Patterico's Pontifications

12/22/2010

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal Official

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:41 am



Obama just signed the bill.

144 Responses to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal Official”

  1. i think really captures the fears of the opponents of gays in the military quite nicely.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0dWo31hwpI

    Is it wrong to think that is funny?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  2. on a more serious note, someone pointed out that this doesn’t actually repeal DADT, but just leaves it up to the military whether to repeal it or not. Now, we all know how that discussion will turn out, but there you go.

    If i was the lawyer for a gay soldier, i would tell him/her to stay in the closet until the military makes it official. better safe than sorry.

    Also, i assume there will be pardons for people prosecuted for being gay in the military?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  3. Good. Now the military can toss tinkerbell out if they even think he’s gay. Good job O-be-want Can’t-own-me.

    PatriotRider (323a62)

  4. Why would there be pardons, AW?

    JD (0d2ffc)

  5. A sad day for our country and further step down the road towards decline and fall. Who would’ve ever thought that sexual perversion would be such a compelling issue that the outgoing Congress would make this legislation their signature “achievement.”

    Charles Mangerian (02f175)

  6. Gays are going to be a protected class. If they’re good soldiers, no problem. If they can’t or won’t perform…. Nobody wants to be accused if Islamophobia. Or, no. Wait. That was how Hasan got to Ft. Hood.
    Misogny? No, wait. That was how the first two women graduating from F14 flight school got out with failing grades. One blew an approach and got killed and the other was grounded for unsafe flying.
    In some circumstances, a female soldier going to see a male superior in the office takes along a witness. If it’s a gay superior, does the soldier get to take along a witness? What? Het males can be presumed to be predators but gay males not? Suppose a straight soldier is hit on by a gay superior. Is he homophobic to object? Suppose it’s a gay subordinate? That would be a tough one to uhtangle.
    Well, as somebody said, hope this works out better than it did for the Catholics.

    Richard Aubrery (59fa91)

  7. I think the US military is a much better place than Richard and Charles give it credit for.

    JD (6e25b4)

  8. So this means male Soldiers will be able to shower and use the same locker rooms as female Soldiers, right?

    Does this mean I have to put up with sexual harassment under the Army EO program and the suspension of DADT by undressing or showering in view of someone who, as a homosexual, MAY find me sexually desirable or attractive.

    Will my Commanding Officer follow the advice of the JCS Chairman ADM Mullen and tell me to “just get out if I can’t handle it”? Would they tell a female Soldier complaining of sexual harassment ot “Just get out” because she obviously “can’t handle it”?

    I can’t wait till they start having to answer these questions because they REALLY did not think this through, as usual…

    Mike (5c3783)

  9. Pardons?
    I believe that most DADT discharges were handled “Administratively”, so there is no criminal sanction involved; therefore, no need for a pardon.
    The question will be “Reinstatement” with rank and seniority, and Time-of-Service.
    Now, if someone was cashiered due to violation of the Sodomy provisions of the UCMJ, that shouldn’t be affected by the repeal of DADT,
    since those provisions apply equally to both gay and straight members of the Military Services.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  10. Obama says that members of the military will no longer “be asked to lie” following his signature.

    Last I checked, they were expected to be truthful, knowing full well what the rules were at the time of enlistment.

    That Obama excuses someone’s choice to lie when it was convenient for them in the context of military service is disgraceful.

    Blue Ox (ff919a)

  11. This is all piffle. In 20 years, it will be an embarrassing memory for the country, and all politicians will claim to have been personally against DADT.

    The Republicans should have been out in front of this issue, and embraced gays who share conservative values. Instead, the 4% of the party that provides 40% of the money got to dictate “values” that are shared with Islamofascists and Hitler.

    Gays aren’t going away. But, like the 90% of Blacks that vote (D) because they don’t have a better alternative, they are given a reason to believe Republicans and conservatives reject them.

    TimesDisliker (6f741a)

  12. JD.
    So you believe it. Got any responses to my questions?

    Richard Aubrery (59fa91)

  13. This is nothing short of a great big “FUCK YOU” to the war fighters. All the asshole admirals and politicians can go home at night to a nice quiet home with residents they selected. Assholes! When Gates and Mullins invites a half dozen or so random gay, lesbian, transgendered and transsexual people to move into their house, they will have a tiny bit of credibility.

    The simple fact is that Gates is and was a tool, and Mullins in politically ambitious. So screw the troops!

    GaryS (8351a3)

  14. Comment by Mike

    You very succinctly made the point that I awkwardly tried to make on several occasions. I was previously informed that such lack of privacy as you describe does not exist in today’s military (“at least not in the AF”, “at least not outside of basic training”).

    JD- the military is not the issue, it is irresponsible and thoughtless people in the military, of which there are a few like in all other places.

    I imagine this will be used as general momentum to firther attempt to legitimize gay marriage as well.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  15. MD in Philly-

    I used to think that also. However, the military has established policies and even departments in place to handle situations like these, albeit, between the opposite sexes.

    No one in the military chain of command would say that females should or even would be required to disrobe or shower in front of males. Females do not even share the same living areas as males due to the risk of sexual assault or harassment.

    Now all of a sudden with homosexuals being allowed to serve openly we are told that everything will be fine. But what about heterosexual soldiers that do not want to be placed in socially or sexually awkward positions as being seen naked by a person who finds you or any one of similar sexes sexual attractive or desirable? Is this not a major privacy issue?

    Did the military wake up one day and find that female-male cohabitation or showering is a No-go but homosexual male/female-heterosexual male/female showering and cohabitation is fine and dandy?

    like I said… I would love to hear them tell a female who complains of sexual harassment to “get over it or get out” because the uproar would be deafening.

    Best.

    Mike (5c3783)

  16. But what about heterosexual soldiers that do not want to be placed in socially or sexually awkward positions as being seen naked by a person who finds you or any one of similar sexes sexual attractive or desirable?

    What about it? As long as the gay individual doesn’t do or say anything constituting harassment, then it is nothing more than a matter of insecurity on the part of the hetero.

    Seriously, this is going to do way more good for the military in the way of eliminating stereotypes and the such. This does a good job of expressing what I mean:

    It’s already gay.

    Nate_MI (68c8a4)

  17. Just out of curiosity: Have 5 days passed since the legislation was approved?

    Hoystory (249551)

  18. Nate – so, it is just female insecurity that keeps men and women from showering together?

    JD (6e25b4)

  19. Hoystory – it is racist to note that they are not living up to their own stated standards.

    JD (109425)

  20. Comment by TimesDisliker — 12/22/2010 @ 9:18 am

    But…Leftists seem to love IslamoFascists, and they seem to be very comfortable with Hitler as well, as they invoke his name so much.

