I am glad that homosexual soldiers can now serve openly in the US. Personally, I don't see the utility in the ban. If someone wants to defend their country, their sexual orientation should not be taken into account. Honourably serving gay soldiers are every bit as heroic as any other honourably serving soldier, in my opinion. And the military (any military) requires discipline and adherence to the strict rules, and any soldier, including gay ones, should receive the proper punishment for breaking the rules if they do. Other countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and Israel, allow for openly homosexual soldiers to serve, without much problem. I am not one to champion most "gay rights" issues, but I do believe there was an inequality in DADT. Leftist gay rights zealots certainly didn't help in the repeal effort, as usual, with their ludicrously radical activism.Barack Obama last night hit out at his Republican rivals for staying silent when a GOP debate crowd booed a homosexual soldier who asked a question.During a highly combative speech to an audience of 3,000 gay rights activists, the president said: 'You want to be commander in chief?'You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it's not politically convenient,'Recalling the boos soldiers Steven Hill received on September 22 during his videotaped question, which was filmed in Iraq, Mr Obama said: 'We don't believe in standing silent when that happens.'
To loud cheers and a standing ovation at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, he went on to say: 'We don't believe in a small America.'We believe in a big America - a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America - that values the service of every patriot.
DADT may have been an unjust policy, but that does not mean that DADT proponents are anti-gay or homophobic. In fact, I sympathize with them to an extent given the outrageous behaviour of some gay people and activists. The military is certainly no place for that (but, hopefully the discipline required of military members would have prevented that behaviour, and I would assume most gay soldiers would be above that behaviour anyway).
My favourite US presidential candidate, Herman Cain, has spoken out on the issue of the booing at the debate.
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain says that he should not have stayed silent after the audience [sic] at a recent GOP debate booed a gay soldier.
The Georgia businessman told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that it would have been "appropriate" for him to have defended the soldier. None of the candidates at the Sept. 22 forum responded to the booing.
But Cain also suggested that the audience may not have actually been booing the soldier. "Maybe they were booing the whole 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal more so than booing that soldier," told ABC's "This Week." "But we didn't know that. So that was not the time to try and decipher."After watching Herman Cain on Fox News this morning, I was impressed, yet again. This is a man who directly answers questions asked of him. And I applaud his speaking up about the booing incident.
Herman Cain is simply way out of Obama's league. Obama's campaign strategy appears to consist of nothing other than attacking Republicans. Cain's strategy appears to consist of proposing ideas of how to fix the USA's problems.