TPMDC

Poll: Americans Want DADT Repealed, Split On How To Treat Gays In The Military

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Admiral Mike Mullen

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

As Washington debates the future of Don't Ask Don't Tell, a new poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans have already made up their minds about the policy -- and they want it gone.

Quinnipiac University polled more than 2,500 Americans about the military's rules regarding gays serving openly and found that 66% called DADT "discrimination." Fifty-seven percent say that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly.

Inside the numbers though, is evidence that the issue of gays in the military is still very divisive for some groups, giving cover to the politicians who are fighting changes to DADT in Washington.

Along partisan lines, Republicans oppose repeal of DADT, 53-40. They're the only partisan group that feels that way. Democrats favor repeal 72-23, and independents back repeal 56-37. Republicans are one of the few demographic groups to oppose repeal, the poll found. When broken down along education and income lines, Americans support the end of DADT. The only other demographic group to oppose repeal other than members of the GOP are evangelical Christians.

Military families are split on repealing the rule, with 48% favoring an end to DADT and 47% opposing it.

Should Congress repeal DADT as President Obama and military leaders have advocated, today's poll suggests new controversies about gays in the military. A 54-38 majority said homosexual soldiers should face "restrictions on exhibiting their sexual orientation on the job." A similar 50-43 majority said the government should not provide benefits to the partners of gay members of the military. Americans are split on whether gay and straight soldiers "should be required" to share quarters. Forty-six percent of respondents said that the military should not require combined quarters, while 45% said it should.

Comments (29) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (4)

DwH

user-pic

February 10, 2010 12:38 PM   

Looks like Americans still believe in "separate but equal." At least there has been progress. Still, if the term for African Americans had been "Negrosexual" during the 60s, we still wouldn't have equal rights for that group. It is the notion of sex that makes so many people uncomfortable and hateful.

And what is with the prohibition on displays of affection? Every time two soldiers hug or slap each other on the ass (just watch a football game) will they be "suspect" and reported as gay?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 1:00 PM    in reply to DwH

The abolition of DADT means that the sexual preferences of the soldiers hugging will probably be known.

I was a kid when Truman racially integrated the armed forces in the late forties. Racial strife persisted through the Vietnam War, decades later.

It took quite a while for the military to be sexually integrated. That policy still has problems to this day with rapes of women by straight male soldiers, among other incidents of harassment and abuse.

I suspect that sexual preference integration will be the easiest of the three, though not easy. The stark differences between the races or between the sexes just won't be there.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 1:43 PM    in reply to exregis

It took quite a while for the military to be sexually integrated. That policy still has problems to this day with rapes of women by straight male soldiers, among other incidents of harassment and abuse.

You have(inadvertently or not) put your finger on the pulse of the resistance, and in many respects, of male homophobia in general.

That attitude towards sexual objects(in this case, women) is assumed by men who hold it, to also be held by gay men.
And they are afraid of being treated by gay men, the same way they treat women.
Obviously not every male in the service holds that attitude, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of them don't assault female service members and likewise don't care if the guy on the .50 has a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 2:42 PM    in reply to kenga

And they are afraid of being treated by gay men, the same way they treat women.

Ooh, I like this. I may steal it for use in future discussions on the subject, if you don't mind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 5:55 PM    in reply to mattstan

Seconded. I think that's a really great way of framing the issue.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 5:15 PM    in reply to kenga

What should matter more to his comrades is that the person on the .50 has a loved one they can't wait to get home to.

Great comment Kenga.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 7:18 PM    in reply to DwH

""Negrosexual"", aren't we already there? John Mayer said he has a David Duke white supremacist d*ck.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 1:33 PM   

Letting Republicans support Don't Ask, Don't Tell is letting them get off too easy. DADT was a Clinton compromise that they opposed. Force them to say what they really believe -- that gays should not be allowed in the military and should be sent to prison -- and then people will be able to judge how far out of the mainstream they really are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 1:34 PM   

Some talking head, who I can't remember the name, had a very interesting bead on this. The younger generations find this policy discriminatory and offensive. Many younger people have gay friends and know gays and its no big deal. The ones primarily opposed are the gray heads who don't serve in the military anyway. If they took a poll of people under 65, it would be something like 90% in favor of repeal. You always have that small percentage of loons.

Couple that fact with the fact that the primary demographic the military are going after are 18 to 20 somethings and that explains why the military wants this repealed. That age group is probably in the 95% range of wanting repeal.

DADT is plain silly and should be repealed. I am actually kinda burned out on the discussion of this. Just repeal it already.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 6:20 PM    in reply to Michael A

Couple that fact with the fact that the primary demographic the military are going after are 18 to 20 somethings and that explains why the military wants this repealed.

I can't help but wonder if anyone in the DOD has crunched numbers to get a picture of what the impact has been from a functional standpoint - how has it affected whatever missions people expelled under DADT have been part of. For that matter - if ANYONE has.
For example, how many units interfacing extensively with locals have lost a language specialist?
And how many casualties or serious problems caused by communication failures have those units suffered?
And how do those numbers compare to units that weren't deprived of such personnel?
Have US personnel died, that might otherwise not have, as a result?
Have non-US civilians(say, Iraqis,) died who might not have?
Has that had any adverse impact on short and/or long range goals?
Any impact on world opinion?
On national security?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 2:13 PM   

Doesn't the military already have rules against public displays of affection for their heterosexual soldiers? How is that different for gays? Equal means equal, tyvm.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 2:33 PM    in reply to ohyeathatsright

Because teh gays can't be trusted to abide by existing rules? /snark

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 2:24 PM   

"restrictions on exhibiting their sexual orientation on the job.

