Gay Rights Activist/MSNBC Anchor Contessa Brewer: Support for DADT 'Doesn't Make A Lot of Sense'
During Wednesday's 12PM ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Contessa Brewer attacked those who want to maintain the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy: "...the Marine Corps and Catholic chaplains, who say they support the policy on moral grounds. It doesn't make a lot of sense...if it's homosexuality that they have a problem with – they're basically saying, 'Yeah, just keep lying about it.'"
Later in the hour, Brewer interviewed Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman about his support for repealing the policy. She labeled Arizona Senator John McCain as the villain preventing repeal: "So John McCain has been one of the most formidable foes when it comes to repealing this policy....Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen support repealing this policy. Have you talked with Senator McCain? Is he willing to give?"
Moments later, Brewer dismissed a recently released Pentagon study on the issue as irrelevant: "...there's a logic problem with the survey at any rate, and here it is. If it's wrong to ban gay people from serving openly in the military, it doesn't matter how people feel about it, it's wrong." She likened repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' to civil rights: "I mean, you can make some of these same arguments that were made against integrating the military, what, 60 years ago? I mean, you know, people have – and may still have attitudes that it hurts unit cohesion to serve with people of a religion that opposes their own or with someone whose racial background is different."
In response, Lieberman concluded: "I feel that the country is ready for this repeal, the military is ready for it, and I sure hope that the members of Congress are ready for it." Brewer replied: "Well, me too."
At the end of the interview, Lieberman proclaimed: "We can get this done, it's the right thing to do for our values and it's the right thing to do for the military, because the military needs the skills and courage that gay and lesbian Americans bring to our services every day." Brewer didn't try to hide her support: "Senator, you're preaching to the choir here."
In July, Brewer spoke at a gay rights fundraiser in Kentucky. She has frequently promoted the gay rights agenda on air and in September warned of "consequences" for politicians who did not support repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'
Here is a transcript of Brewer's December 1 reporting and commentary:
12:07PM ET
CONTESSA BREWER: The next step for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is up to Congress. The newly released Pentagon survey shows 70% of service members believe killing the policy would be positive, mixed, or of no consequence at all. But time is running out for those advocating its repeal.
ROBERT GATES: The finding suggests that for large segments of the military, repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' though potentially disruptive in the short term would not be the wrenching traumatic change that many have feared and predicted.
BREWER: Some troops in the field are pushing back, including the Marine Corps and Catholic chaplains, who say they support the policy on moral grounds. It doesn't make a lot of sense, really, that they – if it's homosexuality that they have a problem with – they're basically saying, 'Yeah, just keep lying about it.'
(...)
12:17PM ET
BREWER: Lawmakers are lining up to duke it out over the defense bill, specifically over the House proposal to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' The Pentagon says letting gays and lesbians serve openly in the military would not be a problem in the long-term.
ROBERT GATES: But in summary, a strong majority of those who answered the survey, more than two-thirds, do not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in uniform.
BREWER: I'm joined now by independent Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Senator, good to see you today.
JOE LIEBERMAN [SEN. I-CT]: Thanks, Contessa. Good to be with you.
BREWER: So John McCain has been one of the most formidable foes when it comes to repealing this policy, but he has said in the past that he would listen to the military's survey results, he would listen to its commanders. Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen support repealing this policy. Have you talked with Senator McCain? Is he willing to give?
LIEBERMAN: Well, I've talked to – Senator McCain and I, as you probably know, are really good friends, we've talked a lot about this issue over the years, and I can't say I've made much progress. But I haven't talked to him since the report was issued yesterday, and we've got two days of hearings in the Armed Services Committee coming up Thursday and Friday. The report is very important and very encouraging. Look, to me the basic idea here is you shouldn't deny somebody the right to serve their country because they're gay if they're otherwise qualified and willing to fight to defend America. And once you reach that conclusion, then the only other question is will somehow gays in the military hurt our military effectiveness? And yesterday's report says that, in a very big survey of the troops and their families, that the judgement is no, it won't hurt military effectiveness, so I hope Senator McCain will decide to support the repeal. I'm not counting on it, but it would be a great development.
