In an interview with the Daily Caller about a potential 2012 Presidential run, Bolton specifically addressed the subject of allowing gay and lesbian servicemembers to serve openly:

Asked about the president’s plan to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ Bolton said he is generally in favor of allowing anyone who wants to serve their country in the military to do so.

“I don’t have any trouble with that [repealing ‘Don’t Ask, ‘Don’t Tell] assuming it is done in a way that is respectful of the people in the military who have great difficulty with it,” he said. “I don’t think there is any good answer to the question why shouldn’t gays and lesbians who want to serve their country be allowed to do it.”

Read more of Bolton’s interview in the Daily Caller.

By Jeb Bush and Robert D. Putnam
Saturday, July 3, 2010; A19

On our national birthday, and amid an angry debate about immigration, Americans should reflect on the lessons of our shared immigrant past. We must recall that the challenges facing our nation today were felt as far back as the Founders’ time. Immigrant assimilation has always been slow and contentious, with progress measured not in years but in decades. Yet there are steps communities and government should take to form a more cohesive, successful union.

Consider what one leader wrote in 1753: “Few of their children in the country learn English. The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages. . . . Unless the stream of their importation could be turned . . . they will soon so outnumber us that we will not preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious.” Thus Ben Franklin referred to German Americans, still the largest ethnic group in America. A century later, Midwestern cities such as Cincinnati and St. Louis were mostly German-speaking. So worried were their native-born neighbors that Iowa outlawed speaking German in public and even in private conversation.

Proponents and opponents of immigration agree on one thing: Learning English is crucial to success and assimilation. Yet learning a language as an adult is hard, so first-generation immigrants often use their native tongue. Historically, English has dominated by the second or third generation in all immigrant groups. Most recent immigrants recognize that they need to learn English, and about 90 percent of the second generation speak English, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Research by sociologists Claude Fischer and Michael Hout published in 2008 suggests that English acquisition among immigrants today is faster than in previous waves.

Residential integration of immigrants is even more gradual. Half a century ago, sociologist Stanley Lieberson showed that most immigrants lived in segregated enclaves, “Little Italy” or “Chinatown,” for several generations. This segregation reflected discrimination by natives and the natural desire of “strangers in a strange land” to live among familiar faces with familiar customs. Only with suburbanization, encouraged by government policy in the 1950s and 1960s, did the children and grandchildren of the immigrants of the 1890s and 1900s exit those enclaves. That many of today’s immigrants live in ethnic enclaves is thus entirely normal and reflects no ominous aim to separate themselves from the wider American community.

Immigrant intermarriage, then and now, also demonstrates steady progress over generations. In the 1960s, more than half a century after Italian immigration peaked, about 40 percent of second-generation Italians married non-Italians. This pattern characterizes today’s immigrants: 39 percent of U.S.-born Latinos marry non-Latinos, according to the Pew Research Center. Intermarriage among second-generation Asian Americans is even more common. Today’s immigrants are, on average, assimilating socially even more rapidly than earlier waves.

One important difference, however, that separates immigration then and now: We native-born Americans are doing less than our great-grandparents did to welcome immigrants.

A century ago, religious, civic and business groups and government provided classes in English and citizenship. Historian Thomas P. Vadasz found that in Bethlehem, Pa., a thriving town of about 20,000, roughly two-thirds of whom were immigrants, the biggest employer, Bethlehem Steel, and the local YMCA offered free English instruction to thousands of immigrants in the early 20th century, even paying them to take classes. Today, immigrants face long waiting lists for English classes, even ones they pay for.

Why is this important? A legal immigration system is the not-so-secret edge in a competitive, interconnected world economy. Immigrants enhance our ability to grow and prosper in the dynamic global marketplace. We will need every possible advantage to expand our economy amid its fiscal challenges. Moreover, the aging of our population places a premium on young, productive workers, many of whom must come from immigration.

To improve their integration into our American community, we should:

– Provide low-cost English classes, in cooperation with local civic and religious groups, where immigrants build personal ties with co-ethnics and native-born Americans. These connections foster assimilation and help newcomers navigate our complex institutions.

– Invest in public education, including civics education and higher education. During the first half of the 20th century, schools were critical to preparing children of immigrants for success and fostering a shared national identity.

– Assist communities experiencing rapid increases in immigration, which is traumatic for those arriving here and for receiving communities. Schools and hospitals bear disproportionate costs of immigration, while the economic and fiscal benefits from immigration accrue nationally.

Assimilation does not mean immigrants shed ethnic identities. Our national experience with hyphenated identities shows that good Americans can retain a strong sense of ethnic identity.

