Today, Retired General Colin Powell came out in favor of ending the don't ask don't tell law. Does everyone remember that it was Colin Powell who in 1993 fought tooth and nail to stop gays from serving openly in the US Military. General Powell served 35 years in uniform. I can't see how anyone could support keeping don't ask don't tell now. But wait, there is still the flat earth society.

When Sen. John McCain argued that the "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" policy has helped "balanced the potentially disruptive desires of a minority and the broader interests of" the military community, he reveals a thinly veiled fear of the "desires" the homosexual community might bring to military society. On one level, the fear is that sexual desires can't be controlled, and the troops would fear they were the subject of someone else's uncontrollable sexual desire. By this logic, then, a heterosexual male might be secretly lusting after a female company member. Have women in the military been subject to heterosexual male desire? Are those women expected to continue to serve their country? Yes. Do they continue to do their jobs well? Yes. I think those who fear being objectified in the barracks or on the battlefield can learn something from what women in the military put up with--and overcome--daily.

Re: Col. Bedey's comments - Apparently the good colonel thinks that one's private life/matters should be kept private. Should not this apply to one's religious beliefs? Unlike religious zealots, gays do not prosthletize, recruit or otherwise attempt to enforce their beliefs/practices on others. Perhaps if people in the military kept their religious beleifs private, there would not be as much intolerance of gays. Finally, Col. Bedey refers to some ominous "Gay Agenda" which apparently boils down to nothing more than equal rights. What a horrible thing to seek in America!

What I would like to know is, what exactly is the "homosexual agenda"?

I am sick of this country promoting a culture of hate and intollerance for any of it's citizens! Why is it that a publicly funded institution, paid for by the national budget that is funded by everyone's taxes, is still discriminating against any of it 's citizens? Why is hate and discrimination being taught in this institution? It is and always has been wrong, our entire military needs a complete overhaul and needs total reorganization to get up to speed with the times. As far as keeping personal lives to oneself? Since when have straight soldiers or anyone in this country kept their personal lives to themselves? I am at work all day listening about everyone's husbands, wives, kids, etc. Looking at their pictures every day. Gay people are not treated equally in the Military and that creates a "Hate Culture" and sets the tone for the entire country! IT NEEDS TO END! The most logical place to start is the military.. as long as the US military is condoning discrimination and hate, it will continue to be acceptable to deny gay people and minority groups their civil rights across the board in this country! Congress, military etc. need to re-read the constitution and bill of rights and stop disciminating against any group in this country.

There were comments made about the 'culture' against gays in the military. That culture is pervasive in organized sports (visit some locker rooms or sit in a dugout), and observable in middle schools and high schools across America. The very next story this morning was about the birthday of the Boy Scouts of America. The BSA has an openly anti-gay policy they have taken to the Supreme Court and won (BSA v. Dale). No comments from the hosts about the connections between the two stories?

What I find absurd is that many of the ranking officers in the military (and those recently retired) is that somehow that gays and lesbians are going to threaten unit cohesion by being open.

I am here to tell you that, in my experiences as a US Marine, I had far fewer problems with the lesbians in my barracks than I had with those male Marines who thought we (the female Marines) were there somehow to "service" them. "No thanks" was all it took with the women - but with some of the males it took courts marshal for them to get a clue.

Also, it seems the Colonel was more concerned with "homosexual agenda" and his "conservative agenda" than he is of the Constitution he raised his hand swore to support and defend.

The men and women that serve our country, gay or not, are separated from their families and loved ones. It is not fair that only straight people can share the pain of this separation while gay men and women have to suffer in silence. I cannot believe this issue is in debate. I believe this is a human rights issue, and that the military does not have the right to silence a portion of its service men and women. The absurdity of calling the rights of gay men and women to speak about their personal lives in the military a part of "the homosexual agenda" is blatant paranoia and a view point that undermines the basic humanity of these soldiers. Some of the military personnel's desire to not change "the atmosphere of the military" is just homophobia, and unfortunately, it parallels the attitude of a large population of U.S. citizens.

The purpose of the military is not to serve as an insulated club for straight white men. Rather, it is simply another defensive arm for our democratic, peaceful civilian society, much like the free press and independent judiciary are. If the military is so reticent with regard to adjusting its internal cultural norms to the progress made in civilian society, then it's our duty as civilians to make them feel the weight of that progress all the more. Nobody in civilian society (rightly) can shield themselves from progress; nor should anybody in the military.

1) When Col Beade says he thinks people in the military should keep their personal lives to themselves anyway, I am sure he doesn't mean those in heterosexual relationships not mentioning their significant other, yet he is trying to make it sound the same as what he means for homosexuals.
2) When he speaks of such a different and special "gated community" culture in the military - perhaps that's a big problem. Think of all the reports of rape and gang rapes being swept under the rug by that "culture" - AND what nation and what values is that culture supposed to be protecting and believing in? One of individual freedom and equal treatment under the law - or so I was taught in school.
3) And, again, in his special, pure culture, are athoics allowed? Jews? Protestants? Muslims? Is he looking for a monoculture with a certain narrow religious belief? Anti-homosexuality is a very religious issue and that is what he is trying to mask. Whose religion, I ask. I thought this country was established with freedom of religion as one of its basic tenets.
Poor guy, has a sieve for an argument.

How can he say you aren't required to lie about being gay in order to serve? If someone asks you "are you gay?", and you want to stay in the military, you have to lie.

I think it's absurd to take a year to hash over this question which is a foregone conclusion. To me that will only take up valuable time and resources, inflame each side, distract from other pressing national concerns, and not least of all, result in a delay in doing what is right and just. The troops are already serving alongside one another. Gays are contributing, serving, and dying defending our country and always have. Just do it!

Why interview a retired Army officer who is 4 or 5 generations beyond those serving today. His views are very 1960 and have little value to the current discussion. This report http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i55/14.pdf from Joint Force Quarterly is authored by a leading expert...why not interview someone who is actually up to date with the issue? Om Prakash is a serving Colonel in the Air Force.

I am very concerned that our "conservative" military are coddled and encouraged to be unaccepting of homosexuals and that they will not be able to tolerate our civilian society when they return from service.

I am much more offended that soldiers are allowed have families and children when they are risking their lives in active service. Worrying about your family when you are in active combat has got to be a huge cause of incohesiveness in military operations.