BREWER: Senator Lieberman, fundamentally, it seems that there's a – there's a logic problem with the survey at any rate, and here it is. If it's wrong to ban gay people from serving openly in the military, it doesn't matter how people feel about it, it's wrong. I mean, you can make some of these same arguments that were made against integrating the military, what, 60 years ago? I mean, you know, people have – and may still have attitudes that it hurts unit cohesion to serve with people of a religion that opposes their own or with someone whose racial background is different. I mean, I just don't get how a survey result should influence this argument in any way.
LIEBERMAN: Look, as a matter of principle and morality, you are absolutely right. That's why I voted against the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' when it first went into effect 17 years ago, in 1993. So – but the survey was done just to test the proposition, and here's the most important number, I think, on that whole survey. 92% of our troops, including over 85-89% of combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan said – of those who said they believe they serve with somebody who is gay or lesbian – those numbers, 85, 92% said it had no effect on military effectiveness.
And of course that's the great story of the American military, it's one of the great integrating institutions in our society. There was a lot of anxiety obviously about African-Americans, and now, of course, African-Americans serve in the highest positions in our military and everybody's over that concern. I'm totally convinced that the same will be true if we repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' In fact, these numbers on the survey yesterday show that the same is true, that people in the military know they're serving with gay soldiers and they just judge them not by their private sexual orientation but by the fact that they're good soldiers. That's America, and so I feel that the country is ready for this repeal, the military is ready for it, and I sure hope that the members of Congress are ready for it.
BREWER: Well, me too. And the Armed Services Committee, you said, is meeting on Thursday and Friday. You have a lame duck session chance at repealing this thing, but was it a mistake for the Senate Democrats not to tackle this before the midterm?
LIEBERMAN: There was an attempt to tackle it but the votes weren't there and it fell aground on practical nonsense here. I'm convinced, Contessa, that we have more than the necessary 60 votes to take this defense authorization bill, which we have to pass to do right by our soldiers. Forget what 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' says to our community. If they have time to do that, it would be, to me, outrageous. If we don't adopt the defense authorization bill, which would be the first time in 43 years we haven't done this, and our troops need us to do this, and we don't repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' because of the clock, we can get this done, it's the right thing to do for our values and it's the right thing to do for the military, because the military needs the skills and courage that gay and lesbian Americans bring to our services every day.
BREWER: Senator, you're preaching to the choir here. Thank you, sir, I appreciate it.
LIEBERMAN: It's been a pleasure. Thank you.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
They say "stay out of my
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:03pm.
They say "stay out of my bedroom" which is exactly what DADT amounts to. They oppose DADT. They want everything all out in the open. Sheesh.
What makes no sense are the positions these folks take that paint them into a corner over and over and over again.
Brewer is confused? Well, blow me down!
Submitted by Slyrr on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:04pm.
That's OK Ms. Brewer. The stuff that you think 'doesn't make sense' would fill every warehouse in the country and then some.
Heck, common sense doesnt' make sense to you.
We forgive your deplorable lack of vision and intellect. If only you weren't demonstrating it in front of a camera each day.
Sweet Contessa, just stick to
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:07pm.
Sweet Contessa, just stick to what you do best - looking purdy.
I concur.
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:18pm.
I concur.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
The words coming out of her mouth
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:09pm.
Ruin her looks, stupidity aint never purdy
The Cuntessa is really hung up on this one....
Submitted by nonncom on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:14pm.
I want to know.....who really gives two shitpickels one way or the other.....is either stance going to stop homosexuals from entering the service?....they're like ufo's.....they've always been there, but most have gone unnoticed....
agreed
Submitted by sometimesright on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:59pm.
who cares? how will things change? they will continue to serve and serve well. i guess activists want to be able to wave their agenda around like a flag.
Lean Forward.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:52pm.
When I joined the military, it was against the law to be queer (there were no gays then). While I was on active duty, they made being gay optional (but don't tell). I decided to retire before they made being gay mandatory.
There have always been gays in the military. Most were more interested in serving their country and performing their mission than they were in jumping up and down and shouting "I'm gaaaaaayyy!"
I have a really bad feeling that by doing away with DADT we are going to see a lot of gays who will join just to flaunt their gayness. That will not be good, for them or the services.
Perhaps it will speed up Obama's plan to totally destroy our fine military so that we won't be a threat to the rest of the world.
