Just do it.
Unlike 16 years ago, the US is waging two wars and ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is no longer supported by the majority of the American people. The percentage of Americans that support allowing gay people to serve openly has risen from 44 percent in 1993 to 75 percent last year, according to Washington Post-ABC News polls.. While a 2006 Zogby International poll of returning Iraq and Afghanistan service members found that only 26 percent agreed that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military, 73 percent were personally comfortable around gays and lesbians.
There is also no credible evidence supporting the underlying arguments for retaining the law – namely that it would undermine unit cohesion and military effectiveness. In fact, government studies over the past 50 years demonstrate just the opposite.
Moreover, 24 other countries, including our closest allies, such as Britain, Israel, and Canada, allow openly gay people to serve. In fact, the British, whose military is most similar in design and function to our own, found that six months after they were forced to change their policy by the European Court of Human Rights, sexual orientation became a nonissue.
In other words, allowing openly gay men and women to serve proved more difficult in theory than in practice. Even an architect of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell,’ Rear Adm. John Hutson, has acknowledged that the policy was ‘based on nothing’ but ‘our own prejudices and our own fears.’
To quote Rachel Maddow– Obama needs to grab the third rail.
(even though this shouldn’t be third rail stuff.)
Not having a policy in place where openly gay men and women serve in the military is ludicrous and embarrassing. He needs to ignore the generals frightened STILL by gay people and do the right thing.
Hope! Change!
Having served in the military I can tell you serving openly gay spells disaster.
While it may be fine in a REMF unit this is going to be very dangerous in a high testosterone field. Unfortunately there are going to be young men who suffer potentialy deadly blanket parties.
Does anyone remember the young 101st soldier beaten to death in his bunk over openly dating a transvestite stripper?
Say what you like but the military is the last bastion for rednecks. Not all of us are rednecks but they are still there.
Having said that, be thankful for these rednecks many come from a long line of serving men & po’ white trash and we all know some families do more for their country than others.
This is frustrating. For all the Good an Obama presidency will do us the fact is the man still is on the wrong side of basic civil rights.
Keep at him Oliver, maybe he’ll wake up.
One last thing BHO knows nothing about military service. Decisions like this should be made by people with comensurate background and experience. IE: someone who has been there. Any coments from some real combat veterans?
July 2, 2009 at 5:26 pm by David Warner
In a case that suggests the potentially dangerous consequences of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, a gay sailor was found murdered on his base, Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, California, early Tuesday morning. He had recently complained to family members that he was being harassed.
The sailor, August Provost, kept his private life quiet for the most part, but trusted that his friends knew, according to an interview with his partner in the San Diego Union-Tribune. His family had encouraged him to report the harassment to a supervisor. It’s not clear whether he did, or whether he even could have; admitting that he’d been harassed could have led to admission that he was gay, which is grounds for dismissal from the Navy. In an online article for San Diego’s Gay and Lesbian Times, the chair of the San Diego Human Relations Commission, openly gay City Commissioner Nicole Murray-Ramirez (pictured right), refers to sources on the base that say the harassment was in fact gay-related and that Provost had been facing a possible discharge based on his sexual orientation.
Murray-Ramirez says there was a long delay between the murder and public release of information, noting that U.S. Congressman Bob Filner was on the base Tuesday and was not informed of the murder. The Human Relations Commission is calling for an investigation into whether this was a hate crime. Meanwhile, a “person of interest” is being held in custody. Read the full text of the Union-Tribune story after the break.
From the San Diego Union-Tribune:
I disagree Yodler, basic civil rights is not something we should have to ask the military pretty please about. Ask the Military bout things that deal with their function.
Gee, Obama just doesn’t really have the truth in him. He lied during his campaign repeaatedly, he lied during his first 5 months. He lied about what Bush was doing, he lied about what he was going to do, he lied. Is there a part of you that is slowly going to get it?
“yodler66″: “this is going to be very dangerous in a high testosterone field.”
Would you disallow women from serving?
Maybe if we didn’t ask a soldier if they were a woman and they didn’t tell us, would it be okay if they served then?
“yodler66″: “Say what you like but the military is the last bastion for rednecks.”
It was also the last bastion for males.
And the last bastion for white males.
Baby steps, “yodler66″, baby steps…
Big political payoff for overturning DADT for Obama. Sooner the better. He gets to be a leader and further isolate the increasingly isolated Republicans who oppose what’s coming sooner or later. I don’t get what he’s waiting for. Someone else to lead?
“yodler66″: “Unfortunately there are going to be young men who suffer potentialy [sic] deadly blanket parties.”
“Yodler66″, You can’t handle the Truth!
If you were aware of or participated in or directed any ‘blanket party’ you should have been dishonorably discharged.
And if you were aware of or participated in or directed any ‘deadly blanket party’ you should have been imprisoned for a good long chunk of time.
I wonder if you people realize that soldiers give up certain civil liberties when they enlist?
Assumed Observer, who did you vote for exactly? What was McCain’s position on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? What was his position on gay marriage or adoption?
Yeah, we’re disappointed in Barrack on this issue, hopefully once Health Care gets passed he’ll make this a priority. But do any of us on the left think, even for a minute, that gay rights under McCain wouldn’t be ridiculously worse?
I took gigantic babysteps in combat boots, I am a woman, thank you. The only woman in a 17 man tent for 9 hot sweaty months in combat. A female blackhawk mechanic (see opening pix). I survived a great deal of harssment for that too.
My concern is not to protect the straight men from gays, but to protect gay men from homophobes.
If the military is unable to provide me with safe sleeping quarters durring combat what makes anyone think they can protect a gay private?
Oh coed showers and shitters too…
Periods were great fun!
If I could have hidden the fact I was a woman I sure as hell would have!
Many many ways to die in combat…
The blanket party i am aware of I referenced in my opening post thank you news. Ever serve in the military or did you just watch ‘Tropic Thunder’?
Yes Farris–hope and change. And even disagreement. We don’t have to walk lock step and zombied with the president as you did with Gearge.
Yes yodler66…as an old (38 years) retired vet…I fought in the name of THE Constitution…if you believe that breaking the law, ie “blanket parties”, is in the name of THE Constitution and that those “white trash” are right…then YOU belong in the brig…not “THE GAY”. Get over the gross sex factor…
hopefully once Health Care gets passed he’ll make this a priority.
Nonsense. Passing Health Care reform involves getting 535 Congresscritters (okay, actually 218 in the House and 50 in the Senate) to agree on a single set of provisions. Giveaways, tradeoffs, pet pork: the whole sausage-making process.
