November 29th, 2010
12:11 PM ET

Poll: Majority support gays serving openly in military

Editor's Note: CNN's Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser files this report on the CNN Political Ticker.

A national poll released Monday indicates that a majority of Americans say they favor allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.

The Pew survey's release comes one day before the Pentagon is expected to release a report on how military personnel feel about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans openly gay troops for serving in the armed forces.

According to the Pew survey, seven in 10 Democrats and more than six in 10 independent voters favor allowing gays to serve openly in the military with Republicans divided on the issue. By a 48 to 34 percent margin, white evangelical Protestants questioned say they oppose allowing gays from serving openly, while majorities or pluralities of other religious groups surveyed favor allowing gays to serve.

Read the full story on CNN's Political Ticker

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Homosexuality • Military

soundoff (47 Responses)
  1. JohnQuest

    I don't recall once being asked about the overall military policy when I was serving. You are giving orders and you follow them, it's as simple as that. The President makes a declaration and the military follows it, will they send out questionnaires about which wars to fight or who should be promoted to General, I think not. If asked in 1940 if the military should integrate or if women should serve, the overwhelming response would have been He LL no. Do we really want our military to question orders from our civilian government, that would be a recipe for disaster.

    November 30, 2010 at 3:39 pm |
    • ybs

      JohnQuest, you are right on!

      John McCain is just a bitter loser! πŸ™‚


      December 3, 2010 at 5:15 pm |
  2. Reality

    "DOD Asks: How Would You Feel Showering With G-ays
    AOL News WASHINGTON (July 9) –

    The Pentagon wants to know if service members would attend military social functions with same-s-ex couples, whether they would be uncomfortable sharing a tent or shower with ga-y co-workers, and how their families would feel if they served in units that included g-ay men and les-bians.

    Those are just some of the questions in a confidential survey sent to 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops this week as part of an effort to gauge reactions in the ranks if the military lifts its "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has kept g-ay and le-sbian troops in the closet for the last 17 years. "

    November 29, 2010 at 11:46 pm |
  3. Gary

    let anyone in the military who is brave enough to serve this great country

    November 29, 2010 at 10:02 pm |
  4. Satan

    Great, let them fight. I will be fighting right alongside them. Unfortunately for the US, god will be alongside the other team.

    November 29, 2010 at 5:32 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      God seems to have a poor track record. The Third Reich`s belt-buckles said He was with them too...

      November 29, 2010 at 9:07 pm |
    • civilioutside

      And while out there on the battlefield, it will be equally instructive to keep an eye out for which army has Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker, Sauron or Gandalf, and Hades or Zeus on their side as well.

      November 30, 2010 at 11:16 am |
  5. Frogist

    I hope to see much progress on equality for gays in my lifetime. This is a feasible step. Much of the country is in support. I hope this can get pushed through despite the opposition from the right. These gay men and women are dying for their country, why can't their country recognize them for who they are?

    November 29, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
    • Peace2All


      I think if we take a moment and look 'through time,' over a period of many years... just look at the last 30 years, if you like, we definitely can see 'more' equality happening for Gays.

      And, this process and change will absolutely continue to grow stronger. It 'is' already happening...

      Fear not...CK...!!!


      November 30, 2010 at 2:17 am |
  6. Flying spaghetti Monster

    So to all the people who know what God Thinks How could you possibly know? How is it that humans are making assumptions on what god feels what he thinks and what he will do? And don't just say I just Know because you don't and you have no proof that you do. Religion is a multi billion dollar business so Stevie become an atheist and join reality and blame yourself for not catching the ball. And football players quit pointing up in the air thinking someone is actually pulling the strings on the game and giving you the talent to make plays.

    November 29, 2010 at 4:35 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Flying spaghetti Monster

      *pointing his 'holiness' in the direction of the article: "Wide out blames God for dropped ball." *

      Of course... er... your post works quite fine on *this* article as well.

      Just assistin' his 'holy noodleness' in any way I can. πŸ™‚


      November 29, 2010 at 6:10 pm |
  7. Samuel

    Discusting ! I will never trust the military again. When time will come when Nature will come back to Her sense and pu things straight back again.

    November 29, 2010 at 3:34 pm |
    • Peace2All


      What...? 😯


      November 29, 2010 at 3:36 pm |
    • .308

      @ Samuel

      Hey – Don't beaugard.

      November 29, 2010 at 3:41 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Peace2All: LOL! You've been using that face a lot lately! Just remember if you keep making that face it might freeze that way! Hope you had a great weekend.

