DADT repealed

[Albert]

I've always been a strong proponent of homosexuality. I figured the fewer good looking guys with money who could cook, the better my chances were with women. Call me selfish.

[elkroeger]

AW, jeez. I thought this was a "Dey All Do That" thread.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

A moment of comic relief, from the movie Stripes. I'm thinking of the scene where Bill Murray and Harold Ramis are being quizzed by the Army recruiter:

 

"Are either of you homosexual?"

 

"No, but we're willing to learn."

 

[blackyam]

Greetings. My question is, will those universities and schools that have barred ROTC, &c., because of DADT now allow those programs, or will they find another excuse to excuse the military from their campuses?

 

---John.

[russell_bynum]

A moment of comic relief, from the movie Stripes. I'm thinking of the scene where Bill Murray and Harold Ramis are being quizzed by the Army recruiter:

 

"Are either of you homosexual?"

 

"No, but we're willing to learn."

 

 

 

Great flick!

[russell_bynum]

Who you want to f*ck is your own business so long as the f*ckee agrees.

 

That pretty much sums it up.

 

...at least...in terms of someone's ability to do a job.

[Dave McReynolds]

Who you want to f*ck is your own business so long as the f*ckee agrees.

 

That pretty much sums it up.

 

...at least...in terms of someone's ability to do a job.

 

As far as the ability to do the job is concerned, you may find as you get older that sometimes while the spirit may be strong, the flesh is weak.

[upflying]

While we Americans bite our nails in much anxiety over nothing, the rest of the civilized world's militaries have long ago adopted this same policy and are doing just fine. We're still discovering the wheel and others are rolling already. Move on.

-MKL

 

I wonder how openly gay soldiers are doing from "civilized" countries that are predominantly Islamic?

I would guess the military in such nations probably tell gay soldiers, "you tell, you die".

[Ken H.]

Next I hope that they are allowed to marry, so they can suffer the same fate the rest of us have had to endure.

Now that there is funny, I don't care who's admiring who's arz!

[Ken H.]

While we Americans bite our nails in much anxiety over nothing, the rest of the civilized world's militaries have long ago adopted this same policy and are doing just fine.

That’s right, it’s a non-issue. Except in the minds of a few homophobic pundits (some of which are also politicians). More than a couple of which have turned out to be closet gays themselves.

 

I’ll never understand why the USA has such a propensity for having to make all its own mistakes. There is a whole ‘nother world out there people to look to for what works and what doesn’t!

 

[Scribner]

Ww also have to remember that, for the most part, we're a bunch of middle-aged folks discussing a subject which most of today's twenty-somethings take in their stride. We're probably over thinking this.

 

 

+++++!!!

 

My grans dont give a poop about someone's sexual pref nor do their friends. In my day, it was a big deal. Today we have grown up a little as a country, IMHO.

[Bob Palin]

Ww also have to remember that, for the most part, we're a bunch of middle-aged folks discussing a subject which most of today's twenty-somethings take in their stride. We're probably over thinking this.

 

 

+++++!!!

 

My grans dont give a poop about someone's sexual pref nor do their friends. In my day, it was a big deal. Today we have grown up a little as a country, IMHO.

My mother, who is 81, doesn't care either and talks about such things openly, but she's not American of course.

[Mike]

While we Americans bite our nails in much anxiety over nothing, the rest of the civilized world's militaries have long ago adopted this same policy and are doing just fine.

That’s right, it’s a non-issue. Except in the minds of a few homophobic pundits (some of which are also politicians). More than a couple of which have turned out to be closet gays themselves.

 

I’ll never understand why the USA has such a propensity for having to make all its own mistakes. There is a whole ‘nother world out there people to look to for what works and what doesn’t!

 

I generally agree, but I'd refer you back to my earlier tome. There was a time when, in the context of the generally held moral beliefs of the time, the prohibition against homosexuals serving in the military may have made sense at some level. It's just that it took us a log time to catch up with reality.

