But there have been incidents of gay members of the military being dismissed based on being OUTED, rather than coming out themselves.

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.

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.

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If I was a betting man though I’d probably bet that the White House will start agitating that DADT needs to be repealed around the same time unemployment gets to 11%.

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.)

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?

… but has a picture of his partner on his piano in his own home that someone happened to notice and report to the CO…

The CO will ask the person “Was he having sex with this person in the picture? No? Get out of my office.”

Any rumor whatsoever that you are gay and you are OUT.

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.

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.

Thanks, SFC B.

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.”

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.

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”.

Actually, looking to the military to give a religious opinion is a really bad idea, Frank.

Try for a bit of intellectual honesty, okay?

Sounds like you are asking the Armed Forces to give their nihil obstat to civil unions / gay marriage.

No wonder they are hesitant .

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.

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.

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.

The argument is that, while serving in the military, civil rights should not be infringed.

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.

People in the military don’t have the right to bear arms?

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.

Uh, what? Care to tell us which civil liberties they lose?

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.

In Australia/NZ there is pretty much a zero-tolerance for any harassment.

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.

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.