      November 29, 2010 at 5:20 pm |
    • Peace2All


      Yeah... I am going to have to blame -Sum Dude for corrupting me with that 'face' thing. That was his little invention.

      Anyways, yes... i had a very nice weekend and Turkey Day. Hope that you did too...!


      November 29, 2010 at 6:03 pm |
  8. marconi darwin

    So you have majority of the people for it. You have the Sec of Defense, Joint CoS, for it. You have the troops for it. The Pentagon study due to be released indicates minimal to no risk in any nonsensical "troop morale" issues.

    You have Obama for it.

    And yet DADT will not be repealed.

    Why? Because Obama is not really FOR it.

    November 29, 2010 at 3:30 pm |
    • Luke


      He is ready for it. That is why he said he was for it. Meanwhile,. John McCain is out there campaigning against it. Is he not ready for it, or do you just like saying things about the President that are blatently false?

      November 29, 2010 at 4:04 pm |
  9. Parks

    I am against gays serving openly in the US military!

    November 29, 2010 at 3:01 pm |
    • marconi darwin

      Well, then go live in Iran.

      November 29, 2010 at 3:30 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Any particular reason?
      Do you think that where a soldier puts his willy has an effect on his capacity to serve?

      November 29, 2010 at 3:30 pm |
    • Peace2All




      November 29, 2010 at 3:35 pm |
  10. Luke

    I've always found it rather interesting that the US Military openly discriminates against its own population, but during war-time, calls upon ally nations that have openly gay soldiers serving in their militiaries. Hence, they train, serve and fight with gay soldiers anyway. Only in the mind of a true moron does this make any sense.

    November 29, 2010 at 2:34 pm |
    • Peace2All


      Well said...


      November 29, 2010 at 3:34 pm |
  11. Doc Vestibule

    Military culture is not going to change over night, regardless of what rules are changed on paper.
    In the US, some 39% of Army and Marine Corps roles are closed to females despite public opinion to the contrary.
    Traditionally, there have been two things you cannot be if you wear a uniform: A thief or gay. Punishment for those found to be in those categories is unnoffical and severe.

    November 29, 2010 at 1:29 pm |
    • Luke

      Being a theif is against the law in the civilian courts and military courts. Being gay is not. DADT is purely discriminatory. Some roles are closed to women for a number of reasons, many of which are being examined as well. For instance, women are not allowed on submarines. Why? Because a soldier on a submarine must be able to carry a 200 man up a ladder in the event of an emergency. Can't say I know of any women that can pass this test.

      November 29, 2010 at 2:39 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Luke, I think that has changed in the past couple years. Women are now allowed to serve on subs. Or, well, they will be by 2012.

      November 29, 2010 at 5:15 pm |
    • Peace2All


      Did you say in... 2012...? You mean the year that our whole Universe is supposed to implode on itself. Helloooooo Mayan calendar...?

      See, Frogist, I wouldn't be keepin' my fingers crossed, as it seems that the ladies will not be catching a break 'that' year...! Well, for that matter, it seems we're all going to be toast that year... πŸ™‚


      November 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Peace2All: Oh snap! I forgot about that! Women's rights foiled again?!
      *shakes fist at sky* Damn you Mayans! Damn you to Mayan Hell!

      November 29, 2010 at 6:32 pm |
  12. Peace2All

    Well, now we have some pew polls that state that the 'majority' of Americans are O.K with gays serving openly in the military.

    What I have never understood yet, is the real reasons behind the seeming bigotry in the first place. Are there 'any' solid research studies that show of 'gays' somehow underperforming or placing their fellow 'straight' soldiers at risk...?

    I mean, given that they are already serving in the military, what's the problem...?


    November 29, 2010 at 1:26 pm |
    • David Johnson


      *shudder*! What if the person next to you in a foxhole were gay? – Yep, a pretty scary scenario. Or what if you, by accident, drank from a gay person's canteen? The gay would then be in you!

      There were sound reasons for DADT . Would god allow an army with gays win? I think not!

      November 29, 2010 at 2:00 pm |
    • .308

      @ Peace

      The elimination of DADT will result in formalized complaints of same-s3x discrimination, persecution, and coercion which the military will then be forced to deal with – openly and legally. This will of course accord a formal legal standing to the parties involved. This standing will, in turn, lead to questions of recognition and application, not only of military law, but of pertinent
      state laws for marriage or partnership, and the military's legal obligations to provide co-residence, health-care, and other general benefits.