[bayoubengal]

I expected fireworks in a thread about DADT. I did not expect, nor enjoy, the vulgairity. That's what I've always loved about this forum - lack of vulgar langauge. As much as I enjoy ADV Rider content, I rarely go there for the lack of civility...

[moshe_levy]

More than a couple of which have turned out to be closet gays themselves.

 

Ahh, I call this "The Law of Inverse Sexual Conservatism." The more someone moralizes in public about gay this and immoral sex that, the more you can bet the house that eventually, they will be revealed to be doing some REALLY freaky stuff. Not cheat on your wife freaky, but banging on the next truckstop restroom stall freaky.

 

Some people hate themselves and take it out on everyone else instead of dealing with their own issues. It's scary when they can make public policy based on such warped personality disorders.

 

To Whit - Prediction: Tom Coburn, (R-OH). Has all the usual stances one would expect (look him up so I don't violate the rules here). The guy made a speech after NBC aired "Schindler's List" not because he was offended by the mass murder and violence, but by the nudity of the prisoners in the concentration camps being shown on TV. Doesn't that say it all? Man, I can't WAIT to see what he eventually comes out as doing. Probably makes Rocco Siffredi look like a boy scout by comparison. These predictions are a wholesome way to stay on top of politics and make lots of betting money to boot!

 

-MKL

[pbharvey]

If I respond does that mean I'm a backward homophobic truckstop bathroom stall troll?

 

 

[Bud]

Well you did respond.

[beemerman2k]

If I respond does that mean I'm a backward homophobic truckstop bathroom stall troll?

 

I had to laugh when Ken and Moshe posted their observations, because I cannot help but see it myself. Highly visible and outspoken politicians and/or church leaders vocalizing a wholesale condemnation of a particular group, usually homosexuals, only to discover later that they themselves have yet to come to terms with their own participation in that lifestyle.

 

Having said that, I rail at the term "homo-phobe". If it is a legitimate term, then it is used with a very broad brush to paint everyone who does not support homosexual causes as being such a person. For the record, I absolutely reject the idea that if a person does not support "black causes" that they are racist. No way! It merely tells me that there are aspects of the cause that they find to be un-American or unjust, but that's all it tells me. Anyhow, the crime here is not being gay or straight, but being intolerant. And both gay and straight people can be, and often are, intolerant.

[Selden]

Others may disagree, but, still right thing to do. Anybody willing to fight and die for the country should be allowed to do so.

I realize this may be getting close to the political line, but I felt the same way about the DREAM act. If someone was brought here as a child, but without a visa, and that person is willing to serve in the military, especially during wartime, should be allowed to become a citizen.

 

I've been spending a lot of time in the attic recently, installing radiant panel insulation (must finish before Christmas Eve), so I haven't been keeping up, and just stumbled on this thread.

 

 

[RT66Rider]

To Whit - Prediction: Tom Coburn, (R-OH).

 

Correction: Tom Coburn is from OK, not OH.

[moshe_levy]

Oh. I apologize for insulting the great people of Ohio. It's the Okies that voted him in then....

 

-MKL

[Mike]

I expected fireworks in a thread about DADT. I did not expect, nor enjoy, the vulgairity. That's what I've always loved about this forum - lack of vulgar langauge. As much as I enjoy ADV Rider content, I rarely go there for the lack of civility...

 

Good call . . . I've gone back and edited out some of the naughty words, but had a minor emergency that prevented me from getting all of them at this time.

[RT66Rider]

 

Idealistically, the repeal of DADT makes sense, but at what price will it come.

 

I recently watch the film 'Jarhead' which is regarded by many as being a very realistic representation of what Marine life is like.

And I cannot imagine an openly gay man surviving for long in this environment.

 

Hopefully he will value his personal safety more than his freedom to express his sexuality.