Meanwhile, DODT could be done away with by a single executive order. If Barack wanted, he could have handled it in the first 10 minutes.
But do any of us on the left think… that gay rights under McCain wouldn’t be ridiculously worse?
If Gays were serious about a new administration activly supporting their issues, they should have backed … Dick Cheney!
News you still out there????
CRICKETS
do you live under a bridge & eat goats, cause you sure act like a TROLL!
The truth I speak is the truth I lived.
“Yodler66″: “… be thankful for these rednecks many come from a long line of serving men & po’ white trash and we all know some families do more for their country than others.”
I’m thankful for everyone who has served honorably in our American Armed Forces.
As I understand it, African American families do more proportionally in the US military than other groups.
I’m not sure how current the DefenseLink.mil numbers (below) are but those statistics are saying that African Americans represent 17.3% of the Active Armed Forces, that’s significantly higher than the 13.5% (infoplease) of African Americans in the general US population.
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/2007/BlackHistoryMonth/Index.html
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmcensus1.html
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/3/6/8/p103683_index.html
“I’m a Hick”: “It’s not clear whether he did, or whether he even could have; admitting that he’d been harassed could have led to admission that he was gay, which is grounds for dismissal from the Navy.”
That’s an especially nasty Catch 22.
“Yodler66″: “One last thing BHO knows nothing about military service. Decisions like this should be made by people with comensurate [sic] background and experience.”
Nonsense.
President Obama is the military’s Commander in Chief.
Anyone in the military that doesn’t understand, accept, and respect that chain of command should be relieved of duty immediately, perhaps even given a dishonorable discharge.
The US isn’t Honduras.
That’s not to say the President shouldn’t absolutely respect the advice of his Generals, but those Generals absolutely must respect that the President as their Commander and Chief, within the confines of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution.
And that’s not to suggest that the President should be able to write a signing statement and do away with a binding Act of the Legislature like DADT, either.
Meanwhile, DODT could be done away with by a single executive order. If Barack wanted, he could have handled it in the first 10 minutes.
I think, unfortunately, President Obama saw how conservatives made DODT a huge thorn in the side for Clinton and would like to hold off dealing with it until he gets his other important legislation passed. That way they can’t come out of the woodwork and make it the focus of debate, like you did last time, keeping us from dealing with other issues.
yodler66, I find it frustrating to hear of our military behaving in ways unbefitting to the uniform. Why does the US military in particular have such issues with women and gays in uniform when Australia, New Zealand and other countries don’t have the same issues? Is it part of the US military culture? Whatever the cause, it needs to be changed.
[...] Slow to Get It Right I understand the sentiments and share the frustrations that inform posts like these, but I still come down on the side of Mark Kleiman, who writes: Francesco Guicciardini [...]
Nasty little conundrum there newsie: you must admit BHO has NO MILITARY experience! not even graduated basic training, yet he is the comander in cheif.
BTW I represent the latest generation of a po’ white trash family to serve going back to the revolution, to include family on both sides of our civil war.
And yes the first person to die for U.S.A. was Crispus Attucks, black man. Not that I brought race into this, all the men & women I served with were OD green.
Just for clarification, Please note I made redneck & po’ white trash two separate entities.
One a mindset while the other a birthright.
Also I got out under the first commander in cheif I had no respect for, slick willie.
If Obama issues an executive order that does away with DADT, what will happen with the legislation currently in the works to repeal it? I suspect if Obama does it now, there’s going to be a lot less pressure on Congress to pass that legislation.
I’d rather see DADT gone for good, than have a future president restore it.
And for the record, during the campaign Obama was clear that he wanted it done through an act of Congress.
yodler66: My concern is not to protect the straight men from gays, but to protect gay men from homophobes.
And the best way to do that is to punish gays?
I like this plan. Let’s protect people from robbers by making it illegal for anyone to actually own anything of value. Let’s protect women from rapist by making it illegal for them to associate with any men.
Yeah, ridiculous extremes. But no more ridiculous than the idea that the way to “protect” gays is to tell them they are the ones who have to pay the price for someone else’s unacceptable behavior.
On the contrary. The best way to protect anyone being harassed is to make it clear to the harasser that their behavior will not be tolerated.
Good point limulus, I’m sick of these executive orders that can overturn things momentarily but have no permanent weight. Bush used executive orders endlessly to get around the true intent of laws. Best that we destroy DADT for good and not have to worry about it ever again. Plus seems like a much more democratic way of going about it.
Yodler evidently has little regard for the principle of civilian superiority.
Our grandchildren are going to ask us ‘DADT was just a joke, right? That didn’t really exist?’
Sean – Also protect blacks from racists! Keep them out too!
“limulus”: “And for the record, during the campaign Obama was clear that he wanted it done through an act of Congress.”
Thank you, “limulus”, all of the things you said are good points.
Parthenon
Military gives you civilian superiority
Where would you be if we got rid of our military?
Don’t you agree that the guy running a McDonnalds ought to know how to run a fry machine or a cash register?
“Sean D. Martin”: “The best way to protect anyone being harassed is to make it clear to the harasser that their behavior will not be tolerated.”
“yodler66″: “I survived a great deal of harssment [sic]“ which should have been severely punished.
I ‘hope’ that that has been lessened since you left the Armed Forces, though from what I’ve been reading the last eight years, it wasn’t dealt with as strictly as it should have been.
‘Hopefully’ this is one of the things that is being (slowly) ‘changed’.
The better question might be, my friend, where would we be if we demanded previous military service from our commanders-in-chief?
Absent the contributions of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, to name a few.
Newsie
for all your dissagreements with me I still haven’t gotten your military experience. Guess I was right about ‘tropic thunder’.
Please note I’m sure I’m not the only one with military background, we can tell a BSer.
Michael
You are right it is sad & frustrating, for the most part our servicemembers are exemplary people, I can assure you we don’t do it for the $$$. Sadly all the press is concerned with are the exceptions.
“yodler66″: “A female blackhawk mechanic”
Talk radio host Randi Rhodes was a aircraft mechanic.
http://TheRandiRhodesShow.com
Listening to her is more caffeinating than caffeine.
Sean
I’m not saying it’s right, but do you want your son, brother or lover to die for this right to be openly gay?
I had to keep my sexuality under wraps too.
Parthenon: Sean – Also protect blacks from racists! Keep them out too!
Exactly.
I just don’t understand the mindset that says the way to protect a victim is to victimize them further. That the way to deal with a bully is to let them bully you into doing what they want.