    “…4% who contribute 40% of the money…”
    OMG, what a concept…
    politicians actually heeding the wishes of their contributors.
    Is there no shame?

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  21. so, it is just female insecurity that keeps men and women from showering together?

    No. It is probably more about male insecurity. After all, it was male commanders who made those rules back when women were first allowed to serve in the armed forces. It is the same mentality which prevents women from serving in combat units. Nobody wants their mother or sister to shower with men, or kill people.

    It probably also has more to do with the military doing what it can to prevent pregnancies among military women.

    But a lot of that is changing. Women are being admitted into more of the traditionally-male career fields, and are seeing their representation in higher ranks increase as well. Just this year the U.S. Navy began allowing women officers to serve on submarines. Funny enough, the sailors I know were more opposed to this than they were to the repeal of DADT.

    I think most people in the military realize that there are already homosexuals serving. That their no longer having to keep quiet about it somehow makes it easier to shower with them is a bit silly.

    Nate_MI (68c8a4)

  22. JD you beat me to it. Assuming equal opportunity here, that a straight male and a gay male deal with similar thought processes in the presence of a naked person that could potentially be sexually attractive, awkward at best seems an apt description.

    FWIW, being a male in the situation among females doesn’t personally sound very appealing either. There are reasons people wear clothes in California and Florida (even though at times it’s not much).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  23. err, that should be “That their having to keep quiet”. 😛

    Basically, I’m calling apples-n-oranges on the comparison of gays and females. Insecurity of serving with openly gay individuals is an insecurity in yourself, while insecurity with women doing everything men can do in the military is insecurity in those women.

    Just look at the points Richard made in #7 about women being subjected to much lower standards than men. How can that be explained by anything but insecurity in them?

    Nate_MI (68c8a4)

  24. DADT was Clinton idiocy. Like him saying that non-vaginal sex was not adultery. Seriously, he said that.

    Just say “yes queers” or “no queers” and leave it at that.

    nk (db4a41)

  25. I have no problem repealing the portion authorizing administrative discharges on the basis of sexual orientation.

    But it seems that the portion of the law authorizing administrative discharges on the basis of homosexual conduct have also been repealed. This is an important statutory tool for the military to use to separate servicepersons who engaged in homosexual conduct that involves force, public acts, prostitution, minors, acts that are otherwise prejudicial to discipline and good order, and acts that otherwise discredit the armed services.

    To be sure, there is no statutory prohibition against such discharges. But someone discharged for the reasons I have stated could go to court to reverse the discharge on the grounds it exceeded the military’s statutory authority.

    Gays aren’t going away.

    Neither are they increasing in number relative to the general population.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  26. Michael: Article 125 of the UCMJ was not repealed. Is that what you’re referring to? AFAIK, only the article 10 provisions were repealed.

    I’d be curious to find out how many article 125 prosecutions there have been in say, the last 15 years.

    Nate_MI (68c8a4)

  27. Nate- Do you really equate a woman being a radar operator next to a man the equivalent of being in a shower naked next to him?

    I think you would do your argument a favor by being a little more respectful of the concerns of those who disagree, rather than being dismissive.

    My daughter needing to kill a person (justified) doesn’t bother me a bit compared to the idea of her being at the mercy of enemy soldiers who don’t honor the Geneva Convention, or compared to the idea of her standing naked in the shower with fellow soldiers.

    What’s wrong with male insecurity when it is appropriate? It is not normative in our society to be naked in front of someone who you may find sexually desirable (likewise naked) or vice versa.

    Since this is a site dealing with matters legal, I will present Exhibit A concerning the ability of potential sexual partners being able to maintain a “professional relationship”. Just how well did Brad and Jennifer’s marriage hold together after play-acting on the set of Mr. and Mrs. Smith?

    Yes, we know there are gays in the military, and I am sure that generally they do a very good job. But I think keeping a low profile helps that, rather than being public.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  28. The issue is not serving alongside somebody in the field of operations. The issue is personal privacy while naked. I think most people see a difference. If the argument to repeal DADT is that gays serving openly is the same as blacks and whites serving together or men and women serving together then compare it apples to apples as you say. White men and black men have different amounts of melatonin in their skin as the main difference, just like a Greek and a Norwegian. Insecurity concerning job performance is not the issue. Gays serving openly is not like integration, integration doesn’t result in potentially awkward situations on the basis of sexuality. Gays serving openly is not like mixing genders, unless you talk about mixing genders in the baracks and showers too.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  29. But…Leftists seem to love IslamoFascists, and they seem to be very comfortable with Hitler as well, as they invoke his name so much.

    “…4% who contribute 40% of the money…”
    OMG, what a concept…
    politicians actually heeding the wishes of their contributors.
    Is there no shame?

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 12/22/2010 @ 10:59 am

    I was comparing the Conservative Christians who consider being gay “a choice” and “against God’s word” to Islamofascists. If you want to line them up with orthodox Leftists, I agree.

    If you are OK with 4% of Conservative Christians the Republican party dictating the platform, fine. Maybe we can just skip elections altogether.:-) I guess you are also OK with the Ethanol lobby and MoveOn.org and Soros substituting money for politicians for the interests of constituents.

    Sarcasm is not a substitute for critical thinking.

    TimesDisliker (6f741a)

  30. Radar operator, MD? What are you talking about?

    I am not being dismissive of the concerns at all. I gave them their due consideration, and came to the conclusion they are silly. Like, the argument that being “naked in front of someone who you may find sexually desirable” or vice versa is not normal. Apparently it is normal as long as nobody knows about it?

    The military already has rules prohibiting fraternization. The idea that repeal of DADT will undermine them boils down to a mentality that gays are somehow fundamentally perverted. That seems a bit more dismissive than anything I have said.

    Brad and Jennifer? Really? Okay, what about Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick? Or any of the other show business families who have managed to stay together. I think we should give members of the military a little more credit than comparing them to Brad Pitt and Jennifer Lopez.

    Nate_MI (68c8a4)

  31. God hates fags.

    JD (f337a7)

  32. Comment by TimesDisliker — 12/22/2010 @ 11:47 am

    I seriously doubt that 4% of the Party is setting the policy for the other 96%; and if it were, that’s a lot of people who are going to walk over to the local TEA Party.

    If you have empirical data that shows otherwise, please share.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  33. “naked in front of someone who you may find sexually desirable” , or worse yet, undisirable.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  34. Somebody is sockpuppetting me, and they should be ashamed. F@ck you, Willie the Wee Wanker.

    JD (07faa1)

  35. Just so we are clear, #31 was not by me. It was by the professor of plagiarism, the midget skin flute player, the veggie paella cooker. He is a dishonest elfin coward.

