ending "DADT"

The Pentagon just released the results of a study about the effects of ending "Don't ask don't tell". I was not at all surprised to hear that there was no evidence to show that ending the practice would have long lasting or extremely negative affects. The study showed that there would be a short adjustment period, but that was all.
Also not a surprise to me was John McCain's reaction, in short he feels that the study is flawed. See that's what we have been taught to do in America, if we don't like the results of something we are supposed to say the whole thing is flawed.
What really bothers me is that McCain is a veteran, he was in Vietnam he saw people who were drafted. I cannot figure out how someone who knows how important serving his country was to him, could deny someone the same chance. What is more sad is that he would deny his own child the right to serve her country if she wanted to.
McCain and his supporters believe that the majority of combat troops would refuse to serve with someone who is gay. The survey that was a part of this study found that most military personnel did not think sexual orientation mattered. Why McCain is so upset is he thinks that combat troops should have been asked directly if they would serve with a gay person.
Gates and Mullen defend the study, saying that solders are not asked whether they "like" 15 month tours of duty. (Statesman, Pg. 2)
McCain firmly believes that the military would loose most of it's troops if it allowed gays to serve.
I have no doubt that there are homophobic people in all branches of the military, and some may find serving with gay people to much for them. Those people who actually leave active service, as opposed to those who bitch about it to friends and family, will probably be few and far between. A person joins the military because they have a belief that what they are doing is right, I do not believe that this conviction will be shattered by ending DADT. If the military does lose a few homophobic troops, they will be replaced by the 30,000 gay and lesbian civilians who want to serve in the military.
References
"Senator McCain flays military gay study" Utah Statesman Pg 2, December, 3 2010.
P.S. don't judge me on my incorrect referencing.

Religion panel at USU

Yesterday the center for women and gender hosted a religious panel to discuss same sex marriage. The panel had seven people representing seven different ideologies.
The first speaker was from the Episcopal church and she spoke very well, as did the doctor who spoke about Hinduism. Then came the LDS lawyer, who took his eight minutes and instead of talking about the Mormon stance on gay marriage he whined about his church being picked on. He spent his allotted time talking about how people were trying to keep Mormons from speaking about this issue, and how they are unfairly picked on by gay rights groups. I was shocked that the people who put this panel together would choose a lawyer instead of a bishop or someone more spiritual to come. This was a chance for everyone to hear each others beliefs, and this lawyer blew that opportunity. Instead he chose to skirt the issue and talk about the law and whether it was being followed.
On the up side, all of the other speakers were excellent and handled themselves with dignity and grace. I was impressed with the panel as a whole, I only wish that more people had asked questions.
I left feeling very impressed with everyone else, but the man that was supposed to represent the LDS view was very disappointing.
I was embarrassed for the LDS faithful who were so poorly represented.

The "imoral" majority.

I was surprised that it took so long for the far right to respond to the prop 8 decision. They have finally broken their silence it seems.
I feel the need to comment about this. It seems to me that those who come out most aggressively against same sex couples are those of questionable moral character.
John Edwards said that letting gay couples marry would cheapen marriage; he had a 19 month affair with a woman on his staff then denied that he fathered her child.
Mike Huckabee came out strongly opposed to gay marriage, he also had an affair.
This is a very small sampling, but think of the larger implication. If asked to look closely at themselves how many "anti" gay people are holding their own marriages as sacred.
The people on the far right, and even some moderates, would have you believe that it is a moral issue. They will say that same sex couples somehow cheapen the sacred act of marriage. My response to that is in two parts; one who's moral code are we talking about. For me it is far more important that two people engaging in a relationship be loyal to each other. How is a gay couple who are devoted to each other less moral than a married couple who commit adultery. The second part of my response is this; heterosexual couples are doing a mighty fine job of making marriage less sacred all on their own. The idea that something is cheapened because more people have access to it is elitist. This way of thinking is in stark contrast to what Christ taught about love.
The last thing I would like you to think about is this.
We are a nation of laws, one of those laws is the separation of church and state.
Judges make decisions based on civil law not on gods law. There are those who would have you believe that a persons civil rights should be taken away because the lifestyle they lead is in contrast to a popular religious view. That is not the case at all, the Constitution protects all U.S citizens regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. All men are created equal, and should have access to all the same rights.