SaveFarris: “Meanwhile, DODT could be done away with by a single executive order.”
That’s a bad idea for a good cause.
DADT should be repealed, immediately, but having the president do it sets a bad precedent for the future. It should be repealed through legislation, otherwise the president has too much power.
I’m disappointed with Obama for not pushing it harder, and I think he is being overly cautious in his approach fearing Republican attacks against him if he tries too hard.
In other words, he’s being a typical Democrat.
yodler66: Don’t you agree that the guy running a McDonnalds ought to know how to run a fry machine or a cash register?
I don’t. It’s a different set of responsibilities and a different set of skills required. I don’t see any reason the person responsible for personnel management, inventory control, marketing, cash management needs to know how to grill a burger or how long to keep the fries in the grease.
Not that either of those is a particularly difficult skill to master.
I understand that Obama is stuck with DADT being enshrined in law, and therefore a matter for Congress to undo what it did, but he could expend a bit of political capital to both right a wrong and reward some of his most fervent supporters.
That being said, Sean gave me a chuckle with one thing he said:
I like this plan. Let’s protect people from robbers by making it illegal for anyone to actually own anything of value. Let’s protect women from rapist by making it illegal for them to associate with any men.
Close, but no cigar. That’s actually fairly close to the standard liberal position on gun ownership: let’s NOT let people choose whether or not to protect themselves from robbery, assault, rape, murder, or other violent crimes. It’s especially obvious when one sees how many mass shootings have taken place in reportedly “gun-free zones.”
J.
Sean, I’ve never worked in the food service industry, but my “day job” has some casual similarities. And I can tell you, I have NO respect for a manager who can not step in and do any job in the workplace in a pinch, who can not show employees “the right way things are done,” who can not fill in to cover staffing shortages or other unexpected situations.
That’s not to say that the McDonald’s metaphor applies to the military, but your interpretation is dead wrong.
J.
yodler66: Sean
I’m not saying it’s right, but do you want your son, brother or lover to die for this right to be openly gay?
No. I don’t want anyone to die, or even be treated differently, because of their sexual orientation.
You’re admitting the way gays are treated in the military isn’t right but you don’t seem to be willing to do anything about it. (Actually, you’re going with the wimpier, less committal “I’m not saying it’s right” which is not the same as actually taking a stand and saying it is wrong.) You’re willing to see an injustice done, to acknowledge that it’s an injustice, but unwilling to do anything to correct it.
“I’m not saying it’s right, but do you want your son, brother or lover to die for this right to be an equally treated black man?” Oh, that’s right. People of conscience did.
Don’t you agree that the guy running a McDonnalds ought to know how to run a fry machine or a cash register?
Uhm… no. And we’re not talking about a guy running a McDonald’s we’d be talking about the CEO of McDonald’s. Or rather the CEO of a huge corporation of which McDonald’s is only one of many subsidiaries. I don’t expect every President to have been a mailman. Or a highway engineer. Or an accountant. Personally I prefer my presidents to be thoughtful, intelligent, articulate leaders with a strong respect for the constitution.
But back to my question: What is it about the United States military that makes women and gays fear for their lives as members? What needs to change so that we’re more like Australia’s or New Zealand’s military in this regard?
“yodler66″: “Don’t you agree that the guy running a McDonnalds [sic] ought to know how to run a fry machine or a cash register?”
No.
While it might be useful, the person running McDonalds, the international corporation should be able to figure out the fry machine and the cash register in five, ten minutes, tops (ground tactics).
What they need to understand is how to strategically run an international conglomerate.
It’s the difference between Michael Jordan, an unparalleled basketball player, and a great basketball coach that can pull together a team of individuals that could never beat Jordan individually but as a team working together under good leadership, can beat Jordan’s team.
Combine Jordan with a great team under a good coach and it’s an unbeatable combination.
Think of the coach as the President and think of the owner as US, the Citizens.
And Jordan can’t play by his own rules and he and the coach can’t arbitrarily change the rules.
To do that takes a process.
/end sports analogy
Jay Tea: I have NO respect for a manager who can not step in and do any job in the workplace in a pinch, who can not show employees “the right way things are done,” who can not fill in to cover staffing shortages or other unexpected situations.
That’s not to say that the McDonald’s metaphor applies to the military, but your interpretation is dead wrong.
Oh, the McD analogy, like all analogies, only stretches so far. And this one in particular I don’t thing stretches very much at all. McD vs military is a bad comparison.
As for the boss being able to step in and cover any staffing shortage, again, it really depends on the job. I would expect a McD manager to be able to handle any post in the restaurant because most of the tasks in a McD’s don’t require skilled labor. I would not expect the overseer of an assembly line to be able to adeptly take on any job on the entire floor (driving the forklift, running the stamping machine, running the other specialized machine, etc.).
I would like to point out that military service in the United States is, in no way, shape, or form, a basic civil right. There is no class of people who have the right to serve in the armed services.
The personnel used to fulfill the military’s function to fight and win America’s wars is something which deals with the military’s function.
Women are “disallowed” from serving in about 3 dozen specific jobs in a half-dozen career fields. They are also “disallowed” from serving in normally-eligible positions is the assignment is in certain combat-specific units.
Actually, thanks to the very simple need to win life-or-death battles the military has usually been ahead of the rest of the nation in race relations. Blacks were enlisted leaders in the Civil War long before they were welcomed into similar responsibilities in the civilian world. In WWII, while Democratic President Roosevelt was ordering Japanese-Americans into concentration camps and confiscating their property, units of Japanese Americans were becoming among the most decorated in WWII. BG Benjamin Davis Sr. was the first black general in the military, and this was about three decades before the civil rights act. The military was race-integrated in 1948, how did it take after that for the rest of society to catch up? 20 years? 30 years? Have they?
What is the worst thing that President McCain could have done? Supported DOMA and DADT? It’s not like he could possibly have gays stoned to death or barred from civilian employment. The “worst” things McCain could have done to homosexuals is the exact same things that President Obama has done thus far.
That’s awful draconic of you NR. Seeing as how just about any crime related to a “normal” blanket party wouldn’t usually be a dischargable offense, I think you’re getting your panties in a bind over nothing. Of course, getting your panties in a bind is your MO so I guess I should have expected that.
simple answer complex world
I think a Comander in Cheif should know what it is like to lie in bed & wonder if he is to die the next morning taking that hill, only then can he understand the cost of his decisions.
As a floor nurse I have little respect for administration who has never touched a patient and I think most of my contemporaries agree with me that they make stupid rules that don’t work in the real world.
