A trained soldier is a trained soldier. A Marine is a Marine. A trained sailor is a trained sailor. Just cause some have a different genetic make-up shouldn't preclude them serving. On a lighter note, they will go places no straight man would dream of going!

couldnt obama, as commander in chief, stop it himself

I think he's going about this the right way. If Obama simply issues a stop-loss order, then it removes the political necessity to codify the change and the next administration could just as easily repeal the decision. It may take longer, but we need to have the long-term goal in mind and make this a long-term, permanent solution.

we need to hear much more from britain on their experience, which has been significantly unremarkable.

also there are a few similar issues regarding coherance on police forces. police forces actively recruit gays. surely, straight cops can tell a few mundane non-earth-shattering stories.

The military is male.
Women are tolerated because they can be 'one of the guys'. If a gay person can earn his place, just like another man or a woman, then who cares about his orientation?

Except that the military is just not this accepting. It is an institution designed to stamp out difference, create unformity and conformity. This works very well in battlefield situations.

So my question is this: will it break the military to force an open admission of gays?
Because we need a strong, functioning military.

Can someone in a position to know answer this question? Without posturing, condemnation, or narrow-minded bigorty?

I served with a couple gay guys during my time in, only one as flaming but he got kicked out. All those guys did their jobs well and nobody ever tried to feel touch my dick in the shower.

Good for New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

The leadership of the Democratic party seems to have something in common with the leadership of the GOP.

Many in the so-called "Christian right" have finally learned that the Republican Party doesn't really give a damn about the social issues that are important to them. God, guns and gays are simply hot-buttons the corporate interests that control the GOP use to lure a less than well informed constituency to vote in ways that are in reality contrary to their own economic interests.

I'm beginning to wonder if the leadership of the Democratic Party may be running the same game on it's base of social progressives. They say all the right words, proclaim themselves to be "fierce advocates" of civil rights...but it's really just about placating a constituency. Yes we can does not mean yes we will.

This isn't a "plot" for God's sake. It is a political strategy to remove a policy that many people find, well, stupid.

Since Heterosupremacist in Chief Obama is keeping promises to the tyrannical lynch mob that voted for California Prop Hate that he will stop LGBT Americans from having any constitutional rights, it is about time Congress did the right thing. But if Gillibrand is doing half measures to get gay bucks it is not enough. She must MUST work to get Don't Ask Just Kick The Gays Out overturned permanently.

Like Obama, Gillibrand took an oath of office to uphold the constitutional rights of all Americans, not just Americans a tyrannical majority agrees with, approves of or accepts. The fact that 60 plus percent of Americans want to stop kicking gays out of the military is great, but who cares if a majority is for equal rights. The constitution should be unconditional.

While gays are being kicked out, felons and fascists are filling the ranks. This must be what the old white men in the pentagon mean by military cohesion and unity. Since Heterosupremacist in Chief Obama lets those old white men good old bad old boy massahs tell him what to do, CONGRESS MUST OVERTURN DON'T ASK JUST KICK THE GAYS OUT

I haven't an opinion on this issue yet.
I am aware of historical arguments against people of color and women being included in the military.
I am searching for information from people whi might be in a position to know.
I lean towards the idea that gay, gender, color, or religious or political afliliation should make no difference.
Muscle mass, coordination, ability to learn quickly, to both follow and understand orders - those things matter in the military.
And as I previously stated, we need a strong, functioning military.
I just don't have a clue if gay matters or not.
I am not positing that it should matter - I am asking if it really does matter.

So, someone wants to ask who you have sex with to find out if they can sleep with you? If your not having sex with someone or don't want to, then what business is it of yours or why bother asking? Its actually a farce and a complete joke DADT. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have beens serving in the military for centuries, if one thinks about it homosexuality hasn't ended, even the bible which was written thousands of years ago logged it accounts..besides which before that book, the Greeks (mythology) and Romans B.C. also accounted for homosexuals- only they did not discriminate- it was viewed as a luxury and act of culture, neither did the Indians (American) they were ( homosexuals) considered to be shaman.
I allways thought the military were doing "gays" a favor- who wants to get killed for an oil deal or some freaked dictator with a social problem and attitude problem?