    JD (07faa1)

  36. You didn’t even need to explain #31, JD. We all know better.

    It’s embarrassingly pathetic to see such desperation. At the least, he should try to raise the bar higher than some ugly jr. high boys locker room level smear. But then again perhaps that’s giving him far more credit than his intellect is capable of… I suspect it’s very age appropriate for him.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  37. I know, Dana, and thank you. I just wanted it to be abundantly clear what he is resorting to. I asked Aaron to leave it up, so people can see what a university professor is doing.

    JD (07faa1)

  38. 30.Radar operator, MD? What are you talking about?

    You said:
    Basically, I’m calling apples-n-oranges on the comparison of gays and females. Insecurity of serving with openly gay individuals is an insecurity in yourself, while insecurity with women doing everything men can do in the military is insecurity in those women.
    Just look at the points Richard made in #7 about women being subjected to much lower standards than men. How can that be explained by anything but insecurity in them

    What I took from your comments had to do with comparing proficiency at a task, such as flying fighter jets or being a radar operator.

    a mentality that gays are somehow fundamentally perverted
    Not at all, that’s why I have compared the experience of a gay man among men and a straight man among women (or straight women among straight men). I’m discussing this based on the assumption that the only difference between the sexuality of a gay man and a straight man is who they find physically attractive. I think most people would agree that straight men and women mixing together in living quarters included the bathroom and showers would be quite awkward at best. That is the closest analogy, as I can tell, to openly gay men in the same situation with straight men.

    Apparently it is normal as long as nobody knows about it?
    In one way, yes, because it is “the knowing” one can be considered as an object of affection/desire that brings the awkwardness of it.

    what about … any of the other show business families who have managed to stay together. I think we should give members of the military a little more credit
    I’m not giving members of the military any more or less credit than other human beings. You’re certainly correct that many Hollywood types can keep their personal relationships from hitting the rocks, I’m just pointing out the obvious issues of human nature, and assuming nothing different about gays and straights (except, of course, which body type they are attreacted to).

    JD- No He doesn’t. You now need to go and condemn yourself.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  39. Oh, sotty will JD.

    Fake JD, condemn yourself twice, once for what you said, once more for not taking credit for it.

    Sometimes I mistake sarcasm for real, real for sarcasm, so sorry, please forgive real JD.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  40. Article 125 of the UCMJ was not repealed. Is that what you’re referring to? AFAIK, only the article 10 provisions were repealed.

    Article 125 permits courts-martial; it does not authorize administrative discharges.

    A statutory provision allowing administrative discharges would allow the military flexibility to deal with homosexual conduct that is prejudicial to discipline and good order. Without such a provision, the only available remedy might be the blunt instrument of a court-martial.

    The idea that repeal of DADT will undermine them boils down to a mentality that gays are somehow fundamentally perverted.

    It repeals a statutory tool that is used to maintain discipline and good order. To be sure, there was not a gay tolerance provision added.

    If a serviceperson is administratively discharged for homosexual conduct prejudicial to discipline and good order, the discharged serviceperson can challenge it in court on thw basis that it exceeds the military’s statutory authority or violates the U.S. Constitution. If the couerts utlimately agree with the serviceperson, the only tool left would be a court-martial.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  41. That was “sorry real”, don’t know what my fingers were doing there on the keyboard.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  42. I seriously doubt that 4% of the Party is setting the policy for the other 96%; and if it were, that’s a lot of people who are going to walk over to the local TEA Party.

    If you have empirical data that shows otherwise, please share.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 12/22/2010 @ 12:09 pm
    I doubt it too, because it is a nonsense claim like all ‘straw man’ premises. You (not so) mistakenly confer money as votes.

    My point, which I will now ram down your throat, is that the Republican party, in many cases, reflects the opinions of a small religious-but-big-contributing slice of the (R) party.

    For instance, most Republicans (66%) think abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances.

    And most Republicans (60%)think gays should serve openly in the military.

    I’m not asking you to like it. I’m asking you to acknowledge reality, instead of living in a blog alternative reality where SARCASM substitutes for facts and critical thinking. Please have the last word if you desire.

    TimesDisliker (6f741a)

  43. Comment by TimesDisliker — 12/22/2010 @ 1:00 pm

    Quote from first link:
    “…In the broadest terms, the largest segments of Republicans and Democrats have consistently preferred the middle “legal only under certain circumstances” abortion position. What’s changed since 1975 is that the percentage of Republicans favoring the “illegal in all circumstances” position has grown and the percentage favoring the “legal under any circumstances” position has decreased. The reverse pattern is seen among Democrats…”

    Is it just me, or does that undercut your assertion?

    And, the second link is bad, has been changed, or has been removed.

    Also, it would be helpful to have the internal details when assessing the validity, or accuracy, of any poll.
    Just saying.
    I’ll crawl back into my troglodyte cave now.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  44. I am not being dismissive of the concerns at all. I gave them their due consideration, and came to the conclusion they are silly.

    This sounds like the definition of dismissive to me.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  45. Specifically, it’s dismissive because the author decided someone else’s ideas are so worthless or frivolous that it’s appropriate to call them silly.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  46. Careful, DRJ, you’ll provoke a retort such as “… living in a blog alternative reality where SARCASM substitutes for facts and critical thinking…”
    I can’t imagine how many hours of counselling that will take to erase.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  47. All this shower talk strikes me as odd. When I served, the draft was in full force and I’m pretty sure all population segments were well represented in my unit. Showers were short — the idea was to get clean and get out. I don’t recall anyone staring at anyone else, except for this towel-snapping redneck from Texas who liked to parade through the shower room offering commentary in a loud drawl. He thought he was funny, even if no one else did.

    He went a little too far once and used the N-word with a black kid from Nashville. He got bounced down a stairwell for his pains and broke his collarbone. It may have kept him out of Vietnam — we never saw him again.

    The moral for me is that I’d rather shower with gays than towel-snapping Texans.

    Angeleno (02f3e8)

  48. TimesDisliker,

    I’m interested in the idea that there is a small number of big contributors to the Repub party that are also significantly religious. I guess I would think the most religious would be giving their money directly to mission and relief organizations and the like, but I’m not among the big-buck contributors to either, so I’m guessing.

    Thank you for the references, though I’m not sure you give a fair-handed summary of the data. You could have said only 12% of Repubs think abortion is legal under any circumstances, down from 29% in 1990 and far lower than the current 30% among dems.

    The idea that the majority of republicans think abortion should be legal under some circumstances is not at all a surprise to me, a “Pro-life” conservative. Even most “pro-lfe”/”anti-abortion” folk think abortion is allowable when the life of the mother is at stake. The divide between Dems and Repubs, “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life”, is the difference between “health of the mother” and “life of the mother”. The “Pro-Choice position basically approves of abortion if the mom says it would be a hardship to carry the baby to term. The Pro-Life position says if you must sacrifice the life of the unborn to save the life of the mother you can/should, but only if really necessary to save the life of the mom.

