I'm just always amused with the "creative" ways DADT is described in the press today:
Quote:
Obama has called it a top priority to repeal the 1993 law that bans openly gay service.
Er? DADT didn't ban openly gay service. It disallowed military officers and/or recruiters to *ask* if a soldier or potential soldier was gay. Being gay was a disqualifying condition in the military prior to DADT and it was not changed by DADT. All DADT did was allow gay soldiers to not have to lie about their homosexuality on official forms, nor subject them to potential questioning of their sexual orientation, thus meaning they weren't risking more serious offenses if they were caught.
At the time, DADT was praised by gay rights activists. Maybe this is a bit of a nit pick, but could we at least get the history of this law right, especially given that it happened just in the last 20 years? This is hardly the first time I've seen DADT so completely inaccurately described in the media. It makes it seem like DADT was some evil law passed by anti-gay bigots to try to keep them down, when in reality it was passed by gay rights activists as step in a progression towards eliminating the prohibition against gays serving in the military.
That's great and all, but do you have to lie about the process? It just kinda seems weak.