 

 

[Roadwolf]

Hopefully he will value his personal safety more than his freedom to express his sexuality.

 

And that would be a shame because some Semper Fi Redneck Yahoo couldn't control his bigotry and seems fit to unleash the hounds of hell on them. The rights to exist of the minority are subservient to the prejudices of the majority... is this a great country or what?

[beemerman2k]

... is this a great country or what?

 

Yes, this is a fantastic country!

 

Sure, there are those who would allow their hatred of others to seek to harm or even kill them. There are people and communities in this country that would not hesitate to kill me or a gay person simply because we are different. Yes, that is a sad reality in this country -- as it is in every country on the planet earth.

 

What makes this country so fantastic, however, is that both our national aspiration and the will of the people lean toward equality and equal rights. Clearly, it is this very ethic that has caused so many changes in our country to date: this is now a place were a person of virtually every race, nationality, and relgion can find a home here. And not just a home, but a job, a career, a profession, and anything else their minds can imagine and that their talents can achieve.

 

Even this thread for instance; I don't believe this thread would exist only 20 years ago, and if it did it would likely be a lot more inflammatory in my own personal opinion. But what do you know, the country is growing up! We are continually learning the meaning of the words, "...all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

 

It is this very ideal, and the determination of the public to honor this idea, and to grow to the point where we can honor this idea, that makes this such a great country for all of us. May not happen as quickly as we'd like sometimes, but I am convinced that if you take an unwavering stand for that which is right, the country will eventually come around to doing that which is right. Not because of who you are or who I am, but because of who this country is, and we can thank our founding fathers for that

 

Therefore, if a group of soldiers were to physically assult any person -- military or otherwise -- because of their sexual orientation, the vast majority of the nation would condemn that action. There are those who would support it no doubt, but as of now and going forward, I am certain that 9 out of 10 people at least would condemn such an action. Why? Because we are slowly, but surely, growing up.

[upflying]

Doesn't have to be a physical assault either. Just comments and stares is enough to create a hostile workplace and a lawsuit.

[TyTass]

Aimed at no one ... more like everyone!

 

I'm not surprised that after 17 years most people still don't seem to understand why DADT was put into effect in the first place. From people who say they support the right of homosexuals to serve like heterosexuals (who see and saw DADT as continued persecution of homosexuals) ... to those who don't approve of homosexuals being permitted in the military (and who continue to cling to the policy to continue to remove openly homosexual servicemembers from the military) ... either way, people generally don't seem to remember why or how it came into being ... the good along with the bad of it.

 

Though this change may not seem fast enough for many people and others may even chose to believe we've gone backwards socially ... but let's be honest ... the fact is the country was not as socially liberal in 1992 as it is today. And I know from experience the military was far less socially liberal then (and ages less so when I joined in 1978). And though I served for roughly 25 years along side many homosexuals, and am lucky to count several homosexuals as close friends/family, I can acknowledge that was not the case for the majority of the military folks I knew during my career. Violence was not only likely ... it's foolish to thinks it unlikely. And that is where DADT served it's main purpose.

 

DADT came into existence at a time when it was not only positively illegal to be homosexual in the military but the the military (or the government at large) could openly ask members or even applicants about their sexual activity. The government had the right to ask about and investigate a person's sexuality simply based on anything. In fact, my original application to the service in my service record has that question on it. Also, in security screenings, agents reguarly asked about homosexuality - whether you or someone else were.

 

DADT took away the right of any government agent to ask such questions. It was designed to protect to privacy of homosexuals and anyone knowing of anyone's homosexual activities.

 

And YES (as Matt pointed out), it was championed by Pres. Clinton (not a political comment, just statement of fact). It was an admitted compromise between the (ostensibly hardline, anti-homosexual) military leadership of the time and Pres. Clinton's stated commitment to equal rights for homosexuals during his campaign.