Like Codes of Conduct and Dress Codes? I think the military has that covered pretty well already.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 2:40 PM   

I love the guys who are afraid that they will be ogled in the shower. My senior year in college I roomed with a friend of a friend who I didn't know well. Before we moved in she told me she was a lesbian, but not to worry because she wasn't attracted to me. I was both relieved and insulted. But it was a good year and we got to be friends. So, relax, guys, chances are you aren't that hot.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 11, 2010 9:05 AM    in reply to Powkat

So, relax, guys, chances are you aren't that hot.

This is what bothers them the most.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 2:45 PM   

"Military families are split on repealing the rule, with 48% favoring an end to DADT and 47% opposing it."

I was trying to figure out what this meant, wondering if Quinnipiac actually chose a representative of each of these families to give the family's opinion.

But, the actual press release says, "65 - 30 percent, including 57 - 38 percent among voters in military families, that ending 'don't ask; don't tell' will not be divisive or hurt the ability to fight effectively"

Much more clear.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 11, 2010 4:22 PM    in reply to Skybolt

It would be interesting to see how the 48-47 breaks down. Many "military families" come from the South, where military service is a long-standing tradition. Are their views different from families from other parts of the country? Moreover, are their views different from their service members? Seems to me the pivotal factor is whether a person holds the stereotypical view that gays cannot control themselves sexually. If a person believes that, it's likely he'll be afraid to serve (or allow his/her son to serve) with open gays. What was so interesting about Mullen's testimony was his straightforward statement that he has always served with gay service members, and isn't afraid. Fasinating.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

February 10, 2010 2:52 PM   

53-40 seems like a really slim margin, considering. With feelings that tepid you'd think a number of Republicans would be more afraid of pissing off the independents who back repeal than the base members that oppose it. Definitely seems like those numbers are going to make it very hard for any red state democrat to oppose the repeal.

Also maybe seems like a couple of those rare blue state republicans (Scott Brown?) are looking at possibly damaging themselves if they don't support the repeal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 3:02 PM   

A 54-38 majority said homosexual soldiers should face "restrictions on exhibiting their sexual orientation on the job."

Any word from these half wits abut "restricting the exhibition of male heterosexuality" in the form of rape on the job, which apparently happens to females in the military with sickening frequency.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 3:04 PM   

While I understand the happy poll trumpeting by TPM, this is just a diversion and has zero significance.

This issue has nothing to do with popularity contests and to play it up that way (look! the public likes this!) is to reframe the entire issue from equality and fairness into a PR duel.

That's what plagued the gay rights movement for so long, unfortunately. That's what gave us Prop 8 and ballot initiatives.

TPM should know better than this. We shouldn't be trying to "prettify" a civil rights issue in a constitutional republic like this one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 4:11 PM    in reply to Lalo35adm

I find it pretty amusing how just about everyone, on both sides of the issue of anti-gay discrimination, claims that "it's a moral issue" and "not a popularity contest" when polls are against them, then immediately jumps on the first poll that shows their side in the lead.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 5:38 PM    in reply to Lalo35adm

So what is your point? What is your plan? What is your opinion?

We know you are a stupid liar in general. What about institutionalized discrimination? Your history would suggest you are all for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 5:02 PM   

"restrictions on exhibiting their sexual orientation on the job"

WTF? What, are they going to have a Gay Pride parade through the middle of Ft. Hood? Who would even formulate a question like that, except a homophobe. I doubt the gay people that enlist are going to have the same personalities as RuPaul. It's boggling the way stereotypes overtake reality in the minds of bigots.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 5:50 PM    in reply to KdNicewanger

Right-wingers are afraid that every gay person finds them attractive and will stop at nothing to have sex with them.

http://forwantofanail.com/2010/02/end-dont-ask-dont-tell-now/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 6:49 PM   

When an overwhelming majority of all samples says Mutallab should be tried as an enemy combatant rather than in a criminal setting, we've lost the PR war.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 10:22 PM   

when will we finally learn the lesson that humans are still humans, that the things that bind us together are far more important and meaningful that the things that separate us?

When will we finally honor the interconnected web of life here on planet Earth?

When the conservative ideals of greed and lust for power, when selfishness itself is defeated.

As John Kenneth Galbraith once said, "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 10, 2010 10:43 PM   

Not surprising at all.

Republicans and evangelicals are the same people who think that science is a liberal plot, education is a dirty word, and rational though is some communist plot against Jesus and pork rinds and the red-white-and-blue.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 11, 2010 9:50 AM   

Some day, we're going to look back in amazement that any form of a communication gap was allowed to exist in the military:

http://bit.ly/9YNli3

(satire)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 11, 2010 10:53 AM   

Ok so Republicans and Evangelicals don't want gays in uniform. Fine. They also are the firmest of supporters of Israel. Soooo, have they ever questioned why the IDF makes no exceptions for gays serving? And are they aware that gay spouses are entitled to the same benefits as hetero spouses?
Just asking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on