No offshore drilling
Submitted by malthus on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:14am.
Medved had the perfect example of this on his show today. He gave a fellow who plays for the same team extra time to argue for gays in the military. At the end of the conversation the big boy began to mock Michael for sounding gay to which there were the obvious denials. An intelligent conversation ended in homosexual taunts. Transfer this conversation to a military base and I will show you a fellow headed to the emergency room. And when that happens, guess who will be demoted?
agreed
Submitted by pratsha45 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:54am.
I was in the military just four months ago and there were lot's of gay folks. They did their job and didn't really bother anyone - DADT isn't fair becuase it doesn't apply to straight people too - they can talk about their families and relationships but gay folks can't - nice 'free country' we live in, eh?
A 3 week wonder making claims
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 6:58pm.
A 3 week wonder making claims and spouting crap. So they threw you out for outing yourself?
Contessa the brainless
Submitted by Herbster on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:21pm.
Contessa has always been pro-homo. Unfortunately, her "argument" holds about as much weight as a helium balloon. This woman has the IQ of a head of broccoli. At least she didn't cry this time. Hopefully, COMCAST will sweep MSNBC clean of all the enablers.
if you don't agree with
Submitted by sometimesright on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:27pm.
if you don't agree with legitimate data and surveys then why even put them on your friggin' program? careful contessa, your liberalism is showing. she calls herself an anchor? hahahahaha
She's an anchor in the way
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:17pm.
She's an anchor in the way Gunga Dan Rather was - fake but true.
which is worse?
Submitted by wizardjr on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:41pm.
I'm not sure which is worse - stupidity or ignorance...?
What these TV news mumblers, sitting in their rent controlled NYC apartments sipping the 'right' wine while reading their Maya Angelou screeds really don't have a flaming clue about the military. This woman compounds it with grand mal stupidity.
Best quote from the report
Submitted by larrybob on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:07pm.
The study's available on the defense department website. http://www.defense.gov/dadt
Best quote from the report (bottom of page 6)
As one special operations force warfighter told us, “We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”
And for those of us like myself ...
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:13pm.
who say "Don't repeal, ever" this quote backs up my argument to a tee. So long as he doesn't put his personal agenda above that of his unit, he's perfectly suitable for service. But the moment he decides that it's more important to him to be able to openly display his homosexuality than it is to defend his squadmates to the death, he becomes unfit.
Then remove all the other
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:15pm.
Then remove all the other sexual offenses from the UCMJ too. Let's not be selective.
deleted
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:19pm.
never mind...
Why on earth would you say
Submitted by pratsha45 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:58am.
Why on earth would you say that? So you go down a list of people allowed to serve their country...let's see.......White folks, black folks, jewish folks, tall people, brown-haired people, angry people, kind people, women, men, gays folks, New Yorkers, WAIT! Did you say Gay people!? Oh my God.....not that, they're horrible I tell ya!
C'mon already, let's grow up and be mature about equality and freedom in this country.
Hey, 3 week wonder
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 7:09pm.
Which service were/are you in pratsha45?
You obviously don't know that gay people can serve, and do serve in the US Armed Forces. As long as they don't place their personal agendas above that of the service and perform adequately while in uniform, they can remain so. It's when they break unit cohesion that they are discharged.
Oddly enough, just like white folks, black folks, jewish folks, tall people, brown-haried people, etc. It would behoove you to actually read comments before accusing the author of being immature about them.
by the way, larry and bob
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:20pm.
after 54 weeks, congrats on your first post...
BK, LOL - Are we sure that this isn't Larry Bud...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:38pm.
...Melman, trolling from the grave?
Vote for the American in November
LOL Dave! Could be, could be.
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:43pm.
LOL Dave! Could be, could be.
Immoral
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:14pm.
Homosexuality is immoral. Having a dark skin isnt. But liberals like Brewer cant see the differrence. All morality is the same to them.
ban bible & torah and bullying -- leviticus 20:13
Submitted by MACDONALDBANK1 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:19pm.
http://www.macdonaldbank.com/religion2012.html
Welcome to NewsBusters, troll
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:33pm.
Can't help but notice you failed to mention banning the Qur'an, which takes bullying (not to mention outright murder) to stratospheric levels.