 

Thus, it was put in place as a step to change the then predominately negative view of homosexuality in the military ... to help make it become a non-issue over time. Why the next step has taken 17 years to occur (hopefully) is a matter of long debate. But it seems obvious to me, DADT did more to positively change the social enivronment in the military than all the political clamouring of candidates in the interim.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't repeal it. Quite obviously, it's time. My question is what are we putting in it's place? How are we going to protect the rights of homosexual servicemen/women when sodomy is still against the UCMJ and is unlikely to be changed?

[pbharvey]

Afghan sex practices concern US, British forces

[leikam]

Ww also have to remember that, for the most part, we're a bunch of middle-aged folks discussing a subject which most of today's twenty-somethings take in their stride. We're probably over thinking this.

 

That's more or less true, but it's not the 20-somethings who are making military policy or enforcing it when the inevitable problems arise. This whole debate is framed and decided by much older men who don't spend their time in foxholes or communal showers.

[Fubar]

If they haven't told anyone...they look like you and me. If they HAVE told anyone...they look like you and me.

Unless they start re-enacting Priscilla, Queen of the Desert around the open latrines...

 

(Cuz, you know, that's what they do.)

I was always a "To Wong Foo" fan myself. Wesley Snipes is dreamy : grin:

I asked my bro-inlaw's active duty, soon to be deployed Army MP son-inlaw and he said there are several known gay/lesbians in his unit and no one cares at all.

[ArmyGuy]

I believe once all the legal paperwork is complete (re-writing military regulations) this will be a non-issue. In the Army, we are told what our values should be. Loyalty, Duty, Respect/EO/EEO (Treat people as they should be treated), Selfless service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. All of these are on enlisted members and officers annual evaluation forms with a simple YES / NO check. If checked NO, your career is finished. I can only imagine that our sister services have similar checks. Military folk will accept change not only because it is the right thing to do but also because if they want a career with the military, they WILL do it.

 

We train quarterly on prevention of sexual harassment / equal opportunity / cultural awareness... education and prejudice will be the hardest obstacles but that too will change in time as our society changes.

[Dave McReynolds]

Hopefully he will value his personal safety more than his freedom to express his sexuality.

 

And that would be a shame because some Semper Fi Redneck Yahoo couldn't control his bigotry and seems fit to unleash the hounds of hell on them. The rights to exist of the minority are subservient to the prejudices of the majority... is this a great country or what?

 

The Marine Corps is not the place to go if you want to express your individuality, and I'm sure that's as true today as it was 40 years ago. And there are many ways other than homosexuality that you might not want to draw attention to yourself, but that would certainly be one of them.

[Twisties]

And YES (as Matt pointed out), it was championed by Pres. Clinton (not a political comment, just statement of fact).

 

IIRC, Clinton campaigned on allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and one of his first moves in office was to act on that. Congress stepped in and overruled him with DADT. DADT was a huge loss for Clinton, which along with the failure of health care reform nearly derailed his presidency.

 

I would have to look up the details now 18 years later, but that is my recollection.

 

Hopefully these can be viewed as historical, and not political statements. I just wanted to correct the record here.

[Roadwolf]

The Marine Corps is not the place to go if you want to express your individuality

 

I don't think being WHO YOU ARE intrinsically is called expressing your individuality here. I dare say that if a heterosexual Marine boasts about his sexual conquests he is beaten down for expressing his individuality. Granted, when the majority of the armed services are made up of socially conservative troops you must be aware of what you are getting into, but at the same time, just because you are entering the den of lions as a homosexual doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't try to make inroads for who you are.

[Twisties]

And YES (as Matt pointed out), it was championed by Pres. Clinton (not a political comment, just statement of fact).

 

IIRC, Clinton campaigned on allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and one of his first moves in office was to act on that. Congress stepped in and overruled him with DADT. DADT was a huge loss for Clinton, which along with the failure of health care reform nearly derailed his presidency.

 

I would have to look up the details now 18 years later, but that is my recollection.