We’ve lived our national motto, “E Pluribus Unum” (“Out of Many, One”), better than any other country. But we ought not to airbrush our ancestors’ difficulties in assimilation, nor fail to match our forebears’ efforts to help integrate immigrants. Government, churches, libraries, civic organizations and businesses must cooperate to address this challenge, as they did a century ago.

Jeb Bush was governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007. Robert D. Putnam is the Malkin professor of public policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Almost as significant as the judge’s decision, was the fact that Judge Joseph Tauro was an appointee of Richard Nixon. Conservative judges and courts across the country are ruling in favor of equal rights, including Iowa’s ruling allowing gay marriage and other court decisions in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Another major case in California over Prop. 8 is being considered by conservative appointed Judge Vaughn Walker. Conservative judges are the ones stepping up in the name of equality across the nation. Read more from The Boston Globe on this story.

Key Findings from the Survey:

“The survey, conducted May 27 – June 2, 2010, shows Rep. Cao leading Cedric Richmond 51%-26% and Karen Carter Peterson 49%-30% in head-to-head matchups. When voters were asked if they would vote for Rep. Cao or “someone else,” Cao led 46%-29%. The Congressman has name recognition of 94%, 54% holding a favorable opinion of him and only 9% holding an unfavorable opinion.”

“The survey of 400 voters provides a survey error factor of 5.0% at a .95 level of confidence, meaning that if every voter in the Congressional District were interviewed, instead of this sample of 400, there is a 95% probability that results would be within 5% of those in this poll.”

For Additional Information:

 “Please contact Dr. Verne Kennedy at (850) 384-7040 or e-mail vkennedy@mri-research.com for more information. For additional comments, please call Bryan Wagner, Senior Campaign Advisor, at 504-616-6318.”

 ”I didn’t choose to be gay, I chose to be a Republican. I am a Republican. I am also a gay man. There’s obviously a lot of work to do in education and communication on both sides. Republicans are voters, donors, elected leaders; you don’t have to be mutually exclusive, just like one does not have to be mutually exclusive as being a person of faith and being gay or lesbian, and the same can be applied with politics as well.”

Read the entire article at http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Politicians/King_of_the_Cabin/

In newspapers and blogs, on television and the Internet we are constantly bombarded by the idea  that being gay automatically means we must choose the Democratic Party and all Republicans are basically anti-gay. I understand that Republicans do not have the greatest track record on gay issues, but times are changing. The basic tenants of the Republican Party support gays and all of their rights and change is inevitable, but will take some hard work.

Several years ago I was a young, scared boy and I knew that I was gay, but growing up in a staunch Republican family was one more strong reason I could not be. At least, that is what I was taught by family, friends and the media. Somehow though, I do not think life was ever meant to be guided by the instructions found in a “Build Your Own Adventure” book. Where in life does it say at the bottom of the page:

“If you decide to be gay, you are democrat – turn to page 37.”
“If you decide to be straight, you can be anything – turn to page 12 for independent, 25 for republican, 37 for democrat…”?

I have often heard people say, “I just don’t get the idea of gay Republicans.” Personally, as one who has grown up as a gay man in a Republican family, I don’t understand why more of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community are not Republican.

I was recently reviewing the core ideals of the Republican Party: limited government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, strong national defense and free market economy and all of those basics support equality for GLBT individuals. Here’s why:

A limited government would keep the government out of restricting the right to marry from one person to another. Many individuals within the party have lost sight of what a limited government truly means, it is time to bring it back.

Individual freedom promotes the ideas of “life (to live it as we choose), liberty (so our choices are not limited), and the pursuit of happiness (to live it with whom we choose)” promised all Americans in the Declaration of Independence. All people should be allowed the privilege of making their own decisions where they do not infringe upon the same privilege of another.

Personal responsibility allows every person the ability to support themselves and the ones they love, i.e. adoption, hospital rights, legal rights.

A strong national defense would only be stronger from those GLBT men and women with integrity openly serving and honoring their loved ones and country.

A free market economy protects all business owners from government intervention.

To date, the Republican Party, as a whole, has not done much for equality, but what more have the Democratic congress and executive branch done? It seems they continuously make empty promises, which hurt those they promise to protect.

To be Republican is not to be anti-gay, nor is it necessarily socially conservative, and it is time for the community to open its mind and begin to allow people to be individuals. There are an increasing number of prominent members of the Republican Party coming out as supporters of equal rights for all, such as Laura Bush and Cindy McCain. Yet, it is no wonder that many people feel that they cannot be both, and that those who are both are anomalies, when they are constantly told that Democrats are pro-gay and Republicans are anti-gay. I have grown tired of it.

