Berkley - American Military Haters  

Why? People who wish to volunteer can still do so quite easily. All this does is kick out one recruiting station, not the military.

And people SHOULD be protesting the policy of 'don't ask, don't tell.' That's like saying it's okay for women to join the military as long as they don't tell anyone they're a woman. If gay men and women are good enough to die for, be wounded for, be taken away from their families and sent to Iraq or anywhere else for their country, then they're good enough to not have to hide something that essential to who they are.

I can see how it might come off as offensive to, say, the people who work in that recruiting office, but it isn't anti-military. And maybe if more people do this, they'll start thinking about their policy.

I know several gay men who are in the military, and having spoken to them about this policy, it is hurtful.

The marines are violating city law. Sounds right to me.

I have a friend who was thrown out of the army because she's a lesbian. The military threw out several Arabic translators (who are sorely needed right now) for being gay.

Ridiculous, asinine, and counter-productive policy. Good call.

Maybe we should volunteer cities like this next time the terrorists come calling. If they want to be selective about what part of the military they want in their city, the military should be selective about what they want to protect.

IMO, it's not up to the city, the military is a federal thing. They have no business telling them what they can and can't do. I'd be surprised if this stands up in court.

Again, you want to change policy, elect leaders and get it changed. Don't harass people who are just doing their jobs within the guidelines they have been given.

Federal law does supercede city laws.

But a city throwing them out for violating their law is a great way to bring attention to a crummy policy and take steps towards get it changed.

Personally, when a military (more specifically, a military's policy) doesn't protect the rights of its own members, I have a hard time trusting it to protect anyone's.

And before I am accused of hating the military or being (gulp) anti-American, let me just state that I respect those who serve honorably, and I come from a family with military background. I just think this policy is totally bogus and disrespectful to at least 10% of the people who dedicate their lives to this country, and I don't have a problem with anyone who calls it to attention.

I lived in Berkeley for almost three years, and it is a very strange place. While I was there, the city council voted that Tinky Winky, of the children's show Teletubbies, could be any sexual orientation he wanted. They also voted that people who have pets are not owners, and should be referred to as caretakers.

That's fine and all, but does a city council need to vote on that?

People in the city were also protesting one day, and they marched through the streets with torches... the police had to stop them and break it up... fire and mob mentality are not a good combination!

And if you want to see a bunch of naked people on bicycles and a bunch of women pretended to give birth by squatting and having dolls drop out of their shirts, followed by a small army of Kingons, go to the "How Berkeley Can You Be?" parade. http://www.zombietime.com/how_berkeley_can_you_be/ (WARNING: this link is going to be offensive to some!)

Nothing coming out of Berkeley surprises me any more.

So wasting taxpayer money on something like this is okay? I would think they have better things to do with their tax dollars, as we read every day about how strapped cities are. The elected officials of Berkley are hopefully being held accountable by the citizens for their actions. ALL of its citizens.

Keeping recruiters from doing their jobs is a waste of MY federal tax money. So I go with the federal law on this matter, which likely means the office stays.

Again, get the law changed if that's so important. Surely if enough people agree, there's enough votes out there to get people elected to do just that.

This is what I love about America. Such a rich diversity of people. Whether I agree with them or not is a mute point to me. They are Americans protesting their viewpoint and the democratic process working in the form of voting.

As for the Federal government and the military, they are big boys. Surely they can take some people disagreeing with them. The policies are a fact and Americans have a right to disagree with the military policy. That is not saying a word about the men and women of the military whom we all respect. We are talking about the military institution.

The Marine Corps is only following a Department of Defense policy that was enacted by then-President Clinton in 1993. It was the civilian leadership of this country that enacted the policy, not the military. Clinton wanted to repeal the ban on gays in the military but reached a compromise with Congress about what is called the "Don't ask, don't tell" due to Congress being bombarded by calls from the public against lifting the ban.

I'm not surprised that something like this would come out of Berkley, there isn't anything that city does that shocks me anymore. I do have to question why the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is an issue with them now. I don't remember this outcry from Berkley back in 1993 when it was enacted. They are directing their anger at the wrong people when it should be directed to the civilian leadership of the country.

To be fair to the mnilitary, there has been a growing push among retired generals and admirals to have the ban on gays repealed altogether, the latest push involved 20 of them and took place this past December. In 2007 there was bill introduced in Congressional committee to remove the ban/"don't ask, don't tell" policy and replace it a nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation clause policy.

Just for giggles, I served my country except for Berkley, CA. I wonder if they would take me to court for saying that?

The Marines aren't sacred. They can be questioned and they can have faults.

My father fought in Germany in World War II. Just giving my credentials to post on this thread.

Unless somebody has requested a professional opinion (ie: doctor, lawyer etc) I don't believe having an opinion (a personal view, attitude, or appraisal) on something requires any "credentials".

I had the same conceptions until I met my fianceee. He went through the Army and served in Desert Storm. He basically explained to me that when you join any branch of the military you're giving yourself over to the U.S. Government. You're whole purpose is to be one single unit of men/women...not a group of individual men/women.

If your commander tells your unit to strap on 200 lbs and run 20 miles...your unit straps on 200 lbs and run 20 miles. If one person begins to fall behind, as a unit you are failing.

If you're sick or injured, you're given Tylonel 6 and no bed rest. You're still expected to get up and run 20 miles with 200 lbs strapped on you with the rest of your unit (unless a doctor interfers). This is even more so than the Marines...the Marines have very strict guideslines, especially healthwise.