 

Hopefully these can be viewed as historical, and not political statements. I just wanted to correct the record here.

 

Here is a quote from Wikipedia that is probably more accurate:

 

Origin

 

The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.[7] At the time, per the December 21, 1993 Department of Defense Directive 1332.14,[8] it was legal policy (10 U.S.C. § 654)[9] that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were discharged.[7][10] The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging homosexual servicemembers.[11][not in citation given][improper synthesis?]

 

Congress overrode Clinton by including text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.[10] The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993,[12] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.[10] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

 

So, after being overidden, DADT was Clinton's reponse.

 

 

[Quinn]

Anyone know what will happen to gays that were previously discharged? Allowed to reinlist? Restated to former rank?

 

----

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

I expected fireworks in a thread about DADT. I did not expect, nor enjoy, the vulgairity. That's what I've always loved about this forum - lack of vulgar langauge. As much as I enjoy ADV Rider content, I rarely go there for the lack of civility...

 

Good call . . . I've gone back and edited out some of the naughty words, but had a minor emergency that prevented me from getting all of them at this time.

 

It looks even dirtier now. Put your ****** in somebody's ******? That's downright perverted.

 

[Couchrocket]

Idealistically, the repeal of DADT makes sense, but at what price will it come.

 

 

I think we could realize some real savings. Given that sexual orientation isn't a meaningful distinction, I cannot see any rationale for gender distinction either. It should all just be behavior based. A simple rule banning any unwelcome sexually based or oriented behaviors while at the work site, in order not to run afoul of Title 9. That opens up the consolidation of all quartering without regard to gender, sexual orientation, etc. I suspect that over time there could be significant cost savings, and no need to "sort and separately house" military personnel based on outmoded notions stemming from meaningless distinctions.

 

The next antiquated practice the military needs to overcome is the prohibition of females in front-line combat roles. Another meaningless distinction that puts an unfair burden on males to assume most of the risk of death or serious injury, and limits the number of personnel eligible for those career occupations unnecessarily. We should have parity of gender in the numbers of the combat ranks.

 

Also, I have serious doubts about the military's right to promulgate regulations about who copulates with whom. It is well beyond the purview of the military's mission. Professional soldiering is like any other occupation and the employer has no right to regulate behavior that is not specifically job related in terms of knowledge, skills, or abilities (KSA's).

 

It is high time that we had real equality in the military in all aspects of the career field.

 

 

 

[Ken H.]

Also, I have serious doubts about the military's right to promulgate regulations about who copulates with whom. It is well beyond the purview of the military's mission.

Slight hijack, but me too. To me the policy has faint echoes of the mess the Catholic church finds itself in. Trying to prevent basic human interactions by dictatorial policy always ends badly.

[Mike]

Also, I have serious doubts about the military's right to promulgate regulations about who copulates with whom. It is well beyond the purview of the military's mission.

Slight hijack, but me too. To me the policy has faint echoes of the mess the Catholic church finds itself in. Trying to prevent basic human interactions by dictatorial policy always ends badly.

 

You haven't been in the military, have you? It is, by definition, not a democracy, and members of the U.S. military do not enjoy the full range of rights that civilians do. First, all military members are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Years ago, a clear "service connection" had to be established to charge an individual at court-martial, but that rule was abandoned long ago. Now, one's active duty status is enough to confer UCMJ jurisdiction. While constitutional principles still apply in the broad sense, acts that would be constitutionally protected for civilians are often not protected if you're in the military. For example, bad-mouthing your boss; that might get you fired if you're a civilian, but could get you imprisoned if you're a military member. So, I'd abandon any thought that "private" conduct is beyond the purview of the UCMJ. It just isn't so, and never has been.

[John Ranalletta]

Listening to a MSM report, I heard that implementation will be difficult and lengthy. One of the reasons cited was the need to make "appropriate housing arrangements".

