Actually it hasn't. Part of the problem wasn't the law itself, but that it had been abused. People were investigated on mere suspicions. People were discharged after searches of their private lives resulted in discovery of their sexuality. Implied in the "Don't Ask" portion is that one will not actively search for it by reading private emails and listening to private phone calls.
What DAT did was: to allow gays to serve. I was in the military before DADT and I can tell you, gays were flat out not allowed to serve; that equals success in my book. The DADT allowed gays to serve in a professional manor, just as every member of the military is expected to serve.
Again, we're splitting hairs here, and obviously there is time for change; is that huge change good right now? ...while in actual fox holes? There are many that believe (me included) that the Civilian side should handle the details like gay unions first! This DADT situation is nothing more than political expediency, the Democrat lead Congress has had over 4 years of control, and they decide to hit this up on the way out the door? Please.... Again, make no mistake Obama and Congress are looking for the easy way out here, and using a huge group of people (you included now) that largely can't speak out if they disagree with the policy; as General Amos concluded, and 70% of his subordinates did in the poll. I'm not saying they are right or wrong in their personal beliefs, I'm saying they were asked and that's what they wanted. Remember, once this is done, there will be no turning back. People are in there now, that joined before the law was changed, and because someone happens to believe they are bigots, does that mean they lose their right to disagree with a lifestyle, when that lifestyle will be now part of their life? And, could that possibly distract them? The General believes so.
Hypothetical: How do you know that some homophobe Marine might not snap on an openly gay Marine, and during a firefight and they start arguing, no matter who's fault it is, that is a distinct possibility. Say that homophobe is killed by standing up arguing? Should he be dead and it's TS because he didn't believe Gays should be in the Military? Maybe his religion prohibits homosexuality?
I really have no problem with gays as I stated way back in this thread, my argument has branched off toward the General Amos flaming; rhetoric and hypocritical stances that have become typical SOP for so called "Independent Thinkers" is to trash the opposition with pigeonholing.
General Amos is not the opposition, he was doing his job and reporting back; that's now considered bigoted or homophobic? I guess Amos should have unequivocally rubber stamped the report like ADM. Roughhead's public statements have shown he did? (BTW, I have great respect for the ADM and have met him and his wife, wonderful people, it pains me to use his name in this light)
Why did they even bother taking the poll if they knew what direction they were going in beforehand? The whole point was to get opinions and feedback, now kill the messenger?
Sounds like a certain healthcare bill, don't read it and sign it or else! We'll find out what's in it after it passes dammit! I don't work like that and neither do 70% of the American public, we know a bill of goods when we see it.