n/t

[bluedawg12]

49. Oh QC! You devil, all the lesbians are blushing

and peeking. :rofl:

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mitchtv]

47. Hahahahahahaha

that's still around ? :banghead: :rofl: :spray:
Grow up

[mkultra]

79. its a real question

i just need an answer. do you have one?

[hulklogan]

54. There are already gays and lesbians serving in the military, showering in those open showers.

Are you scared now?

[mkultra]

81. im not afraid at all

but why are men and women not required to shower together?

[Overseas]

6. K&R !! Kudos to Knights Out for leading the charge to overturn DADT

http://knightsout.org/

==========================

Let's hope President Obama can issue an executive order to stop implementation of Dont Ask Dont Tell until that ridiculous law can be tossed out by the legislature.

There are already regulations governing moral conduct in the military. They apply to all soldiers, regardless of their sexual orientation. We don't need any extra laws to govern LGBT soldiers.

[Cha]

7. Rec'd~ and

kicked for this to go Viral.

[riderinthestorm]

11. Brave, brave guy. A sad K and R for a truly brave career ending move though. Sigh.

Why there is even one more day of "waiting" until this policy is repealed is beyond my understanding.

[bluedawg12]

33. The ONLY issue here is the loss of another well qualified military member

that's what needs change.

[Inuca]

38. It's a beautiful letter

I hope there will be a reaction to it.

[lunatica]

50. Can he take it to the Supreme Court?

Maybe sue that he lost his job due to an Un-Constitutional law?

If he does that then the Supreme Court must uphold his civil rights and it will become the law of the land that Sexual orientation is a protected civil right under the Constitution and the whole issue will be taken out of the hands of homophobic churches and groups.

I would like to see that happen more than to continue to be buffeted around by each state.

[hulklogan]

55. No, the Supreme Court has refused several times to hear cases on DADT, which was declared

constitutional in Able vs United States.

[ecstatic]

51. Why did he wait 10 years to come out and demand equal rights?

:shrug:

[tbyg52]

53. Because of DADT? Perhaps he sees hope for some progress now. nt

[bluedawg12]

60. President Obama said he wants to repeal DADT, maybe Lt. Choi had hope

and it might have been 10 years too long to live a lie.

[lunatica]

56. Because he didn't want to get thrown out.

He's brave for coming out because he's opening a door for others, but it's sad he should have to pay such a steep price. Oh well, when you're among the first to put your entire life and career on the line it's usually very hard. I admire that kind of bravery.

[hulklogan]

62. I thought DADT was the **LAW**. So we all had to follow it.

Or only President Obama has to follow it. Or only the LGBT Americans who are serving heroically in the armed forces have to follow it.

The devil's advocates need to make up their minds.

[riderinthestorm]

84. Yes and of course enforcement of all laws is exactly precise

No blond bimbos are ever let off for speeding at the discretion of the enforcement officer, no young hooligans are ever let off for being out after curfew, everyone enforces underage drinking laws every single time....

Why does Obama have to enforce this law? Why can't he suspend enforcement until the law is changed by Congress?

I guarantee you that even a couple weeks of gays openly serving in the military will completely demonstrate how hypocritical the law is, as gays are already serving in the military. Nothing will change in terms of service, dedication or morale.

This law stinks and Obama has the authority to suspend it, and retain valuable military personnel in uniform like Arab linquists, until the law is changed.