News
Thanks for the link I will check her out. wasn’t aware Airforce had helicopters, her profile says aircraft mechanic but close enough.
The McDonald’s metaphor fails, as others noted, because it compares a manager to a CEO. It’s my belief that an overseer of any level should be able to step in and do the job of anyone they directly oversee.
On the other hand… when Michael Moore was still relatively sane, for his show “TV Nation” he challenged the CEOs of major corporations to do very basic tasks related to their jobs. He got the CEO of Ford to change the oil on an Explorer, the CEO of IBM to format a disk… several others declined. It was great TV.
J.
The answer to the harassment of gays in the military is simply the immediate dismissal (and appropriate punishment in the case of physical harm) of the offending party, not of the victim.
The way the military covers up the murder and intimidation of its own is shameful.
For the record I never said it was right.
I am playing devils advocate, but I do have to tell you people will be hurt if they are out & proud.
SFC B has made some really good points, military service is not a civil right, the military is where equality started and yes sexuality is related to your service as is a gambling adiction, excessive debt, sleepwalking etc. one thing that comes to mind is a security clearance.
Also I’ve never participated in blanket parties just as those of you who write about rape hopefully haven’t participated in a rape but we all know that both can happen.
The “worst” things McCain could have done to homosexuals is the exact same things that President Obama has done thus far.
I guess I was extrapolating “at the end of his term” as I’m patient and understand that everything I want isn’t going to come in the first year. When the law that ends DADT passes Obama’s desk I’m sure he’ll sign it. McCain would veto it, by his own statements.
Women are “disallowed” from serving in about 3 dozen specific jobs in a half-dozen career fields. They are also “disallowed” from serving in normally-eligible positions is the assignment is in certain combat-specific units.
Why though? If it’s done based on a physical strength justification then it doesn’t really apply to gays serving.
Seeing as how just about any crime related to a “normal” blanket party wouldn’t usually be a dischargable offense, I think you’re getting your panties in a bind over nothing.
Maybe I don’t know what a “normal” blanket party is but my understanding is that assaulting others in a barracks enviroment can lead to discharge. You’re definitely one of the experts on this here, though. Is it true that members of the military can commit assault and will not be discharged? Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you wrote there.
yodler66: “I’m not saying it’s right, but do you want your son, brother or lover to die for this right to be openly gay?”
One of the ideals of our American military under our Civilian leadership is that those military personnel may be asked to die (and kill) for our freedoms.
As you say:
“Military gives you civilian superiority
Where would you be if we got rid of our military?”
Because we have that military superiority shouldn’t we be protecting those freedoms?
It was contemptible to watch Republican Dick Cheney cower in his bunker for eight years, the most powerful Vice President in America’s history, completely unable to stand up and protect his daughter’s freedoms because of his craven hunger for power.
But Republican Cheney had wars in the Middle East to wage and on top of the domestic backlash, there would also have been predictable blowback from the right wing extremists and conservative Arabs and Muslims that we had thousands of troops amongst.
As I understand it, even moderate Muslims are generally not accepting of homosexuality.
In order to accomplish our military objectives overseas we need to work as closely as possible with as many moderate Arab and Muslim partners as we can.
This broaches a much more complicated point than I’ve ever heard anyone honestly discuss.
While there might be domestic political consequences for investing in gay rights, those consequences may be literally deadly overseas and not from just some dishonorable homophobes pulling a ‘blanket party’.
Anyone know of polling of Arabic and Muslim attitudes towards homosexuality?
Understanding the strategic consequences of things like that is the difference between running an international operation in foreign lands with completely alien cultures and being able to not start a grease fire in the kitchen.
Ol’ vet
WTF where did I advocate blanket parties?
how did I miss your post and I know you know where I’m coming from. Don’t tell me you haven’t served with guys who wouldn’t do something horrible to someone they fear if they thought they could get away with it.
yodler,
It took a great deal of courage and stamina on your part to choose a male-dominated career path and stick with it against the harassment and opposition of backwards-thinking people.
I don’t think you’d stand for anyone deciding for you whether you get to make these choices.
We already have gay men and women serving this country in the military. Just as I don’t want anyone to tell you what choices you may make, neither do I want our government to limit the choices of gay men and women in uniform. As citizens–full citizens without restriction–they deserve all the same rights as any other citizen.
“Jay Tea”: “I have NO respect for a manager who can not step in and do any job in the workplace in a pinch”
I understand what you are saying and viscerally agree, but with the level of specialization needed these days I wouldn’t expect Colin Powell to be able to suddenly step in and do the job of a nuclear submarine engineer or a Blackhawk mechanic.
Those are specialized fields and need dedicated specialists to be able to do the job correctly.
I would, however, expect the immediate leadership directly responsible for those engineering branches to be familiar with those duties, preferably as intimately as possible.
But ultimately increasing specialization makes such omniscience impossible.
Don’t tell me you haven’t served with guys who wouldn’t do something horrible to someone they fear if they thought they could get away with it.
Then they should never be able to get away with it, just like in civilian life.
I’m off to have lunch with some friends who have served in 3 different militaries (US, Australia, UK). I’ll be asking some questions about how things differ.
News
UAE just decriminalized homosexuality last week, I beleive. Prior to that it was punishible by beheading, as it still is in many muslim countries.
While in Desert Storm women in my field were grounded because of what happened to a female Maj pilot who got shot down. I was reduced to driving a supply HEMIT with a shotgun pasenger and no escort vehicles, (Jessica Lynch anyone?) Imagine if you will what they would do to a gay POW.
The worst threat wouldn’t come from their compatriots.
UCMJ doesn’t control the enemy.
Imagine if you will what they would do to a gay POW.
The worst threat wouldn’t come from their compatriots.
UCMJ doesn’t control the enemy.
That threat already exists, yodler. Gay men and women already serve. No one is suggesting they should be open about their sexual orientation to potential captors. They should be able to be up front about themselves to their comrades.
yodler66: I am playing devils advocate, but I do have to tell you people will be hurt if they are out & proud.
But is that any reason NOT to be out & proud? “They might hurt us so lets stay hidden” is an interesting view to see being expressed by someone who has served in the military.
the military is where equality started
Uh, no.
and yes sexuality is related to your service as is a gambling adiction, excessive debt, sleepwalking etc. one thing that comes to mind is a security clearance.
An argument for NOT punishing gays. If it wasn’t something that could ruin their careers it wouldn’t be something they could be blackmailed over.