Who in here actually serves on active duty? I do, however as an older, senior and educated service member it is easy for me to imagine what it would be like with openly gay people in our ranks. I personally don't have an issue with it, but there are certainly many who are not as easy to sway. I believe that in time, this would be a non-issue, but in the short term the trailblazers will be the victims of hate crimes by younger people that aren't fascists; they just grew up with homosexuality not being ok. Are we now going to call them fascists and ignorant the way liberals brand everyone that doesn't agree with their agenda? I don't like mushrooms, does that make me ignorant to vegetables?
People don't have to like something just because others think they should. Remember, many of you that want this pushed upon those of us who do serve; don't serve. There are many concessions and tax payer dollars that will have to be spent to accomodate this new lifestyle in the military. Also, remember this. As our society degrades; as we allow these lifestyles into our fighting force, remember there are those in the world becoming stronger than us and when we present a ripe target to them three or four generations from now and we are conquered, who will be to blame?

Re questions from finderj and others: I have just written a book on this policy, "Unfriendly Fire" and am a researcher on the topic at Palm Center, UC-Santa Barbara, so I do know something about the policy. A few remarks:

1. Keep in mind that lifting the ban does not force people to come out, but allows them to. In foreign countries when bans have been lifted there has been no mass coming-out; it simply allows gays to be honest when they need to be.
2. There is huge research on whether openly gay service work both here and abroad, and the evidence includes research conducted by the military itself. It all finds that openly gay service does not undermine the military. In my book I reveal numerous conversations with senior officers who helped create this policy who admit it was based on fear and prejudice, not evidence.
3. In fact, there has never been any evidence linking openly gay service to undermining cohesion, morale or recruitment. These tend to be the fears and fantasies of social and religions conservatives, nothing more.
4. Although there clearly are many in the military who don't want gays to serve openly, the relevant question is not what do individuals want, but can the military as a whole cope with difference, and what are the continued costs in talent, careers and lives of ongoing discrimination. It's true the military is well-versed in "stamping out difference" and it has done so successfully with millions of diverse Americans; It's unconvincing to suggest that only gays are not able to be integrated into an enormously diverse fighting force (in addition, they're already there, and many already serve openly).

When people with open minds look at real evidence, most are fully persuaded that openly gay service can work. Most of this evidence is on our site at www.palmcenter.org.

This is the kind of answer I am looking for.
If altering the policy as it exists today will weaken the military, it is not a good idea to alter the policy.
If it makes no difference, the alter away.

However, only those currently serving can give informed answers to this question.

Anybody else?

Thank you all for commenting and if you have a direct question, please let me know. A little background on me. I'm on my 3rd tour in Iraq and have many friends fighting in Afghanistan, so I'm linked into both. AO, you're correct, I shouldn't have stereotyped since the far left and far right are both off the page. I'm a middle of the road type and more socially liberal than most in my line of work. These "trail blazers" are different and I hope it is a seamless integration.

You all are correct about European countries and others as well with openly serving gays and lesbians. But remember this, none of those countries have the resources and open land that we do in the U.S. So, as THEIR society degrades and their military is viewed as possibly weaker because of its focus on social reform, not its warfighting capability; no one cares. They have much smaller militaries that don't maintain the same good order and discipline as we do. The warfighting capability of the U.S. is what maintains the deterrence necessary to keep people from trying to conquer our nation. Do you want our foes to look at the U.S. and fear our fighting capabilities, or take a shot at us because we appear weak?

NF, I respect your opinion and you are correct, many of the issues are due to fear and prejudice. However, you can't control people and their thought processes....nor how they were raised. Not everyone is comfortable with it because they are told to be; it isn't that simple unfortunately. My girlfriend is surrounded by gay friends and family members, but hearing their stories sometimes creeps me out a bit. I'm not prejudiced, but getting the details of their love lives doesn't resonate with me. That's not how I'm wired and that's ok....we all are different. Now, force that on a testosterone fueled 18 year old from Alabama or any other conservative state and you'll get a different result.