    I didn’t take time to look and analyze the other link.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  49. On the upside, at least he said that he gave them due consideration. What that entails is another question entirely.

    There is no offense in disagreeing after having considered and thought about another pov. However, due consideration is certainly subjective and reeks of condescension.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  50. MD, consider something for me, sir. Do you think it would be okay for the military to allow one homosexual man to shower naked with one homosexual woman? Would your concerns about social norms with regard to being naked around people you find attractive (and vice versa) be satisfied? Or do you think there would still be an issue because of the remaining gender difference?

    And why do you think straight men and women mixing it up in close quarters would be more of a problem in the U.S. military than in, say, the Israeli Defense Force?

    A statutory provision allowing administrative discharges would allow the
    military flexibility to deal with homosexual conduct that is prejudicial to discipline and good order.

    You’ve got me stumped. What characteristically homosexual conduct is prejudicial to discipline and good order? Like, give me an example of something homosexuals can do that heteros can’t, which would no longer be addressable by NJPs? You mentioned rape, prostitution, molestation in the previous post. Surely you don’t think these are things that could not be addressed by NJPs, or even should be for that matter.

    Nate_MI (68c8a4)

  51. DRJ- Thanks for pointing that out. Sort of like asking for an apology and getting, “OK, I’m sorry you’re stupid”.

    than towel-snapping Texans
    Especially if they are good at it. You can do some serious damage with a snapping towel.
    The “shower talk” is simply the biggest reality that potentially causes a problem. I don’t think anybody thinks a gay can’t do a military function as well as a straight just because they are gay. But when the argument is “being gay is like being black”, or “being gay is no different than being straight as far as the military is concerned”, the arguments are simply not completely true. Yes, even if showers are 5 minutes and there is no time for “anything to happen anyway”, the closer analogy is heterosexuals of mixed sexes showering together, not a black man and a white man both straight in the shower.
    Now it may be that most straight men are not bothered by being in a group shower with a gay guy/guys because 1) since they aren’t interested, they’re not self-conscious as they would be with the women folk, and 2) it’s not like being a woman with men, because there is not the typical physical intimidation issue. The typical man would likely either ignore, vocally respond, or physically respond to an unwanted gesture by another man. A woman would usually be unable to “brush it off” or threaten to “smack you in the jaw”.
    So, it might not be an issue at all, but even if so, it is not “like desegregation” or “letting women into the military”.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  52. I’m asking you to acknowledge reality, instead of living in a blog alternative reality where SARCASM substitutes for facts and critical thinking.

    TimesDisliker,
    You won’t find much interest in ‘reality’ here.
    Sorry.

    Tina (f337a7)

  53. Thanks, “Tina”.

    JD (07faa1)

  54. I have been following this thread with interest, as well as the previous DADT thread. There are a lot of divergent and thoughtful (and also the typical cookie cutter nattering) opinions and yet they all remain respectful towards all who wish to serve our country. Questions that need to be asked, are. And potential unintended consequences are being examined. As they should.

    I missed your insights on the issue, Tina. Perhaps they were caught in the spam filter…

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  55. Well Nate_MI, you said:
    What characteristically homosexual conduct is prejudicial to discipline and good order? Like, give me an example of something homosexuals can do that heteros can’t, which would no longer be addressable by NJPs? You mentioned rape, prostitution, molestation in the previous post. Surely you don’t think these are things that could not be addressed by NJPs, or even should be for that matter

    That’s what mystifies me about the issue as well, from a different angle. If sexual activity within the confines of military service is against code of conduct, it should be for all. If sexual activity “on your own time” is private anyway, let it be private.

    Prior to DA/DT the default position was that gays were not allowed in the military, correct? DA/DT said gays could be in the military as long as they were “quiet about it”. And I am sure that many gays did not make a deal of it but others knew they were, and there was no issue (FWIW, the person who got outed from email conversations was an injustice as far as I can tell from a distance.)

    So characterizing the issue as “repeal of DA/DT” isn’t an honest way of phrasing it at all, as far as I understand it.

    Do you think it would be okay for the military to allow one homosexual man to shower naked with one homosexual woman? Would your concerns about social norms with regard to being naked around people you find attractive (and vice versa) be satisfied? Or do you think there would still be an issue because of the remaining gender difference?

    The question does bring up some ironies of the whole situation, doesn’t it? If the real issue is “being uncomfortable” in the presence of those of potential physical desirability, then a gay guy could shower with as many homosexual or heterosexual women he wanted to, I suppose. As ironic or silly as that answer may seem, I’m not the one proposing the scenario.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  56. Okay, if you would like me to qualify my consideration as silly the notion that heterosexuals showering with closeted heterosexuals is more acceptable than with open heterosexuals, here you go.

    1. Any awkward feelings on the part of the heterosexuals would be based on the unreasonable expectation that homosexuals would not act appropriately in a shower setting. I know this from personal experience in attending high school gym class with a handful of openly gay male students. Like others, I felt awkward at first. But I got over it because I realized there was no reason to feel this way. The gay students adhered to “locker room etiquette” better than most of the heteros (myself included).

    2. Heterosexuals with such awkward feelings would quickly learn, just as I did, that their fears were unreasonable. This would lead to greater unit cohesion and improved morale and military effectiveness.

    3. With current DADT policies, the occasional homosexual airman, sailor, soldier, marine will be found out even without violation of that policy. And when that happens, has happened, and would continue to happen under DADT, the awkward feelings and divisiveness would go uninhibited. Unit cohesion would suffer right along with morale, leading to the resignations of many very capable personnel.

    So, the idea that we continue to DADT because it helps some heteros’ sensibilities and won’t cause certain other religious people be butt hurt? I have to say “silly” is putting it nicely.

    Nate_MI (68c8a4)

  57. the person who got outed from email conversations was an injustice as far as I can tell from a distance

    it was an injustice which was allowed by the rules.

    The gay students adhered to “locker room etiquette” better than most of the hetero

    Sure. Their fear was probably that they’d get beaten up if they didn’t adhere to locker room etiquette.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  58. Comment by Nate_MI-

    You said:
    Okay, if you would like me to qualify my consideration as silly the notion that heterosexuals showering with closeted heterosexuals is more acceptable than with open heterosexuals, here you go
    and I think you meant:
    51.Okay, if you would like me to qualify my consideration as silly the notion that heterosexuals showering with closeted homosexuals is more acceptable than with open homosexuals, here you go

    FWIW, that stament is not what I was referring to as “silly”. I’m not sure of your mindset during this discussion, and I’ll just drop that.