When I was in the service my AIT Platoon Sgt. came in my room and d*ck rubbed my face, reporting did me no good. He was then assigned to observe me for a whiz quiz all the time making obscene comments to me and about me, then produced a playboy centerfold he swore was me (not) & passed it around to my all male class mates. What will happen to a gay PVT who reports harassment?
As a parent we want to protect our children, as an old vet I want to see those who folow in our bootsteps not suffer needlesly.
What should have happened in the unfortunate circumstance in CA this am was the ofenders reprimanded and the victim moved to a new unit. However the military is a small world & he never would’ve outrun being outed.
yodler66: Don’t tell me you haven’t served with guys who wouldn’t do something horrible to someone they fear if they thought they could get away with it.
We would ALL be tempted to do something horrible to someone we don’t like if we thought we could get away with it.
That’s part of the complaint about how gays are treated in the military. Gays are unacceptable so the message is given that it’s okay to fear/hate/harass them. And the number of people who have been disciplined for harassing gays (or women) is less than the number of gays/women who have been forced out of the military. IOW, yes, they can get away with it.
Is this the behavior we want to encourage?
Sadly if caught our enemy can & will torture us.
whos to say a torured soldier won’t give away his brother in arms sexual preference?
As for security clearances, same story, gives the enemy a weapon to use on us.
Sean
You can’t legislate who someone likes or dislikes.
All of these arguments are for a perfect world.
yodler66: Imagine if you will what they would do to a gay POW.
While I wouldn’t want any member of the military to be caught or hurt by an enemy, it’s still interesting to here “We shouldn’t do it because it’s risky and someone might get hurt” coming from someone who was in the military.
When I was in the service my AIT Platoon Sgt. came in my room and d*ck rubbed my face, reporting did me no good. He was then assigned to observe me for a whiz quiz all the time making obscene comments to me and about me, then produced a playboy centerfold he swore was me (not) & passed it around to my all male class mates. What will happen to a gay PVT who reports harassment?
And, again, the correction to this kind of unacceptable behavior is NOT to say women should not be allowed to serve. It is to make sure that such behavior is not tolerated. Reports should be taken very seriously. Make the consequences and scrutiny similar to what happens to parents in civilan life who are accused of harming their children and I’ve gotta many who would do such reprehensible things as your Platoon Sgt would think twice if the mere accusation would put a major crimp in their careers.) And witnesses who fail to report such behavior should be reprimanded.
What should have happened in the unfortunate circumstance in CA this am was the ofenders reprimanded and the victim moved to a new unit.
Thereby punishing the victim.
However the military is a small world & he never would’ve outrun being outed.
Yeah. So why bother trying to fix an injustice? Whats the point? Better to continue to just tolerate it.
yodler66: You can’t legislate who someone likes or dislikes.
All of these arguments are for a perfect world.
No you can’t. People are allowed to think whatever hey want. But you can legislate the penalties for unacceptable actions, yodler.
We do it all the time.
yodler: whos to say a torured soldier won’t give away his brother in arms sexual preference?
You’re saying we have to keep them out of the military to keep them safe? Shouldn’t that be the individual’s choice as to whether, knowing the risks, they still want to serve?
And any soldier who would give away a brother in arms would also lie to do it. What’s to stop someone from falsely accusing their fellow prisoner of being gay jsut to get the torture to stop?
Your justifications for discriminating against gays continue to not make sense.
yodler66, I’m not too keen on letting our enemies get any say in who ought to be in our military. Heck, by your own standard we may as well prevent women from serving in a capacity where they could be captured by an enemy. Women soldiers aren’t going to be much better off than gay soldiers in the situations you describe.
limulus: I’m not too keen on letting our enemies get any say in who ought to be in our military.
Indeed. Otherwise, were I an enemy, I’d declare loudly that I would be particularly harsh on any American soldier I captured who was anything other than a 98-pound weakling with bad eyesight and a limp.
There. By the standard yodler seems to be promoting I can now be sure I’ll not have to face an American military that is at all formidable.
I never said to not alow gays.
Straights are dicouraged from overtly sexual behavior too, PDA.
I served with people who I knew were gay, not everyone knew,and no one who did know told.
This was under Regan and we were expected to be dicrete in our private lives.
A woman who was “overly” sexual or a ‘nympho’ would be put out under moral decrepitude.
Who on here has had to report sexual harassment at work, school or military? Who on here really honestly beleives my story is the exception?
As for our enemies choosing who is in our military, their choice wouldn’t be gays or women, but men only.
But then we already alow them to make so many choices for us, holiday decorations etc.
When I was in the service my AIT Platoon Sgt. came in my room and d*ck rubbed my face, reporting did me no good. He was then assigned to observe me for a whiz quiz all the time making obscene comments to me and about me, then produced a playboy centerfold he swore was me (not) & passed it around to my all male class mates. What will happen to a gay PVT who reports harassment?
The answer is ZERO TOLERANCE for such behavior. Does it not occur to you that allowing such behavior to go unpunished, and in fact virtually condoning it by punishing the victim rather than the perpetrator, leads to POORER discipline in the ranks? That the nudge-nudge-wink-wink attitude of our military is EXACTLY what leads to Abu Ghraib, sexual assault, and the murder of INNOCENT men and women in uniform?
You know, the ones we are supposed to honor and respect for their service to our country?
The Huffington Post has an excellent article on the impact of DADT on the partners of gay and lesbian service men and women.
Invisible
Quite honestly Yodler66, none of the reasons you’ve mentioned are justification to not repeal DADT. The threat of violence against openly gay servicemembers isn’t a reason to prevent them from serving openly. And, quite honestly, I seriously doubt it will be nearly as bad as naysayers think it will. There will be some problems. It’s going to happen, but it is better to identify those people who will not, and cannot, adapt now then to keep putting that reckoning off until some later date.
And, frankly, those people who keep referring to the obstruction from conservative Republicans and Democrats in 1993 to Clinton as being justification for President Obama’s refusal to take the issue on now are being just as pussyfooted as the President is on this issue. Mr. Willis is 100% right that President Obama is Epic Fail on this issue. It is a no-lose for him. It’s not going to derail health care legislation. It’s not going to derail climate change legislation. Those two issues will be derailed and cluster-fucked well-enough on their own. Honestly… I wish that DADT could derail those two agendas, if so I’d be out there in a pride parade trying to get it repealed.
I can’t figure out if you’re legitimately that ignorant of the military justice system, or even a criminal justice system, or if you’re trying to make some sort of statement. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just ignorant.
