Gay Man for Navy Secretary?

Gay Man for Navy Secretary?

blog.newsweek.com

As gay activists protest the selection of evangelical megapastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation, they could have reason to cheer a future Obama announcement. Sources tell NEWSWEEK that the president-elect is considering the appointment of the first openly gay chief of a military branch.

Bill White, president of the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum in New York, is being backed by congressional and former military leaders to be the next secretary of the Navy. Among White's vocal supporters are retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat whose district includes the newly renovated Intrepid museum which sits on an aircraft carrier in the Hudson River. Nadler says members of Obama's transition team have reached out to him about White. "They're clearly vetting him," he tells NEWSWEEK.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Oh this is just great.

The rest of the world sure loves Obama, now they'll get another chance to poke fun at the US, just like they did during the Clinton administration.

Leno and Letterman will just love this and the SNL skit will sure proove interesting.

Oh man, I can already see all the Village People references.
..in the Navy,...sing it Obama...

blog.newsweek.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

My question is this.....

How can there be an openly GAY Secretary of the Navy, when there is a do not ask, do not tell policy in the military

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Good point.
Maybe that's part of the so called change we've all been hearing about???

...you can put your mind at ease....

Why Not?

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 19-12-2008 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Because the Secretary position is a civilian position. It's not in the chain of actual chain of comand.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

Because the Secretary position is a civilian position. It's not in the chain of actual chain of comand.

Ah! Ok. Thanks, I didnt know that I should have read the entire article..

Because the Navy secretary is a civilian job, White's appointment wouldn't directly conflict with the military ban on gays

[edit on 12/18/2008 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by MemoryShock


Exactly,

What does it matter him being gay or not?

reply to post by greeneyedleo


because things are . and always have been different at the top and bottom

reply to post by ignorant_ape


But Naval officers hardly consider themselves "the bottom". I suspect there will be at least some dissent among the ranks on this. But, perhaps not, we are, after all, a constantly evolving society.

reply to post by Alxandro


That's just . . . perfect.

Holy crap. If I were in the military, I'd be thinking about getting out as soon as possible. Between the commander in chief who is a know-nothing critic of the military, and appointing a goober smoocher as Secretary of the Navy, all we need now is the Village People being appointed to the Joint Chiefs.

Maybe Barney Frank can be the Undersecretary of the Navy.

(Emphasis on Under . . .)

After all, look what he did for our financial institutions.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


"Don't ask, don't tell" is already DOA.

Obama's already advised the military he will be rescinding the policy, and apparently consulted with military leaders about how to implement the change.

Quite frankly, after my disappointment with Obama's choice of Rick Warren for his 'Invocation' for the Inaugaural....

I would find Pres-Elect Obama's appointment of a Gay Navy man to his Cabinet as a sign of inclusion....

Firstly, Rick Warren....I have not yet composed this missive to the Obama Transition Team...but I believe it is either brilliant, or devestating....from Mr. Obama's perspective. (AND, only HE knows....)
ANYONE else have an opinion on the strategy???

Secondly, I am thrilled (for now) that Obama found a Gay appointee....I just hope he also jinds a Lesbian, to help ease any discord.

Thirdly, well....I happen to live in DC and, NO! Have no house or room for rent!! I traveled here in 1993, for Clinton's Inagauration, and THAT was TAME according to what we are expecting.

Our consensus....stay home, and watch on TV...I could easily walk to the MALL....ONLY ABOUT 20 BLOCKS....if the weather is fine, I might!!!

OK, back on....DADT has to be stripped from the National and Military consciencous, as soon as possible!!! We are the LAST (I think) major Nation in NATO to cling to this ridiculous policy.

Comments????

Better having a government minister who's out rather than someone who's still in the closet, with all the security concerns that'd bring.

And you'd think having gays in the navy was some new phenomenon. Winston Churchill famously described the Royal Navy in terms of "rum, sodomy & the lash" and that must've been nearly 100 years ago.

It's the guy's ability to run his department in these difficult economic times which is the main issue here, rather than what he does between the sheets.

*some of the comments in this thread are just intolerant bigotry*

Wanted to add on...

WHY is there a need of an 'invocation' anyway???

Because, as I understand, it is a 'tradition' within a State, a 'Republic by the People, and For the People' --- yet, our 'Head of State', or more familiarly, our 'Commander-in-Chief' must have an 'invocation'????

Even though we are established, as a Nation, to be 'separated' from the 'church'?

Some History: Yes, the Colonists, from Great Britain, desired a form of 'self-rule'....BUT the original reason for getting away FROM the UK was primarily for religious freedom, especially freedom from the Church of England.

SO, splinter groups of Christianity were free to form, and prosper....such is the wont in a land this large.....(I know, Lutherans began in Europe...I'm trying to over-simplify)

My point, and I'm getting to it is this: It is 2008. We have seen, in the past, and certainly are seeing currently, horrible events that are waged for many reasons.....but, most seem to be ideological, in nature. Yes, some are simply greed-based, but most conflicts among Humans are based on ideology, or in other words, "RELIGION".

It is the 'religious', the ones who think THEY are such ideologues that there IS NO WAY their viewpoint could be wrong, they are the ones that contribute to the hampering of Humanities' growth.

To think that an 'openly' Gay Man, or Woman, would be somehow a 'second-class' citizen is repulsive, to me. It as repulsive as the notions of the past, that women couldn't vote, or that a (sorry) 'negroe' was only 3/5 of a person.....this is the 'HISTORY OF OUR GREAT NATION' --- at certain times in History....in the PAST!!!!!

I've added more than I meant to, in this post....it was supposed to be about the alleged separation of 'church' and 'state'....and the upcoming 'invocation' for the Inaugaration.....I only hope people stop, and think about WHAT it means to have a religious 'invocation' when we have already voted for a 'change'....

All I want this new President to do is FIX the mess of the last eight years!!!!

We wanted CHANGE!!!!!!! Drop the religious BS, and just get to work!!!! (After the one requiste, of course....the 'Swearing-in Ceremony'.....DONE!! GO TO WORK!!!!!!!

Originally posted by xmotex
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

"Don't ask, don't tell" is already DOA.

Obama's already advised the military he will be rescinding the policy, and apparently consulted with military leaders about how to implement the change.

Not that I doubt that claim, but do you have a reference on that? I would just like to see something officially released or written.

What's wrong with a gay having the position?

Is there a rule somewhere saying only straight people are allowed to be in office?

What's next? Only Roman Catholics are allowed?


Whatever, I'm tired of this garbage. There are wars going on, and all these rednecks can seem to worry about is peoples sexual preferences.

Insane, all of em.

So, ya know, all homosexuality is, is a different preference in SEX, that does not mean they are not qualified to be what they were chosen to be, get the freakin who they have sex with out of your freakin mind. It is not their sexual preference that matters, it is if they are qualified to do the job.
SEX,SEX,SEX, that is all anybody thinks about, why don't you think about the human that is behind the job, not what happens to their behind. None of your business. Yes, they may admit it, but why do people just assume, because they are GAY, that they are not smart. Like I said, SEX, or sexual preference makes us stupid!!!! Stop. I have noticed that a lot of the GAY topics come along on this site quite a bit. Why? This is
ABOVE TOP SECRET! Is being GAY, Above Top Secret?

Do people still care about this sort of thing? Big deal he's gay. Build a bridge and get over it.

This has all the sincerity and usefulness of a superfluous second line.

[edit on 19-12-2008 by Resinveins]