    I consider your arguments more honest and reasonable than most. You are voicing opinions on the real concerns rather than depending on false analogies to avoid discussion. To a large degree my wish was to bring discussion to the detailed concerns that people could have.

    So, if we come to the conclusion that in practice the typical straight guy is not bothered by the presence of an openly gay guy even in the showers because 1) they’re not interested and 2) if somebody tries to start something it will get ended real quick anyway, then I’m willing to consider that.

    But, in my mind it is not clear what it means to “repeal DA/DT”. From my understanding, to simply “repeal” DA/DT would make it more difficult for a gay to serve in the military, wouldn’t it? So, it is not simply an issue of “repealing DA/DT”, but actually advocating a more accepting policy. So, the question raised above by Michael E. is just exactly what will be in the UCMJ now, correct? Once it was “If you’re gay, you can’t serve”, then it was “If you’re gay, we don’t want to know about it, and you can serve”. So is it now, “If you’re gay, you can join, but you’re never allowed to be sexually active, on or off base because of what’s in the UCMJ? Or is it “Do whatever you want on your own time, but if you do anything inappropriate on base you’re busted, just as if heterosexual activity?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  59. Army Regulation 600-20 13 MAY 2002
    Army Command Policy
    Ch.7 Prevention of Sexual Harassment

    7-3 Policy
    a. The policy of the Army is that sexual harassment is unacceptable conduct and will not be tolerated. Army leadership at all levels will be committed to creating and maintaining an environment conductive to maximum readiness. The Army bases its success on mission accomplishment. Succesful mission accomplishment can be achieved only in an environment free of sexual harassment for all personnel.
    b. The prevention of sexual harassment is the responsibility of every soldier and DA civilian. Leaders set the standards for soldiers and DA civilians to follow.

    7-5 Categories of Sexual Harassment

    b. Nonverbal. Examples of nonverbal sexual harassment may include staring at someone (ie. “undressing someone with one’s eyes”), blowing kisses, winking, licking one’s lips in a suggestive manner.

    7-6 Types of Sexual Harassment

    b. Hostile Environment. A hostile environment occurs when soldiers or civilians are subject to offensive, unwanted and unsolicited comments or behaviors of a sexual nature. If these behaviors unreasonably interferes with their performance then the environment is classified as hostile.

    Because having homosexuals (who by definintion have a sexual attraction to members of their own sex) share changing areas, showers and living quarters with other soldiers will result in no sexual harassment as defined by the Army. /sarcasm

    But hey we always have the option of getting over it, working through our own intimacy issues and just otherwise STFU and carrying on. Again, tell that to a female who complains of sexual harassment in any form and see how far that lead balloon flies for yah.

    Mike (5c3783)

  60. 52.the person who got outed from email conversations was an injustice as far as I can tell from a distance

    it was an injustice which was allowed by the rules

    I understand that is the case, and simply saying “therefore repeal DA/DT” does not make much sense, because DA/DT was meant to be a liberalization of the previous policy, correct? So, the people who say they want to “repeal DA/DT”, don’t really want to “repeal DA/DT”, but replace it with something more lenient, correct? In other words, the problem with the email discovery could have been addressed by a modification of the policy, not doing away with it, yes?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  61. From what you’re saying Mike, it seems that you are saying that if knowing there are two gay guys amidst a group of 20, if their presence makes what you consider a hostile environment, you’re just out of luck and should not join the military, hence being unfair and discriminatory to the person who wanted to join the Army, not “be subject to social engineering”.

    The question for the military as a whole is:
    can it do its job better by making it easier for gays to serve and selecting out those who don’t think they want to be in that situation
    or
    maintaining (and perhaps amending) a policy that allows gays to join the military given certain restrictions and doesn’t select out those who would leave as in the above scenario.

    Then the next question, how will individual soldiers be treated who do not want to stay in the military under new rules, will they have an easy out or nothing but grief?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  62. So, the idea that we continue to DADT because it helps some heteros’ sensibilities and won’t cause certain other religious people be butt hurt? I have to say “silly” is putting it nicely.

    I think one concern about repealing DADT right now is that the process of implementing repeal could endanger troops, especially troops fighting in war zones. That is the reason the Marine Commandant opposed repeal, and I don’t think you’ve accurately expressed or analyzed his reasoning. You obviously disagree and feel repealing DADT is a risk worth taking now, but viewing it otherwise doesn’t seem like a silly concern.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  63. MD in Philly-

    So what you are saying is that after 11 years of service in the Army I should just pack my bags and go?

    I will remember that one the next time a female walks in and tells me she wants to file a claim of sexual harassment. I will just tell her that if she cannot stand being around 1 or 2 soldiers who make her uncomfortable then she should just GTFO.

    Brilliant!

    Mike (5c3783)

  64. #56

    In the CNN story you linked to, Gen. Amos indicated that his opposition reflected surveys showing troop concerns about DADT repeal. However, the story doesn’t quote him as identifying the substance of the concerns. That leaves no way to evaluated whether the “concerns” are well founded.

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  65. Angeleno,

    I hope you can clarify your comment for me. How does the validity of any specific reason a serviceman or woman opposes DADT change the Commandant’s concerns about implementing a repeal of that policy during wartime?

    It seems to me the Commandant’s point is that he’d rather implement repeal when the military is training troops, instead of when they are at war. I generally support the repeal of DADT but I also understand his concerns about implementing social change while our troops are at war.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  66. Yes, clearly it is unreasonable for the Generals to take their troops views into account. Why is it that this topic makes people talk past each other?

    JD (d56362)

  67. Sleeping arrangements:
    Currently, it’s all-male & all-female, with the assumption that there is no attraction or activity taking place between the roommates.
    So, now what?
    Keep it as is? Everyone looking at each other and wondering? Or, having self-declared gay rommates; how will that work?
    House all gay males together, and all gay females together? That would only encourage promiscuity, so No.
    Have co-ed housing for gay males & females together? Same problem, unless there’s only two to a room.
    Solution?

    Icy Texan (b86223)

  68. JD, I neither said nor implied that “it is unreasonable for the Generals to take their troops views into account.” I simply pointed out that the nature of the concerns were unspecified (at least in the CNN account DRJ cited and the statements it attributed to Gen. Amos). This provides the reader with nothing that can be used to evaluate the soundness of the concerns. If they are unsound, should they be determinative of policy?

    DRJ, it also provides nothing for rating the significance of the concerns Gen. Amos referenced. With no content specified, we can’t know what their practical effect would be.

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  69. Keep it as is? Everyone looking at each other and wondering?

    Wondering what? Perhaps what I don’t get is the expectation of sexual interest in the absence of any sign of receptivity to such. I’m a straight male who’s spent most of his long life in California. There have always been gay men among my circle of acquaintances, friends and coworkers. I have never been hit on. I’ve always presumed it’s because I don’t project anything that suggests I’d welcome it. It’s something I’ve long ceased to worry about and I have a hard time understanding why other straight males feel differently.