Believe it or not, being discharged from the military is a serious punishment. One that is generally reserved for people who committed a crime serious enough to warrant their punitive discharge. Servicemembers participating in a blanket-party are far, far, far more likely to be dealt with through non-judicial punishment handed down from their immediate commander or one-level up. If the event is serious enough to warrant a courts martial, say the victim is seriously injured, or the event is part of a pattern of misconduct, or some other circumstance then they’d likely be facing a prison sentence, followed-by discharge if warranted. So, yes, it is true that servicemembers can likely commit an assault and not be discharged for the assault. However that is due to the fact that there is a whole range of disciplinary actions available. Not because the military doesn’t take assault seriously.
But then we already alow them to make so many choices for us, holiday decorations etc.
Our enemies have dictated that the entire country be swathed in green and red from early November through December 25? And that a red-nosed reindeer and jolly fat man in a red suit grace every store window in town?
Those bastards!
I wonder if you people realize that soldiers give up certain civil liberties when they enlist?
Uh, what? Care to tell us which civil liberties they lose? That is, assuming that you’re not pulling that out of your ass (big assumption, I know).
I can’t figure out if you’re legitimately that ignorant of the military justice system, or even a criminal justice system, or if you’re trying to make some sort of statement.
Genuinely ignorant of the military justice system and what kind of actions get one a court martial. Thanks for the info.
Spoke to some of my friends over lunch today over the issues brought up in this thread and it was enlightening to hear how different countries’ military have different cultures and tolerances for such behavior. In Australia/NZ there is pretty much a zero-tolerance for any harassment. From the sounds of it UK is a little more relaxed. From the our discussion the general consensus was that the US has a different culture in it’s military, possibly stemming from the boot camp/training being so aggressive. The impression was that some harassment was tolerated in the US military (depending on the branch) that wouldn’t be tolerated at all in Australia.
I’m no expert on these things and I’m curious if this jives with your experiences SFC B, and others here who have served. I’m trying to just report the conversation we had today and not input too much of my own opinion as I’m definitely not an expert.
Zython,
Perhaps you might take a close look at the personal choices a civilian is allowed to make at and the personal choices a member of the armed forces is allowed to make before you ask such an ignorant question.
As we used to say in the Navy Zython
“We protect the Constitution, we don’t practice it”
As far as what rights we were not afforded….
Well, just off the top of my head, the 2nd Amendment and 4th Amendment for starters.
I am genuinely puzzled at what actual difference there is between “Don’t ask, don’t tell” which means it doesn’t figure into performance evaluations or how people treat one another (unless I am wrong about that); and some sort of allocation of rights or protection to gay soldiers. I suspect gays anticipate the latter, and that gays are looking for some kind of “no person shall be denied their rights on account of sexual preference” wording.
That will shortly be followed by “no person shall be denied their rights on account of stated gender”, then where will we assign intersexed individuals or pre-op transsexuals?
What if people join up for a free SRS?
Let’s leave it DADT for a while, and let military minds make military decisions , shall we ?
There are enough TG individuals in the Military as it is, hoping against hope to “shake off” the desire to be a female by heading over hill and dale, “hitting the dusty trail” .
It doesn’t work.
yodler66: As for our enemies choosing who is in our military, their choice wouldn’t be gays or women, but men only.
You’re completely missing the point being made. One of the reasons you suggested for gays not being allowed in the military was that they would get harsher treatment if captured. (”Imagine if you will what they would do to a gay POW.”) In effect, allowing the enemy to determine who should be in the US military. And the sarcastic reply to your ridiculous suggestion that the military allow this, essentially that it exclude an entire class of able bodied soldiers because they might get hurt, pointed out that if you followed that policy the enemy would be in effect influencing who is in your military. And a smart enemy would make sure your military was full of near-sighted wimps.
But then we already alow them to make so many choices for us, holiday decorations etc.
Amazingly, you’ve found something even more ridiculous to say than some of your previous comments. Please enlighten us and name one holiday decoration that was chosen for you by Al Quida, insurgents in Iraq or any other “enemy”.
Frank DiSalle: I suspect gays anticipate the latter, and that gays are looking for some kind of “no person shall be denied their rights on account of sexual preference” wording.
And that would be wrong because…?
You follow it with the unfortunately common tactic of reductio ad absurdum and suggest that’s justification for not recognizing equal rights for gays. So what if we carry that in the opposite direction? No equal civil rights for blacks because next we’d have to give civil rights for gays?
Where would you be if we got rid of our military?
Don’t you agree that the guy running a McDonnalds ought to know how to run a fry machine or a cash register?
And there it is. She’s advocating a military overthrow of the government.
I appreciate and thank you and your family for your service, but its probably not a bad thing that you’re retired.
The Israeli army probably has more concerns over how their soldiers are treated while POWs in the hands of the enemy than most other countries. They have no rule about openly gay soldiers (other than, ’so you’re gay? Here’s your uniform’, I suppose). As has been pointed out ad nauseum, here and elsewhere, gay men and lesbians are ALREADY serving in the US military – the change that’s being asked is to make it posssible for them to serve without deception or fear of official reprisal.
Look back at 1948 and the firestorm of criticism of Truman for integrating the armed forces. It seems a little ‘dated’ now – somehow, we were able to fight in Korea despite all the damage done.
SFC B has made some really good points, military service is not a civil right,
You both have that completely backwards. No one is arguing that it is. The argument is that, while serving in the military, civil rights should not be infringed.
Don’t tell me you haven’t served with guys who wouldn’t do something horrible to someone they fear if they thought they could get away with it.
Bingo!
But then we already allow them to make so many choices for us, holiday decorations etc.
I don’t know what that means.
I am genuinely puzzled at what actual difference there is between “Don’t ask, don’t tell” which means it doesn’t figure into performance evaluations or how people treat one another (unless I am wrong about that); and some sort of allocation of rights or protection to gay soldiers.
You are completely wrong. Either that, or you’re being disingenuous.
DADT means, among other things:
- Your partner is not allowed to see you off with other families when you are posted overseas;
- There must be no trace of your relationship (photos, personal effects, etc.) in your home in case someone from your unit should happen to stop by;
- Same for your personal effects on base: no photos, no letters, nothing to indicate that you have a significant person in your life;
- You must continually LIE about what you are doing when you go home at night, or on leave. You must censor everything you say when having casual conversations with the people you work with.
In addition, your partner gets NO benefits when you are posted overseas: no counseling, no support groups, no right to live on base or get health care, no knock on the door if the worse should happen. No acknowledgement whatsofuckingever of the special place they have in your life.
Now tell me again that it’s just about performance evaluations.
