Skip to comments.At GOP debate, crowd boos gay soldier's question on 'don't ask, don't tell' (Barf Alert)
Posted on 09/22/2011 11:29:45 PM PDT by SideoutFred
A gay soldier's question about the end of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy elicited boos from the audience at Thursday night's Republican candidate debate, and a promise from Rick Santorum to reinstate the policy if elected.
In a video submission, Stephen Hill told the Republican presidential candidates that he "had to lie about who he was" when he was deployed to Iraq in 2010 because of his sexual orientation, and his fear that he would "lose my job."
"My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?" Hill asked.
Loud jeers were heard immediately from the Orlando, Fla., crowd, marking the third straight debate when the audience's reaction overshadowed the candidate's.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
That’s part of the probem. He thinks it’s just a job.
IMO - He was free to ask whatever he wanted and people were free to boo him. And I say this with a Daughter and Son in law both in the USAF and having done tours in the sandbox.
They did not boo his service, they booed his demand for invented sexual rights that are now being forced on the military. He’s a soldier and I respect that and his service totally. I have nothing but disdain for him putting his sex practices over that service. What of the straight soldiers? They will be drummed out if they say anything against homosexuality publicly? Is it not up to us to defend THEM?
As to what is achieved, I would submit that such a forum is the only way the public will ever see just how disgusted we are with the gay agenda because the news censors all opposition. In that live situation, it was all but impossible without such censorship being noted and discussed further.
And Bush wasn't saying "Mission Accomplished" regarding Iraq but about one ship, and Reagan wasn't laying a wreath to honor Nazism, and Star Wars wasn't about Reagan bringing weapons into space.
FIghting this straw man of "they did not boo his service" may make you feel good, but it has nothing to do with perception and reality.
People don't like to see American soldiers booed. Period.
What of the straight soldiers? They will be drummed out if they say anything against homosexuality publicly? Is it not up to us to defend THEM?
What does that have to do with anything? Are straight soldiers now being drummed out for saying they're straight?
Straight soldiers can take care of themselves. Gay soldiers can, too. I guess I just feel that putting their lives on the line for my benefit--yes, gay people are defending your life, just as straight people are--means I owe them more than can ever be repaid. Letting them have their say and then letting the candidates reply (I don't recall any of them defending gays in their responses) with respect for all involved doesn't seem like something that's hurting straight soldiers.
The point, as opposed to all this smoke and mirrors, is that I don't support American soldiers only if they express the same opinions as I hold.
As the son of a veteran and someone who has a relative over in Iraq for his third go-round, I guess I'm overly sensitive to letting these brave and sometimes gay people have the floor without my booing them for expressing an opinion I don't share. I think it's called "manners".
Just watched it again. He finished asking and one maybe two people booed. It certainly wasn’t a crowd.
I guess we just disagree. I don’t like having American soldiers on TV promoting the gay agenda as if it’s a good thing whether Obama calls it legal or not.
What I think it has to with is everything. Had a straight soldier got up there and said “I am against the DADT repeal” they would quickly find themselves pushing a broom on a flightline until they made a mistake that got them courtmartialed or ‘pressured’ by the brass to ‘move on’ from military service.
But they know better. So we civvies have to defend those who defend us - in whatever small ways we can. It disgusts me that our soldiers are put in such a position to begin with. As I said earlier, just my opinion.
I didn`t watch it, so my question is, was it the soldier or the open homosexuality issue that was booed? There is a huge difference.
That said, these audience reactions could be costly to the GOP.
>>homosexuality issue that was booed?
The audience didn’t agree to the fact that one’s sexual interests should be made open /it should be a private issue for each person serving/as DADT was in place for years.
I think it was the question that was booed, not the soldier.
it wont be long before the left pushes for affirmative action for having a certain number of homos in the military
I think they already have somewhat, can’t recall the details but the Marine Corp has said they would recruit the most.
I don’t see what asking the question has to do with promoting an agenda. I don’t understand the fear and whining victimization about being straight—straights can handle ourselves and don’t fear the weirdos (sorry) somehow perverting us just by existing. I don’t see any evidence of straights in the military or anywhere else being victimized just because the media are full of gays.
Somehow heterosexuality has managed to survive a long, long time without all this boo hooing about how we’re being ‘victimized.’
I respect soldiers. Asking a question as this one did wasn’t pushing an agenda.
Conservatives used to be about “you do your thing, just don’t stop me from doing mine” and “I don’t agree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it.”
Now? It’s all about how we can portray ourselves as victims the way we have always hated the libs for doing.
I’m no victim of the gay agenda, and neither are any straights I know. A lot of this comes from this fear that gays are somehow plotting against the rest of us on a personal level, which makes me think some people have unresolved stuff they have to deal with.
This has nothing to do with imposing the gay agenda in schools or giving gays special rights, which of course we can all agree is vile and must be fought. But a soldier asking a simple questions?
Nope. That doesn’t ‘victimize’ anyone, and I must have missed where mainstream Americans aren’t allowed to express themselves.
But the gays are probably dancing in the streets over those boos tonight. To those who booed, I’d actually question whose side they’re on, because they just gave the gays ammo money can’t buy, and what did they gain for us with their childish TV-audience behavior? Absolutely nothing.
Well, that despicable political hack, Adm. Mullen, did say that having open homosexuality in the military made the military stronger.
The booing stopped abruptly. The way I took it was that at first it seemed the soldier was going to COMPLAIN about the repeal of DADT and the boos were, in effect, to support his complaint.
When it became clear that he was on the other side of the issue, the audience became quiet.
If a soldier had said, “I’m concerned about the repeal of DADT” and the audience booed the repeal, and then the soldier wnet on to say “This is one of the worst policies for combat readiness, will you reinstate DADT?,” the booing would have been considered fine.
That said, people should keep fairly quiet at these things because it’s hard to tell how reactions will be interpreted and what will develop in a question or answer.
From what I saw tonight, it seems to me that Perry is going to fade fast and that, surprizingly, Santorum will be the one who will best be able to take on Mitt and beat him.
Gingrich will help, but he’ll have to settle for being Santorum’s VP in this scenario. His experience would be great, but no one wants Calista as First Lady. :)
Not only that, the policy was called “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
I’m not interested in a homosexual’s love life. Not at all. Having them push their sexuality on me is open sexual harassment and invites an appropriate response.