Is it good or bad that Eric Fanning, a gay man, could be the new Secretary of the Army?

Why should it matter if he is gay or straight. They did away with DADT....but the Secretary of the Army is a civilian anyway.

As long as he can do his job then his sexual preference should not matter. I don't even know why it is an issue.

I thought it telling that they highlighted that he was gay rather than that we was previously an OSD guy who had mostly worked in shipbuilding and fighter acquisitions (two areas that have been especially bad lately, though how much of that is really his fault is very much debatable). I wonder why that is?

I guess the Army has some major acquisition programs they want screwed up.

It doesn't matter that he's gay...that's just another way for 0bama to shove something else down America's throat that he thinks we can't tolerate.

What's bad is that anyone 0bama chooses for anything doesn't have the welfare of America at heart- it's all social engineering and pushing an agenda.

Highly questionable! There is a high degree of probability that Fanning was nominated BECAUSE he is gay.... not because of any of his qualifications for job performance.

That seems to be a characteristic that is more important to the Obama Administration that is competence on the job.... at least that has been their history so far.

i think it is Great a Man promoted on his abilities and Not his Gender maybe the USA is beginning to Grow up

No One Complained when Turing helped save the UK with His Code Braking in WW2 except to offer him 2 Choices after the War Prison or Chemical Castration just because he was Born Gay

Should make no difference at all

I am willing to bet he is not thee first gay to be s service secretary, he is just the first to be open about it

About par for the course in Post America.

Historically, homosexuals have never been trusted, because they are liars and perverts and subject to blackmail.

As long as he can do the job, why should you care? Your question is irrelevant.

terrible news