Well, just off the top of my head, the 2nd Amendment and 4th Amendment for starters.
People in the military don’t have the right to bear arms?
Frank DiSalle: I am genuinely puzzled at what actual difference there is between “Don’t ask, don’t tell” which means it doesn’t figure into performance evaluations or how people treat one another (unless I am wrong about that)
You are wrong about that. Gay members of the military are not able to talk about their personal lives or often must obfuscate or lie if they do so. Granted personal life isn’t a core function of the job, but there is a social aspect to the “unit cohesiveness” that is often given as a reason for excluding gays (or, historically, women or blacks or ….).
Even answering the question “Hey, Joe. How was your weekend?” could be a career ender.
1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th amendment. Military members are not allowed to hold public office while on active duty. It is against the law for us to terminiate our employment at will. It is against the law for us to attempt to organize into anything vaguely resembling a union. Military members can receive the death penalty for crimes which would not even be eligible for the death penalty on a civilian. Hell, we can receive the death penalty for things which are not even a crime for a civilian. And that’s just what I can think of off the top of my head. But hey, it’s part of the price we pay.
There is also a zero-tolerance for harassment in the US military. Hell, every commander at every level has their policy memo stating such, and such a memo is required by the regulation governing Army Command Policy. It is a no-joking topic and woe to the leadership which ignores harassment within its command. I’ve seen entire leadership teams relieved and replaced due to failing to prevent sexual harassment within their commands. Hell, the current guidance in Army Command Policy is that, if you know about someone being harassed, and you do nothing about it, you’re guilty of harassment as well.
The problem is that, while it is zero-tolerance, you need to be able to prove harassment. Sometimes it’s easy and the harasser is dumb enough to do it in front of witnesses, or use email. Sometimes though it is he-said, she-said. I know of one case where the person being harassed was, by any reasonable definition, overly sensitive and basically looking for things to be offended/ harassed about (in hindsight it was quite funny really).
The other problem is that, within the military, it is possible for a harasser with superior to rank to be able to abuse that rank. It’s what made the sexual assault cases at Aberdeen and other training bases back in the late 90s, early 2000s possible. A lot of the harassment training given now focuses on trying to teach junior Soldiers that it is not okay for their superiors to harass them, and that it is their duty to do something about it by either confronting their harasser, and if that isn’t possible, taking it to the chain of command or an EO rep who is outside of the chain of command’s influence.
As I said earlier, but took too long to say it so I missed this. Volunteering to be in the military is volunteering to abide by the laws and regulations governing the military, and the laws and regulations which govern the military are not the same as those which govern the civilian world. Some of the sacrifices we make involves giving up rights which the rest of society enjoys.
Depending on the post to which someone is assigned they can be required to register their weapon with the post provost marshall office(police department), whether they live on or off post. Also most (all?) posts require those living in shared quarters to store their weapons in their unit’s armsroom or with the PMO. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea to have personal weapons stored outside of the barracks, however it is a restriction on owning firearms which would be unconstitutional in the civilian world.
There are second and third orders effects to repealing DADT have nothing to do with some people worrying about the ickiness of Teh Gayness!.
Let’s assume that the president gets the backbone needed to take the very easy, and popular step, to get a like-minded legislator to submit a bill repealing DADT and the military’s prohibition on homosexuals. Let’s also assume that this legislation passes.
Now what?
What will the post-DADT military be doing to accomodate this new group of openly gay individuals?
I don’t think there will be any restrictions on assignment beyond the current gender-based ones. On a practical level those restrictions are based on general difference in the physical capabilities of the genders. However I suppose it’s possible as a first step that openly gay members will be restricted to the same career fields that women are now, but that’s neither here nor there.
I think that, in the LGBT spectrum, those who are transgendered, or whatever they’re called, will be SoL. This exclusion would be based on medical rather than orientation. People who go through gender reassignment surgery require continous use of hormones to maintain their health. People who require medication to function are prohibited from joining the military (asthma meds for instance). So to answer Frank’s question about SRS and trans-gendered folks, probably will be left out.
A couple of articles of the military’s law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) will need to be reviewed and possibly changed. I can think of at least one article which must be changed if gay people can openly serve. Currently it is against the law in the military to engage in any oral or anal sex. I’ve never heard of anyone being investigated for violating the sodomy law exclusivly. It’s always a charge tacked on when you’ve been busted doing something else, like sexual assault. However the law is there and unless changed it would make our newly out-and-proud Soldiers criminals for engaging in sex with the gender they prefer. I suppose that they could amend it so that openly gay servicemembers aren’t subject to that article, but I see that being allll sorts of problematic, so it would need to be repealed as well.
Now we get into the thorny issues of money and relationships.
Married servicemembers get an increased housing allowance to help cover the costs of their family. To be eligible for this with dependents allowance, you need to be legally married. The US Government doesn’t recognize gay marriage. To my knowledge the military’s financial regulations actually restrict it to heterosexual marriage. To be eligible for a married housing allowance you need a marriage license. Would a servicemember who married a person of the same gender in a state which recognizes gay marriage be eligible for the housing allowance? If so, this means an agency of the Executive Branch, the DoD, isn’t following the law. If not, this creates a whole seperate series of issues. Assuming that the military won’t provide marriage benefits to married homosexuals, if two homosexual servicemembers marry, they’d be eligible to double-dip on the housing allowance (servicemembers married to other servicemembers are only allowed one of the servicemembers to collect the married housing allowance). Now, let’s assume that this married pair of gay servicemembers adopt a child. Will both of them be eligible to claim the child as a dependent? If so, will they both be able to claim the with dependents allowance? Those closest situation currently covered would be divorced servicemembers with a child. In that case, only one would be eligible to receive the with-dependent allowance, and that would be the one with primary custody. The gay-married-with-adopted child scenairo isn’t exactly covered by this. They’re not divorced and they both have full custody of the child. This will need to be addressed with the repeal of DADT.
Relationships between people of differing ranks are prohibited in the military. It is a violation of the rules against fraternization and such relationships can had adverse impacts on good order and discipline. The only exception to this is married couples when one gets promoted ahead of the other. Without some sort of provision allowing an exception to the fraternization rules for homosexuals this is a rule which will be harshly unfair to homosexual couples. Basically, since homosexual can’t get married, they are unable to comply with the current laws if one gets promoted. They will need to end the relationship. However, if you create an exception for homosexuals, then you are not providing equal protection for heterosexuals. While you can argue that the sodomy law doesn’t really protect against anything than some people’s uneasiness about butt secks, the rules against fraternization have a very specific, and required, purpose.