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  70. I still remain curious why this topic causes people to talk past each other.

    JD (07faa1)

  71. Angeleno,

    I think the Commandant’s concern was specific. He is concerned about timing, i.e., implementing a change in systemic policy during wartime vs implementing it during training.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  72. “This right now is very intense period of time for a pretty healthy slice of the United States Marine Corps. This is not training. This is not get on a ship and go to the Western Pacific,” Amos said in his hour-long conversation. “This is what I call the real deal, and the forces that wear this uniform that are in the middle of what I call the real deal came back and told their commandant of the Marine Corps they have concerns. That’s all I needed.”

    But Amos also told the Senate committee that he would be “comfortable with implementing repeal” when “our singular focus is no longer on combat operations or preparing units for combat.”

    DRJ, you are correct, Gen. Amos is specifically concerned about the timing. He doesn’t want this implemented during a period in which combat operations are occurring.

    Again, however, he does not specify (at least not in the CNN story) what it is precisely that concerns the troops who participated in the survey. I would like to know more, in order to form some judgment on the soundness and practical significance of the troops’ concerns.

    Looking back over recent decades, it’s been rare that the U.S. has not been conducting combat operations somewhere. If the concerns that turn up in troop surveys are little more than a collection of prejudices and if the historical evidence suggests that they have little real effect on units and their cohesiveness in combat, why postpone the transition away from DADT?

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  73. This will only create more terrorists.

    daleyrocks (a82d72)

  74. This will only create more terrorists.

    I can only imagine what kind of propaganda Al Qaeda and Hamas would create with this new development.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  75. ________________________________________

    and embraced gays who share conservative values.

    But most homosexuals — based on surveys — apparently are of the left or, at best, squishy middle. And don’t assume that just because a person, gay or straight, is into military service, that he or she automatically leans right. After all, Nidal Hasan, in spite of his being anti-American and pro-Islamic, chose to enlist in the army.

    Whoda thunk it?

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  76. DRJ – I suspect there is no amount of specificity that would alleviate angeleno’s concerns.

    JD (07faa1)

  77. ____________________________________________

    I was comparing the Conservative Christians who consider being gay “a choice”

    I give them a lot more benefit of the doubt — and realize they’re wiser about human nature — than secular liberals.

    In honor of happyfeet, I again haul out the following celebrity.

    [British actor] Rupert Everett has revealed he had a six-year affair with the late Paula Yates. The “My Best Friend’s Wedding” actor – who is openly homosexual – has admitted to a string of affairs with famous women, including Susan Sarandon, in his new autobiography.

    “I am mystified by my heterosexual affairs, but then I am mystified by most of my relationships,” he said.

    The 47-year-old star admits he had an on-off relationship with Yates during her marriage to Sir Bob Geldof.

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  78. Comment by Mark — 12/22/2010 @ 6:30 pm

    His choice must be “Pro-Bi”!

    AD-RtR/OS! (375bbb)

  79. Angeleno,

    I agree there are always combat operations somewhere but aren’t the current demands on our military at record levels given the size of our forces and a decade of deployments in the War on Terror?

    In addition, I’m not clear why the reasons troops are concerned matters. Doesn’t the military have to anticipate and prepare for unreasonable concerns as well as reasonable ones? To me, the point is there are a host of concerns that must be considered, addressed, and provided for … all at a time when our military has other important things to do.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  80. JD,

    I’m not interested in psychoanalyzing anyone online but I view Angeleno as a mature guy who doesn’t see this as a big deal for other mature guys to deal with. My concern is more institutional, especially when it comes to military matters. I have enormous respect for our military but there’s a reason some of our most famous acronyms (like SNAFU and FUBAR) originated with the military. It’s hard to change directions with organizations of that size and scope, and we’re at war.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  81. You are a kinder more generous person than I, DRJ. I have hard edges.

    JD (07faa1)

  82. JD,

    Good thing I don’t psychoanalyze people because if I did, I’d say you may have hard edges but you’re as soft as a marshmallow inside.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  83. That’s our JD:
    Mr. Krunchy-Squish!

    AD-RtR/OS! (375bbb)

  84. Then I have you fooled, as the only things inside my hard edges are my radians and my hohophobia and my sexisms and my dark cold unfeeling heart.

    JD (07faa1)

  85. 69.TD – and embraced gays who share conservative values.

    But most homosexuals — based on surveys — apparently are of the left or, at best, squishy middle. And don’t assume that just because a person, gay or straight, is into military service, that he or she automatically leans right. After all, Nidal Hasan, in spite of his being anti-American and pro-Islamic, chose to enlist in the army.

    Whoda thunk it?

    Comment by Mark — 12/22/2010 @ 6:13 pm
    Right, Mark. Most are liberal, and are embraced *wait, what?* by liberals. Like the 90% of Blacks voting (D), they kind of have to because Keith Olbermann will make a big deal about Republicans who oppose the repeal and in this 1% of the time, he will be right. But the Republican platform doesn’t reflect the majority of Republican opinion, as my prior posts noted, and gays are all around the Republican party.

    Anyway, this repeal of DADT is a done deal. The sun will rise tomorrow and the world won’t end. Republicans are, once again, on the losing side of the issue and whining about it. Whoda thunk it?:-)

    Anybody remember that embarrassment at the 2000 Republican convention when Christian delegates turned away and ignored gay speaker Jim Kolbe? Can you defend this?

    In any event, feel free to get wound up about it but in 20 years DADT will just be embarrassing history, like polyester vests and platform shoes.

    TimesDisliker (6f741a)

  86. my dark cold unfeeling heart.

    Come, come, JD. What would your one-and-only say to that description (good days only!)?

    AD-RtR/OS! (375bbb)

  87. JD, if you read slowly (and feel free to move your lips), you will see that each of my posts focused on the absence of specifics with respect to what bothers the troops (or some of them). The CNN story contains no description of the substance of these concerns. That’s plain fact.

    DRJ, what I’ve read in this thread reinforces my suspicion that resistance to ending DADT has mostly been about accommodating unreasoning prejudice. What I’ve read elsewhere suggests that history offers little evidence that these prejudices have much real effect on unit cohesion in combat. I suspect Gen. Amos is worried about something that doesn’t matter much. If so, good riddance to bad policy.

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  88. It was a serious question, Angeleno. I’m suggesting that DADT will ultimately remain in-place, minus the discharges. The military culture, especially the need to house soldiers together, will ensure that “serving openly” will be the exception rather than the rule.