Are you afraid the camel-washers will come after you for dissing their 17th Century violent political takeover manual?
You sure as hell don't having a problem offending Christians and Jews.
Ever noticed what the camel-washers do to homosexuals?
BTW: You may not be aware of this, but this is the United States of America, not the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (at least not yet, anyway) - we don't ban books here.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
No matter how many times you
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:07pm.
No matter how many times you edit your post, I doubt this poster will respond.
Contessa "kettle-ass" Brewer
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:38pm.
Contessa "kettle-ass" Brewer is wrong about this. DADT was imposed to keep the military from turning into a gay-rights parade. People can be gay but they are not supposed "flame" all day about how gay they are, who they want to do, how hot some guy is in their shorts, etc. etc. We have all witnessed the occasional gay person that is overly gay that makes us uncomfortable. We don't want it in the military.
Be gay, just shut up about it and I promise not to tell you about my wife's t1ts. Deal?
Practically I don't think
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 10:47pm.
Practically I don't think DADT makes sense, because the army shouldn't be dismissing someone when we're in the middle of a war just because they were outed as gay. The Pentagon has realized this, and in practice, they haven't been dismissing gay service members unless they've created a problem. Repealing DADT will do nothing but formalize this practice into law.
But I think the whole debate over the issue has been been dishonest, and shaped by dishonest motives. The reason gays are seen as an "issue" is the same reason men and women in the same barracks are seen as an issue. There are many approaches to try to a solution, and repealing DADT will in my opinion will be one step to a better solution, but people who call supporters of it bigots need to come out and declare that opponents of co-ed barracks are also bigots, because its the same issue, really.
I think all of these gay rights issues are discussed dishonestly generally. For example, if I have a friend in a completely Platonic relationship and we decide we want the benefits associated with marriage (tax benefits, SS benefits, visitation rights), we'll still be denied a marriage license. Does that mean people are bigoted against Platonic relationships between male friends? No. Now, people have to understand the lack of marriage for males in romantic relationships is no more bigoted, because its the exact same situation -- when you're two people of the same sex whether you're having sex or you're not isn't the government's business and isn't even considered as a factor. So why are we talking about this as a gay 'human rights' issue? It's not. It's not even a gay issue at all. That's right: same-sex marriage isn't even really a gay issue.
People have to stop letting the Left define the debate.
redfish
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:22pm.
Are you currently or have you served in America's Armed Forces? Because the tenor of your post doesn't indicate any real comprehension of the issue.
Gays are not being discharged becuase they've been outed; they're being discharged because they're incompatible with military service. Those that are compatible are not being discharged as is evidenced by the number of known gays that are actively serving.
This issue is that gay activists have put their agenda above that of the good order and discipline of the military and there combat missions. Any service member or wannabe service member that enlists -it is an all-volunteer force, remember- with pre-conditions that elevate their personal agenda above that of the service is unfit to serve. Plain and simple.
But your issue seems to be more about generally promoting the gay agenda than the specific issue of repealling DADT.
I'm not in disagreement with
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:39pm.
I'm not in disagreement with you, I said above that the repeal of DADT would basically be formalizing what the military already has in practice. Current rules still allow a service member to be discharged if outed, but the military is choosing not to do that.
The biggest problem I see is in how the rules are changed: if changed by the court system, they could tie the hands of commanders in dealing with these issues, subjecting them to the threat of discrimination suits.
DADT exists
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:42pm.
as a way to prequalify someone for service. Like it or not, the military does this on every level and homosexuality is just one rung of the ladder. My son tried to enlist in the USMC just this year and was disqualified because he had a minor orthoscopic surgery five years ago to remove a little scar tissue from his shoulder. He was 13 at the time and has had absolutely zero problems with the shoulder since.
But beyond that, when he first encountered the recruiter while still a senior in High School, it was important that he was still actively in school and not a post-graduate. Why? Because a post-graduate would be more likely to be looking for a job and not becoming a Marine, whereas a student would be more likely to want the Corps. That was a pre-qualifier and not based upon anythign other than the Corps looking for the best candidates. This is no different than an airline looking for pilots without a tendency to drink or a cab company looking for hacks with a good driving record. It's about finding the best people for the job. Being gay doesn't necessarily disqualify someone, but "only serving if _____" is a pre-condition that the service doesn't, and shouldn't offer.