We have established that mutually assured destruction is the end game in the next World War. So, as we weaken our forces perceptually, we don't look like much of a threat to other nations and as we continue to reduce our nuclear capability; so goes our strategic deterrence.

Remember, just because it feels good or makes you feel good doesn't mean it's the best for our country. Good intentions aren't a sustainable deterrence to those out there that want to harm us.

The al Qaida campaign plan is a 100 year plan, whereas we plan everything in four year increments shifting left and right in short time spaces. If al Qaida makes tiny inroads over 100 years, 100 years from now they will have made a huge leap and no one will have noticed it.

Anyhow, remember, that when we decide this is a good idea and those who pushed it walk away, slapping the dust off their hands after a job well done, you have just dumped this problem on senior leaders like me who don't have an experience on how to deal with it. All of my "good intentions," words of encouragement and talk of tolerance won't change how people feel. We can only hope that this is the right choice and not something being pushed to fulfill an agenda. Our military forces shouldn't be used as a sociology experiment in this day and age.

A lot of people keep quoting polls or surveys on what the American people think, mostly non-military or retired military-turned gay civilians saying they support homosexuals and gays in the Military.

****SOUNDING ALARMS !!!!!!!!!It doesn't matter what the public say or think; only the Active duty, Military Reservist and National Guardsman that have to serve, live, sleep, eat, or shower with the gay and homosexual hidden sexual perverts.

When someone do a study and opinion poll and survey about what the total Army or Military Service thinks or wants- then it the only time it matters. Not even the JCOS should put into place a policy that says overlook the double standards of allowing a psychological defect like homosexuality to pass when all other behavioral conduct is a restricting factor for service.

Do we change the other restricting requirements for service like wanting to be a soldier or service member if a person is too fat, too old, has a felony, has a quick temper, or doesn't have a high school education?

It would be wrong not to categorize homosexuality for what it is- an unnatural sexual behavior that goes outside of normal trend for human sexual relations. It illustrates and defines an undisciplined sexual oriented person which psychological and emotional issues.

Homosexuality doesn't effect these people ability to do Military work-hell a fatboy or an old man can fire a weapon and take and execute direction and orders- but they(homosexuals) do and can affect the working environment of the Military Armed Services. All kinds of stress, tensions, uneasiness, animosity, trust, and privacy feeling can arise from allowing DADT to be overturned or amended.

The Military will get more problems than they have already with the non-disclosure policy in place. I believe keeping civilian out of military operations and personnel matter is the best things for the Army and Congress and the JCOS should keep it that way.

I don't have to feel uneasy or approve of someone sexuality if I don't know about it- especially if it's against my own religious faith and belief.

So, forget what the American public is saying or believe. It the military service members who got to know that they are showering, sleeping around, and uncomfortable in combat or support operations in the CZ with someone who lives that type of sexual lifestyle.

You want to listen to whose opinion matters, do and print a survey and opinion poll of military service members on how they feel about homosexuality and gays in the military. These are the people who will be affected by any changes of DADT-not civilians, retired military service member, or politicians.

We recruit everyday and every year for people who have the discipline to follow the UCMJ and rules of Army protocol and tradition. And, we recruit every day and every year because we lose and separate service members who are undisciplined and have mental, emotional, and behavioral conduct.

So, the Military have a right to implement and keep in place a policy that will maintain good order within its organization and ranks. They have provided a policy in DADT to let these people serve and to keep their sexuality in the privacy of their homes and not the work place.

We shouldn't let Congress mess with the standards of military policies for maintaining good order in the service or have them force an un-natural lifestyle choice of others onto other soldiers. Once and for all, what the public opinion is, want for, or think is right for the military does not count or matters- Only our service members and military leaders matters and we hope they make the right decision for the Armed Services and not what American and politicians think is best for the Military branches.