    Icy Texan (b86223)

  89. Comment by Mike — 12/22/2010

    I wasn’t giving you advice, and I don’t think you surrendering your career is a good thing, i was just trying to be clear about the consequences of what people were saying. Now back to reading what I missed away from the computer.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  90. We are all just bigoted homophobes. You should have just led with that, angeleno. It would have been more honest.

    AD – Today,she would agree with my assessment.

    JD (07faa1)

  91. I suspect Gen. Amos is worried about something that doesn’t matter much.

    Clearly he is allowing his own unreasoning prejudice and the unreasoning prejudice of his troops to cloud his decision making.

    JD (07faa1)

  92. What, JD, you didn’t like my anecdote about the towel guy from Texas?

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  93. Loved it. It was spellbinding. Masterful.

    JD (07faa1)

  94. _____________________________________

    Can you defend this?

    Yep. But not because he’s homosexual (or bisexual) but because of things like this…

    USAtoday.com:

    Jim Kolbe has recently sought support for a guest-worker bill he introduced in July 2003 with fellow Arizona Republican Rep. Jeff Flake. The bill would legalize the status of millions of undocumented migrants already in the United States while making it easier for migrants abroad to enter the United States without risking their lives attempting the often-deadly border crossings.

    Kolbe, who is pro-choice, opposed a constitutional amendment banning abortion and supported federal funding for Medicaid abortions in cases of rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother.

    He is one of the four Republicans who voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which was passed by the House of Representatives with 281-142 votes on October 2, 2003.

    In any event, feel free to get wound up about it but in 20 years DADT will just be embarrassing history, like polyester vests and platform shoes.

    I find it fascinating that over 2,300 years ago, no less than the famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato originally sneered at those with anti-homosexual viewpoints, dismissing them as being (in so many words) barbarians. (He reminds me of Obama after his speech in the SF Bay Area about middle Americans clinging to their religion and guns.) Yet Plato apparently ended up disapproving of homosexuality, going so far as even wanting to forbid it.

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  95. Gee, kinda like all your posts…

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  96. Condescending and patronizing is such a great way to have a discussion. Do you practice that, or do you come by it naturally?

    JD (07faa1)

  97. JD, I don’t think discussion is what you’re really after here.

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  98. Nor I, you. But I have unreasoning prejudices. You know, the funny thing is that you have no clue what my position is on this.

    JD (07faa1)

  99. I really want to get my homosexual hatred on here. And tell people how god hates f@gs.

    JD (07faa1)

  100. Actually, I read your exchanges with Richard and Charles. Which strengthens my perception that discussion is not really what interests you.

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  101. BTW, JD, I enjoyed my discussion with DRJ. We didn’t agree, but she’s always thoughtful. It seemed worthwhile.

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  102. DRJ is kind, and patient, and generous. Charles expresses a view that is noxious to me, and Richard had a viewpoint that seemed rather dismissive of the ability of the military to adapt to this. But I have unreasoning prejudices.

    JD (07faa1)

  103. We all have unreasoning prejudices, JD. One of mine is that you’re the Henny Youngman of Patterico’s. Maybe not as funny, but brevity has its points.

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  104. I am neither short, or fat, or Jewish. I am ugly.

    JD (07faa1)

  105. just my couple of cents
    a. re repeal during a war – we have been told by our elected leaders this may last 100 years. Can’t really kick the can down the road that far.
    b. The reaction to this is very much like integration and allowing women into service. Since the services were integrated before 1964 I am quite sure the concern about people showering together was raised. Those who objected to women used reasons such as they will be a distraction, men cannot control themsleves, they will be assaulted. Go on any US military base and you will see a professional environment with minorities and women that is the envy of most other businesses.
    c. Just because someone is gay doesn’t mean they will jump any person they are attracted to anymore than “openly straight” people do.
    d. Admiral Mullen is spot on. Oaths of enlistment for our volunteer forces specifically swear

    that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God

    So getting out is an option even if you have been in several years. You have the freedom to choose your path.
    e. Lastly, people willing to die for their country should be allowed to live as openly as straight people do.

    vor2 (c4d3dd)

  106. But do you play the violin?

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  107. I own one. Helluva lot of good that is. I can create some unnatural noises, whereas my daughter can make it sing.

    JD (07faa1)

  108. Then you are a fortunate father.

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  109. She takes after her mother. I am a tone deaf talentless hack. And I have hard edges. I was prolly harder on you than I should have been, even though I do not agree.

    JD (07faa1)

  110. Like me, my daughter doesn’t play any instruments. But she will sometimes sit with me when I slip Hilary Hahn into the CD player. In return, I pretend to enjoy it when Katy Perry comes on the car radio.

    I’m a fortunate father, too.

    I think we had a discussion. Not bad. Let’s do it again sometime. Good night.

    Angeleno (5ee454)

  111. Goodnight, kind sir. I will remember this, despite my unreasonable prejudices 😉

    JD (07faa1)

  112. VOR2,

    This article (especially page 2) discusses some of the questions I think the military needs to resolve, and I don’t think it will be quick or easy. What do you think?

    And thanks for the happy ending, JD and Angeleno.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  113. By the way, President Obama says it will be “a matter of months…absolutely not years—and that we will get this done in a timely fashion” before these questions are resolved and DADT’s repeal is implemented. I think he is being overly optimistic.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  114. Maybe. Don’t forget that racial integration of the military didn’t happen overnight either. And it took years, not months. Truman gave the order, but it didn’t happen on his watch.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  115. DRJ,
    They raise some good questions but imo get the gay marriage hysteria mixed in. Straight military members who have girlfriends or boyfriends, even if they live together don’t get benefits. the gay marriage issue will be decided well outside of the military lanes. Until that haappens a gay partner is no different than a straight unmarried partner
    As for the promotion, etc. those were asked about blacks and women as well. It worked out okay. Yes there were bumps along the way.

    The thing that the author and others seem unwilling to acknowledge is that the people who actually join the military and stay with it do so because they love the military lifestyle. A person’s orientation is secondary.

    As to quick or easy, I go back to what I am familiar with, which was women coming into the regular services. Quick and easy it wasn’t – however we now have thousands of highly effective female leaders across the services. You can take it to the bank that they haven’t become good leaders because they had a fixation on feminist activism. There are a lot of role models who paved the way with their conduct and work ethic that made women in the service a fact of life.

    Has the country benefited as a result? I think that it has and that is why I think allowing gays to serve openly will work out fine. If you want “estimates” I’d imagine about 20 years for the military to fully adjust.

    vor2 (c4d3dd)

  116. And thanks for the happy ending, JD and Angeleno

    They should make a popcorn date for the season finale of Grey’s Anatomy 😉

    vor2 (c4d3dd)

  117. Straight military members who have girlfriends or boyfriends, even if they live together don’t get benefits. the gay marriage issue will be decided well outside of the military lanes. Until that happens a gay partner is no different than a straight unmarried partner

    What about gay couples who want to marry but the law of their jurisdiction doesn’t allow it?