 

Anyone know what that means? Will gays have segregated quarters? What's the likelihood a commissioned officer will move into base, family quarters with a same-sex companion.

 

This should be very interesting.

[bayoubengal]

Also, I have serious doubts about the military's right to promulgate regulations about who copulates with whom. It is well beyond the purview of the military's mission.

Slight hijack, but me too. To me the policy has faint echoes of the mess the Catholic church finds itself in. Trying to prevent basic human interactions by dictatorial policy always ends badly.

 

You haven't been in the military, have you? It is, by definition, not a democracy, and members of the U.S. military do not enjoy the full range of rights that civilians do. First, all military members are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Years ago, a clear "service connection" had to be established to charge an individual at court-martial, but that rule was abandoned long ago. Now, one's active duty status is enough to confer UCMJ jurisdiction. While constitutional principles still apply in the broad sense, acts that would be constitutionally protected for civilians are often not protected if you're in the military. For example, bad-mouthing your boss; that might get you fired if you're a civilian, but could get you imprisoned if you're a military member. So, I'd abandon any thought that "private" conduct is beyond the purview of the UCMJ. It just isn't so, and never has been.

 

Very well put.

BTW ... just found out I was promoted to Full Bird Colonel so looks like maybe I better learn more about the post DADT environment.

[TyTass]

So, after being overidden, DADT was Clinton's reponse.

No worries, I appreciate where you were going in the first place. I wasn't at all suggesting that Clinton sold out as detractors (from both sides of the fence) may believe he did. I was stating overtly that I believe his compromise was a stroke of near-genius on his part - as I believe it did much to change predjudices and did little to further them.

 

I would love to see prejudice gone ... but we have to first accept the world for what it is (or was) in order to change it. And there's the rub.

[Twisties]

So, after being overidden, DADT was Clinton's reponse.

No worries, I appreciate where you were going in the first place. I wasn't at all suggesting that Clinton sold out as detractors (from both sides of the fence) may believe he did. I was stating overtly that I believe his compromise was a stroke of near-genius on his part - as I believe it did much to change predjudices and did little to further them.

 

I would love to see prejudice gone ... but we have to first accept the world for what it is (or was) in order to change it. And there's the rub.

 

[TyTass]

Mike,

 

That very fact is why I was asking what will occur after DADT. Does not the UCMJ have specific language in it which forbids acts that are the very definition of homosexuality?

 

Do you think it likely the UCMJ will be changed to delete any such language, or will some umbrella policy regarding recognizing privacy be adopted?

[pbharvey]

BTW ... just found out I was promoted to Full Bird Colonel so looks like maybe I better learn more about the post DADT environment.

 

Nice! Merry Christmas Colonel.

[russell_bynum]

BTW ... just found out I was promoted to Full Bird Colonel so looks like maybe I better learn more about the post DADT environment.

 

Congrats!

[Ken H.]

You haven't been in the military, have you?

Nope.

 

It is, by definition, not a democracy, and members of the U.S. military do not enjoy the full range of rights that civilians do.

Oh I understand perfectly well that the military tries to remove all independent thinking, actions and emotions (including sexual). I just do think it ever has or ever will work. Any more than it has in the Catholic church.

[Bob Palin]

Does not the UCMJ have specific language in it which forbids acts that are the very definition of homosexuality?

What acts would they be - love for another person who happens to be the same sex? Your bias is showing, and btw homosexual includes lesbian and people not in a physical relationship.

[russell_bynum]

Does not the UCMJ have specific language in it which forbids acts that are the very definition of homosexuality?

What acts would they be - love for another person who happens to be the same sex? Your bias is showing, and btw homosexual includes lesbian and people not in a physical relationship.

 

Bob...you might want to google UCMJ and do some reading before you start declaring someone's bias.

 

How about Article 125 - Sodomy.

 

(And yes...I realize that, as defined, it would include several sex acts that many hetero couples regularly perform.)