The repeal of DADT would create a protected class of service members. It would alienate some current service members and many would chose another career. All so that a very small minority could serve during a lengthy economic downturn with high unemployment nationwide and during active combat missions. Bad idea. Don't repeal. Ever.
Just as a frame of reference, I'm a USMC Veteran, Sgt, 0811, 1986-1992.
DADT cannot---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:47am.
be explained any simpler, yet more profoundly, than bk just did. (post #26)
If you CAN NOT sublimate yourself to the military mission, you have NO business being in the military.
The whys and wherefores of why you CAN NOT do so, are immaterial.
Gays, with an agenda, disagree.
They are wrong.
MD
Right, MD.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:33pm.
The military is NOT a democracy. You know the rules going in, and if you don't like them, don't join.
If you want to be "embraced for who you are," join the Peace Corpse, like Prissy Chrissy Matthews.
Thanks for your service, BK.
Ok Cowtessa allow me to ask
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:17pm.
Since men and woman are currently separated in the military for living quarters including showers.
Where do you recommend putting these folks? For many of the same reasons, men and women currently sleep and shower separately.
Contessa. So hot. So very
Submitted by Van Halen on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:37pm.
Contessa.
So hot.
So very dumb.
The question then becomes
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:52pm.
Is she hot enough to counter her stupidities?
Hb, nope, not by a long shot.
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:59pm.
Every time she opens her mouth, stupid falls out of it.
If it doesn't matter on the
Submitted by Cowboy on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:15am.
If it doesn't matter on the job, than not talking about it isn't lying, is it?
Of course, those proponents
Submitted by jdhawk on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:17am.
Of course, those proponents of rescinding this policy of DADT, don't realize the radical agenda of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transexuals (LGBT). For example, they have demanded that the rest of us create separate bathrooms, changing areas, and shower facilities for transexuals. As, they are sensitive and deserve separateness while "transitioning." You can imagine the ridiculous burden this would put on our Navy and other services to accomodate these demands.
LGBT wants and has gotten the rewrite of insurance policies to provide for adding a penis or turing a penis into a vagina for transexuals. This is the policy in the city of San Franciso. Our military medical and VA medical capability are maxed out due to the casualties coming out of the two war zones. We can't afford the burden and additional expense of such operations.
LGBT doesn't give a damn that they have the highest risk, due to their sexual behavior, for contracting all manner of sexual diseases including AIDS. Can you imagine having your son or daughter go off to war only to come home with AIDS contracted from an emergency blood transfusion?
LGBT doesn't give a damn if war fighters exit the military due to DADT ending and LGBT serving openly. Our success on the battlefield in fighting two wars is furthest from the minds of these people.
The US is at war. This is no time to take up this legislation. We should be coming up with more and better ways to send the terrorists to their "heaven" as soon as is practical.
What I would like to see is no LGBT serving in any of our military services. We don't need them. In this time of war they are a distraction that our military shouldn't have to put up with.
I was in the
Submitted by pratsha45 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:03pm.
I was in the military in just four months ago and served for four years on multiple commands, ships, continents, and areas of operation (AORs). At no point and in no location during my time in the military did I come across a command that was completely heterosexual - there were gay people at every single command in every single country I was in.
Regardless of how you feel about them, they did their job and did it with honor for the country and deserve our respect for defending our liberties - liberties that they, like the non-integrated 'negroes' before them, are denied on a daily basis through ignorance and bigotry. The news media and movie industry paint a negative picture of the gay community as effeminate and "fabulous" when a lot of the gay folks I was friends with were actually quite "normal" in every sense of the word and at least two of them were former high school football players!
The news media and movie
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 7:03pm.
The news media and movie industry paint a negative picture of the gay community as effeminate and "fabulous" when a lot of the gay folks I was friends with were actually quite "normal" in every sense of the word and at least two of them were former high school football players!Coulnt be that they themselves have themselves to blame for their image.
I was in the military in just
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 7:12pm.
I'm not buying it- what branch and for what country? What was your MOS? Rank?
The only people I have heard equate---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 2:48am.
the militant fight for Gay Rights, to the Black Experience, have been G, or L, or B, or T.
pratsha's "military speak" sounds a bit disjointed.
MD