      This is far, far from a 'moral' issue. Same goes for establish state laws legalizing gay marriage. No one (that matters) really cares who your doing what with. That thinking is archaic. Sort of like "inter-racial marriage." No one cares anymore... we just say "Bless you both – I'm glad you're both happy."

      It's all about the money. Plain and simple – at least to me.

      November 29, 2010 at 2:15 pm |
    • .308

      @ David

      Good job thinking it through, Dave. You never fail to entertain. Join up and you can find out for yourself.

      *hands him napkin for the drool.

      November 29, 2010 at 2:22 pm |
    • Peace2All


      Interesting take... Thanks for the different perspective, as I had not really explored the *money* angle.


      November 29, 2010 at 2:45 pm |
    • Peace2All


      Thanks for the laugh bro... πŸ™‚


      November 29, 2010 at 2:47 pm |
    • marconi darwin

      Religion, lack of education or both. There is NO other reason for it

      November 29, 2010 at 3:33 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ marconi

      So you unilaterally discount the money angle?

      November 29, 2010 at 3:35 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @marconi darwin

      You Said:-"Religion, lack of education or both. There is NO other reason for it"

      And, you know this for *certain* how...?


      November 29, 2010 at 3:41 pm |
    • Frogist

      @.308: I see what you're saying. But I disagree that there aren't people who care about who you're sleeping with. Folks are still very much uncomfortable with LGBT people. It may be about the money in some aspects, but it's very much a religious issue for some, and as Reality put it, just a "yucky" thing for others. As for inter-racial marriages, unbelievable as it is, people still care.

      November 29, 2010 at 5:32 pm |
    • .308


      Of course, I agree they are still around. But I don't think that they're the driving force behind not eliminating DADT. I think it's predominately $$. However, I don't doubt for a minute that allowing the bigots' discomfort to be the convenient "fall-guy" isn't an effective delaying tactic. It will happen, but when it does I hope the military is legally prepared for the eventual repercussions.

      November 29, 2010 at 6:33 pm |
  13. Reality

    Then there is this:

    Hmmm lets see, in gay se-xual activity, who plays the guy and who plays the gal? Who is on top and who is on the bottom? A coin flip? To say the least, an unusual situation.Is said activity wrong and worthy of a trip to hell? Of course not but to the general heterose-xual population it is yucky, unusual and not normal to them. With that mind set, approval by the majority is not always sanctioned in law.

    The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay s-exual activities, "unionized" or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said A-IDS epidemic in the g-ay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the ga-y community.

    -Impressive list of gay people who did not let their defect get in the way of being a contribution to society.

    And from below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, ga-y s-exual activity is still mutual m-astu-rbation caused by one or more complex s-exual defects. Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies, show it outwardly as alluded to in the following synopsis:

    From Wikipedia:

    No simple cause for se-xual orientation has been co-nclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific co-nsensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psy-chological As-sociation have both stated that se-xual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heteros-exual, ho-mos-exual or bise-xual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of s-exual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

    o All "Abrahamics" believe that their god created all of us and of course that includes the g-ay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.

    To wit:

    o The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:

    β€œ Despite almost a century of psy-choanalytic and psy-chological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heteros-exual or hom-ose-xual orientation. It would appear that s-exual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] "
    "Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fe-tal brain develops during the intraut-erine period in the male direction through a direct action of tes-tosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and s-exual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8

    Of course, those gays who belong to Abrahamic religions abide by the rules of no adu-ltery or for-nication allowed.

    November 29, 2010 at 1:11 pm |
  14. Reality

    Tis all about the taking showers!!!

    November 29, 2010 at 12:56 pm |
    • marconi darwin

      I sympathize with your condition. That every time you get into a shower someone wants to sodomize you.

      November 29, 2010 at 3:32 pm |
    • Peace2All


      November 29, 2010 at 3:46 pm |
    • Lynn

      Nearly all military members shower in private showers. Why is it that this comes up everytime DADT is mentioned? Get with it people, it is the 21st century and open barracks/showers for dozens of military personnel is nearly a thing of the past.

      December 1, 2010 at 12:54 pm |
  15. .308

    I have absolutely no concern with eliminating DADT – maintaining the military handles complaints of same-s3x discrimination and coercion seriously.

    November 29, 2010 at 12:43 pm |
  16. David Johnson

    Then why isn't "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" history? Why can't gays marry? Why are we letting a Desert Hobgobblin dictate policy?

    Let's fire all the gods! It is time for change! Just say NO to god!

    Me, after cracking an egg into a hot pan: "This is your brain on religion!"

    Love and Prayers!

    November 29, 2010 at 12:27 pm |
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.