 Gays who are former Republicans often ask me how I can be a Republican as a gay man, to which I reply, “We are different. You see something you do not like and so you change your party. I see something I do not like and I work to bring about change from within.”

I am proudly gay and proudly Republican. After all, an elephant just doesn’t fit in a closet.

 “The Obama administration is playing down the absence of U.N. Security Council unanimity in adopting new sanctions against Iran on Wednesday, attributing three members’ refusal to back the resolution to differences over “timing and tactics.”
 
Turkey and Brazil voted against resolution 1929, while Lebanon abstained.
 
For all its supposed unilateralism and unpopularity at the U.N., the Bush administration was twice able to pull off what the current administration has not – a 15 out of 15 vote in the council for sanctions against Tehran. On a third occasion, the Bush administration achieved a 14-0 vote, with one abstention.
 
Resolutions 1737 (in 2006), 1747 (2007) and 1803 (2008) were, at China and Russia’s insistence, less robust than the U.S. would have wished. But at least the unanimous vote result in the first two cases demonstrated a unified position on Iran’s nuclear activities by the world body’s most powerful organ.
 
The Bush administration was widely accused of substandard diplomacy, not least by its domestic critics. U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said last September the new administration had “dramatically changed the tone, the substance, and the practice of our diplomacy at the United Nations” and accused the previous one of “stiff-arming the U.N. and spurning our international partners.”
 
Yet under some of her predecessors – John Bolton in the months leading up to the 2006 resolution, Alejandro Wolff in 2007, and Zalmay Khalilzad in 2008 – the U.S. managed to win over several non-permanent Council members either sympathetic to Iran, or at least not pro-Western in outlook.
 
They included Qatar (2006 and 2007), Indonesia (2007), South Africa (2007 and 2008), Vietnam (2008) – and even Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya (2008).

In voting no on Wednesday, Brazil and Turkey argued the sanctions would endanger a diplomatic solution to the standoff, which has dragged on since 2002. (According to Beirut’s Daily Star, Lebanon abstained after its cabinet could not reach agreement on the matter. Western-leaning ministers wanted an abstention; Hezbollah and its allies wanted Lebanon to vote against the resolution.)
 
Brazil and Turkey last month negotiated an agreement for Iran to send some of its low-enriched uranium abroad for processing, and said afterwards that there was no longer any need for additional U.N. sanctions.
 
But the U.S. and others pressed ahead with negotiations on a draft resolution, saying the Turkey-Brazil-Iran deal did not resolve the core questions driving suspicion that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability under the cover of a civilian program.
 
When the Security Council a year ago unanimously approved a resolution tightening sanctions against North Korea, U.S. diplomats stressed the importance of the fact the council was “speaking with one voice.”
 
Testifying before Congress in February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers that it was important that “we speak with one voice, one voice within our government and one voice internationally, against Iran’s failure to live up to its responsibilities.”
 
Administration officials on Wednesday minimized the significance of the 12-2 vote.
 
“The passage today of resolution 1929 occurred with a very strong majority of the Security Council,” U.S. ambassador Rice said after the session. “We are very pleased by the outcome and pleased by the strong support that was demonstrated by Council members.”
 
“The fact that Turkey and Brazil chose to vote no, I think as you heard in their statements, was a reflection largely of a difference of timing and tactics,” she said.
“Both countries affirmed their view that Iran should not have a nuclear weapons capability, we share that goal. They differed with the other members of the Security Council about the timing and appropriateness of sanctions at this stage.”
 
“We would have welcomed a unanimous vote,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told a briefing. “We didn’t get the unanimous vote, but we got a very, very strong, compelling statement from the international community.”
 
Asked whether the absence of unanimity weakened the signal of collective will, Crowley alluded to the difficulties faced by diplomats.
 
“I would say that given the amount of effort and length of effort by Iran to try to do everything in its power to avoid this moment, I think we are satisfied that this sends a very strong message,” he said.
 
“We have a difference of view over perhaps tactics and timing. We respect that. But I think we are very satisfied that this resolution will raise the cost of Iran’s noncompliance,” Crowley said.
 
“We are going to, now working with international partners, move ahead with aggressively enforcing this resolution. And we expect that it will have impact in Iran.” ”

 Barry Goldwater wrote a transcript in 1993 on his opinion and opposition to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The following are outstanding quotes from Goldwater on the issue.

 “The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least – and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.”

 “I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it’s high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.”

 “After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn’t exactly nothing, but it’s pretty damned close.”

 “But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country’s economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.”

 “If I were in the Senate today, I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.”