When my husband went in the military during Vietnam, there were gays.
The guys knew who they were.
They didn’t flaunt it though. They may have been forbidden, but they were there.
There was also a draft then, Now we have an all volunteer military. Huge difference. Go defend the queer nation somewhere else.
So your point is? Are you saying that DADT was the right policy or the one prior to that, a ban on homosexuals?
If queers were even suspected, they were greeted with a “Blanket Party” in the dead of night. They were despised and we considered them a threat to the company of fighting men. Especially in combat. Even then, (Before AIDS) it was repulsive to think that one of these perverts may give you blood, or spend time at your hospital bed if you were wounded.
They were hated and reviled by all. And they were certainly unwelcome on patrol or in the foxhole.
True.
The irony is that in the draft-era military back in Vietnam, every one of those homosexuals could have avoided military service by declaring his homosexuality. For whatever reason, they chose to serve in the military. I don't support homosexuality in any way, shape or form, but we can and should thank them for their service.
The issue is not whether homosexuals can serve in uniform (DADT allows that) but whether they can do so openly and flagrantly — i.e., whether homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle choice that should be protected.
That is a major problem and it must be addressed. Mitt Romney's position may fly in Massachusetts, but it **CANNOT** be allowed to become part of Republican Party policy.