It sounds "horrible" yes, but the one thing that confuses people is that the military is not a commercial business. These are the people that fight for our freedom and to keep the U.S. safe. Dell, Ford, or Panasonic do not care about killing "terrorists" or those that threaten our freedom...they just care about making a profit. They don't train you as a unit to go out and kill for protection, they just train you to do what they want to make a profit.

The current policy wasn't set by the military, it was set by civilians. The only way it will be changed is if Congress and the Commander-in-Chief change it.

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying a gay person couldn't strap on 200 pounds and run 20 miles? Please clarify.

I don't see why protesting the marines' discriminatory policy is anti-military. Just a few decades ago, people had t o protest the racial segregation of the army, and they were probably called anti-military for doing so.
How is this different?

And I really hate how any criticism of the US army or US foreign policy is seen as "unamerican"

No I'm saying that a lot of people misclassify the military as "If only soldiers had rights...I think its wrong what they do...and how they treat people". really my post had nothing to do with whether a person in the military is gay, female, etc.

You have rights in the military but they aren't the same as what they would be for a civilian. For example, your right to Freedom of Speech isn't the same as it would be as a civilian and rightfully so. This is because the military has to maintain discipline. If people did as they pleased all of the time while in the service there would be no order. Without order there is no cohesion. When you aren't on duty you're free to pretty much do what you want.

I'm a veteran. I have no problem letting gay people openly serve. Males and females have different physical and strength conditions they have to meet to enlist and then to stay in the service. As long as those are met then what is the big deal? If someone has the physical and mental capability to do the job it shouldn't matter if they are straight, gay, green, pink or mauve. If you want to try and earn the right to where the insignia of the S.E.A.L.S. or the earn the green or tan beret of the Special Forces and Rangers they have their own standards that must be met. First to earn the chance to go through the school, then during the courses themselves. Those challenges are designed to weed people out. If you can make it through that your sexual orientation shouldn't matter.

Lashing out at the military for this policy isn't fair when they didn't make it. Former Pres. Clinton and Congress compromised on this policy back in 1993 due to public pressure against Clinton wanting to drop the ban altogether.

"The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money."

Some back story on Code Pink and the Berkeley Marine Recruitment Office.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/05...itment-office/

Wow, it's really interesting that those who appear to agree with Berkely's stance have not answered Bryan's (correct) assertion at all. It's not the military who enstated the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It was the Clinton administration. I almost guarantee that if it had been Bush, the vitriol would have been directed at him instead of the military.

Not always. There is no simple hierarchy that goes city-state-federal. Some laws can only be passed by the federal government, some only by the state, and some only by cities. Look at the current debate over medical marijuana for some good examples.


As for the don't ask, don't tell policy; it may have been enacted by Clinton-- as the commander-in-chief of the military-- but before that you just weren't allowed to be gay at all. That wasn't him restricting gay people, that was him making the military accept them with the caveat that they couldn't tell. Because that may have been the only way to get them to accept gay people at all. At the time, it was a step forward, and if we currently had the same situation it would be one of the few things I'd agree with Bush for, and think the compromise didn't go far enough but was better than nothing. My exact reaction when Clinton did it.

Why do some people fail to understand that some of us have real reasons for our feelings about Bush, that it isn't just blind hatred that makes everything he does bad? He has done real, despicable, impeachable things. But that doesn't mean that just because he is the one doing something else, I will automatically disagree.

Anyway, it's been a decade since, and the military hasn't progressed any.

What I disagree with is the way that Code Pink goes about their business of protesting, which is hurtful to other businesses and their clientele
And I know that the military recruiters say and do what it takes to sign up kids who often lack the sophistication to investigate thoroughly.
As for the true cost, IMO, we should all be able to have better access to see the true costs of those who give all for our country, including the big businesses such as Halliburton and Bechtel as well, if not more, for our individual citizens. That would include seeing the "body bags" footage that is shown on European and Middle Eastern television, instead of neatly arranged, flag-draped caskets. Horrible to see - yes, but it is the awful, awful truth.
In fact, sometimes when it's too cold or I'm too busy to vote, I remind myself of that fact, and make sure I go to the polls. And why I DON'T complain when I get a notice for jury duty...such a small sacrifice compared to theirs

That's quite a supposition. Why do you think that? The stated reason, the reason they're protesting, is the military's policy towards gay men and women.

There was also mention in the article about them protesting the war. There was a quote from a man in one of the articles who was put out of the Marine Corps for speaking out against Vietnam while he was in the Corps. He can be bitter all he wants but I don't know what he expected. You can't do that while you are in the service.

Anyway, to get back on top. Yes, it's an archaic policy that needs to be changed. Historically the military is slow to change, look at how long it took them to desegregate. The military isn't a tool to be used for social change (not sure if that's the phrase I'm looking for) but I do find it hypocritical that a country which prides itself on freedom and a military that prides itself on defending those freedoms won't allow everyone who is willing and physically and mentally capable to serve to do so. However, I do think that attitudes within the "brass" are changing but it will never be lifted until the commander-in-chief, with the blessing of Congress, says so.

If a Democrat is elected President I think you'll see another push to remove the ban and the current policy. A Democratically controlled Congress would help but that is no guarantee a bill will pass. The Senate Armed Services Committee will also have a lot of pull regarding the matter. Carl Levin (D,MI) is the chairman of the committee, I don't know where he stands on it, but McCain is also on this committee and I think he's against allowing gays to openly serve. I don't know how accurate this is but from what I've heard is that this is pretty much split between party lines with the presidential candidates with the exception of Ron Paul.

Instead of picketing and disrupting people's lives this group would be better off writing their representatives.