I’m curious how some of the folks who support repealing DADT would deal with these issues. I suppose you could say you’d repeal the whole lot of DADT and DOMA, unfortunatly we live in the real world where such changes will likely not happen at the same time.
Massachusetts has just sued the federal gov’t to repeal DOMA. It may happen sooner than you think.
And yes, the solution to all of the problems you list is to stop discriminating against gays, period. Allow them the same marriage/adoption privileges and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. There is simply no civil (i.e., not religiously based) reason not to do so.
I assume that the military alloted all of those privileges you listed to mixed race couples once the military was fully integrated by Eisenhower, in spite of individual state’s anti-miscegenation laws. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
SFC B: However, if you create an exception for homosexuals, then you are not providing equal protection for heterosexuals.
So the answer to nearly every item (and I say “nearly” only because I haven’t taken the time to go back and consider specifically each of the numerous items you list. I actually believe the answer to EVERY item) is to not create any exceptions for homosexuals.
That is, treat individual gays exactly as you treat individual heterosexuals. Treat married gays exactly as you treat married heteros.
Easy.
I see what you’re saying about different laws in the military, but there’s no reason not to let gays be open in the military. The only argument I’ve heard is that a bunch of rednecks might kill them in their sleep, but that sounds more like an argument for stricter enlistment practices.
S Q : DADT means, among other things:
Sounds like you are asking the Armed Forces to give their nihil obstat to civil unions / gay marriage.
No wonder they are hesitant .
jeebus christ Frank, I was responding to your ludicrous claim that the only impact of DADT is that homosexuality “doesn’t figure into performance evaluations or how people treat one another,” by pointing to several ways that it does, in fact, impact gay service men and women.
Try for a bit of intellectual honesty, okay?
Frank DiSalle: Sounds like you are asking the Armed Forces to give their nihil obstat to civil unions / gay marriage.
Actually, looking to the military to give a religious opinion is a really bad idea, Frank.
SQ and Sean : Let’s pretend for a moment that S Q said this
Oh, wait! He did say that!
Is it not a safe assumption that ending DADT would bring those things at least into play for negotiation.
And, Sean, it was Pres Truman’s desegregation of the Armed Forces that kicked off the Civil Rights push of the early 50’s.
A “nihil obstat” is just a fancy way of saying “It’s OK with me”.
Is it slowly sinking in yet that Obama routinely says things he doesn’t really mean?
Frank,
I’m going to try this one more time, because I really enjoy banging my head against my desk.
If a gay service member is up for a performance evaluation, and has done an excellent job by all military standards, but has a picture of his partner on his piano in his own home that someone happened to notice and report to the CO, HE WILL BE DISMISSED FROM THE ARMED SERVICES FOR BEING GAY. Any rumor whatsoever that you are gay and you are OUT.
So no, DADT is NOT just about keeping your private life out of the work place. Which was the point of your original post, you disingenuous prat.
And for the record, I’m not a “he.”
I generally disagree with SFC B, and he can be disagreeable sometimes (lol look who’s talking) but this is one of those occasions where he’s really added a lot to the discussion.
Thanks, SFC B.
Frank DiSalle: Is it not a safe assumption that ending DADT would bring those things at least into play for negotiation.
Not following you here. I think it a safe assumption that ending DADT would eliminate all those restrictions (listed be Southern Q). Why would eliminating the rule that says “You can’t mention your boyfriend” mearly bring mentioning your boyfriend into “negotioation”?
And, Sean, it was Pres Truman’s desegregation of the Armed Forces that kicked off the Civil Rights push of the early 50’s.
Which was a good thing. So if there is any conclusion to draw it would be that integration of the armed forces leads to greater recognition of civil rights and less inequality.
A “nihil obstat” is just a fancy way of saying “It’s OK with me”.
I realize that. But the term originated as a specifically religious recognition.
SQ, Frank is breaking DADT down to an overly simple level. However you’re taking it in a wholly opposite direction.
The CO will ask the person “Was he having sex with this person in the picture? No? Get out of my office.”
Not that easy. Proving homosexual conduct in the military requires one of three things.
Statements: You say: “I engage in homosexual acts”
Acts: You were caught engaging, or attempting to engage in, in homosexual acts.
Marriage: You entered in to, or attempted to enter in to, a homosexual marriage.
Any commander who values their career will not engage in an investigation into a Soldier’s possible homosexual conduct without something far better than Private Skippy saying “Hey Sir, Specialist Soandso had a picture of another dude on his piano. I think he’s gay!”. If that’s the evidence someone is gay then the only proper response is to explain to this young Soldier he is engaging in harassment and may be subject to UCMJ action if he continues.
SFC B,
I appreciate your perspective on this issue. And I agree that most commanders worth their salt would not conduct a witch hunt based on rumor or innuendo. But there have been incidents of gay members of the military being dismissed based on being OUTED, rather than coming out themselves.
The point is that, as long as DADT is in place, the threat of such exposure will hang over the heads of every gay and lesbian soldier. And to what purpose?
SFC B: The CO will ask the person “Was he having sex with this person in the picture? No? Get out of my office.”
A reasonable response from a reasonable officer. Unfortunately, not everyone in the armed forces is reasonable and there are cases of people being kicked out of service because someone else has taken it upon themselves to force their private life into public.
But the point is, why should it be an issue in the first place? (IIRC, you’ve actually commented on this earlier and have said that it shouldn’t be but it is the current rule and service members are bound by current rules. If I do recall that right, consider the question rhetorical and not directed at you.)
When you have an incident where someone comes forward with credible evidence of homosexual conduct there isn’t much you can do about it. It isn’t an issue where the commander has discresion. In an imperfect world where DADT exists, fully enforcing the anti-harassment part of DADT would at least reduce incidents where other servicemembers engage in improper conduct in the outting of a homosexual. But I’d guess that a good number of those outtings happen as a result of actions by people who are not under military control, ie ex’s. IIRC there was even an incident where some Marines (?) in the San Diego (?) area were “outted” when the gay movie they appeared in came out.
Yes it will. And that was a condition they accepted when they signed the contract. They even had to initial a statement specificlly acknowledging they understood what the DoD’s policy was regarding homosexual conduct.
My personal opinion is that there isn’t an acceptable reason to keep homosexuals from openly serving. However the only people who can do that are the Congress and the President. So far they really don’t seem to care to do so.
If I was a betting man though I’d probably bet that the White House will start agitating that DADT needs to be repealed around the same time unemployment gets to 11%.