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  118. What about gay couples who want to marry but the law of their jurisdiction doesn’t allow it?

    Comment by DRJ — 12/22/2010 @ 10:36 pm

    Not sure I completely follow your question. But I’ll try to answer what I think you are getting at. Say a couple marries in a state that allows gay marriage – the military recognizes the legal marriage.
    How the different jurisdiction reacts is an open question. Married interracial couples that were assigned to southern bases until 1967 were told by base leadership not to go off base together because they could be arrested. It happened enough to be a concern. Let’s hope that we don’t have to repeat history because a state doesn’t like another state’s laws on marriage.

    vor2 (c4d3dd)

  119. way past my bedtime – will check the thread tomorrow. night to all.

    vor2 (c4d3dd)

  120. VOR2,

    Okay, hopefully I’ll have time to revisit this tomorrow. In the meantime, my question involved what to do about gay couples who want to marry but don’t live in a state that allows them to marry. Straight couples can go to Nevada and get married almost overnight, but that option isn’t available to gay couples who want to get married — they have to live in a state that permits gay marriage. Will the military have to relocate gay couples to a state that recognizes gay marriage so they can marry?

    In addition, I think you’re focusing on the substantive benefits of ultimately integrating gays into the military, while I’m focused on the process issues that must precede it. The long-term benefits may outweigh the costs, but I worry when people like President Obama suggest it will be quick and easy.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  121. Will a minority lesbian fill 3 quotas, or one, and which one, and who choses?

    Can’t wait to read the regulation sorting that one out.

    Gerald A (b6b26f)

  122. DRJ,
    I’m not a lawyer so this may be incorrect. If they go to a state that allows gay marriage I doubt the military will foot the bill or limit their assignments to those states.

    In addition, I think you’re focusing on the substantive benefits of ultimately integrating gays into the military, while I’m focused on the process issues that must precede it. The long-term benefits may outweigh the costs, but I worry when people like President Obama suggest it will be quick and easy

    that is a pretty good description of our focuses. No disagreement about your concern about the President’s “quick and easy” statement. It won’t be.

    There will be some difficulties to be sure and they do need to be addressed. But the DADT repeal is primarily about letting people serve without their sexual preference being a roadblock or something they have to hide.
    I’m only one person but I watched the way women were brought in and it certainly had its share of problems. Things such as women who unfairly cried “sexist” if they didn’t get a promotion or the like. But there was a lot more of the rude/harassing behavior on the part of men towards women that was the hardest part. Those women who stuck it out and become the senior leaders and officers really made it possible for young women to come into the service today and face almost none of the things they did in the beginning.

    So far the military is 2 for 2 with what some would call “social experimentation”. I am confident this latest decision will make it 3 for 3. It is difficult to explain to civilians what it is really like to work on a base where the environment is much more open minded than many civilian communities. Yet in that same environment the rigid military lifestyle and discipline is still enforced.
    .

    vor2 (c4d3dd)

  123. vor2
    WRT a profesional environment:
    A couple of years ago, several new grads of Annapolis were on the bridge of a warship going like a greyhound across the bounding main. One of the newbies allowed that it was so much fun…euphemism for an erection.
    Another newbie, an Academy grad, decided it was such a horrid thing to say that she filed charges or harassment or hostile atmosphere.
    If we had a professonal environment, this wouldn’t have occurred to her. Or, next step, he commander would have told her to grow up.
    But, because women are a protected group, this had to be taken seriously.
    She had spent four years learning about the naval version of killing people and breaking their stuff, projecting power, and controlling the sea lanes, not to mention bringing the Army and Marines to the fight. But the opportunity to stick it to one of the patriarchal oppressors trumped that. Where did she learn it? Current boss of Annapolis says diversity is his greatest interest.
    How about gender-normed physical standards?
    Point is, women who are good soldiers do well and are respected. Those are not are treated much differently than male soldiers. Ditto Muslims. WRT gays, we have in addition the berthing/showereing issue which, if applied to het men and women would be decided without question.

    Richard Aubrery (59fa91)

  124. Uh, gee. DRJ’s dumb question might raise all kinds of really keen and neat other ones.

    For example, does the military have to move its married personnel who might want such services to states that permit late-term abortion?

    Marriage, including gay marriage, is a choice, as is abortion. The military doesn’t have to accomodate you on such.

    Larry Reilly (ae99e7)

  125. That’s right, Mawry. Now, try telling that to the advocates of a constitutional right to marry.

    Icy Texan (b86223)

  126. DRJ,
    Your captured our outlooks well and I have no disagreement with either. Nor do I agree that it will be quick and easy. That said, I don’t see that it will adversely affect our combat capabilities. People question that which is fine but I’m only seeing the question and not specific “what ifs” about combat that make it more difficult.
    I think it is the right thing to do and after 25 years of being debated people should not be terribly surprised a decision has been made.

    Richard,
    One incident is not the norm. You say “if we had a professional environment”. I say we do have one and you must evaluate the entire picture rather than taking one incident and saying “See it doesn’t work”.

    Icy Texan,
    The constitutional right to marry is something that will or won’t happen based on what the citizens, voters and legislators determine. It is separate from allowing people to serve who are openly gay – just as “openly straight” people are allowed to serve.
    If the constitution is changed the military will follow its civilian leaders in ensuring new rules are followed – that is their duty.

    Separate the issues and the repeal of DADT looks less of a big deal than some are portraying it.

    vor2 (c4d3dd)

  127. Third time this morning trying to post with problems – let’s see if Firefox is more friendly..

    DRJ,
    You described my view correctly – long term benefit. I agree with your disagreement with the president’s “quick and easy” statement — it won’t be. My estimate is it will take 15-20 years to completely take. It took about that long for the entrance of women and I think this will be similar.
    Questions about how it affects combat are relevant but they would be more of a concern if people could define specific instances/scenarios of how it will cause problems.

    Icy Texan,
    DADT and gay marriage are two distinctly different issues. One doesn’t necessarily mean the other will occur. If gay marriage is accepted in society through the legislative process the military will follow the rules as it does with any other law. Until then, they are not obligated to give special preference as some have expressed concerns with.
    Repeal of DADT lets gays serve without having to hide their sexual preference just as straights have been doing since the military branches were established.

    Gerald,
    quotas for lesbians is as silly as quotas based on gender or race. The military doesn’t do that for any “group”.

    Richard,
    You mention one incident, which in my opinion doesn’t mean that the entire service can’t be professional. There will be attempts at abusing the EEO laws by some gays, just as there have been by every other race and gender in the service. When you have one million people in uniform it shouldn’t be shocking that you will find a few instances of this.

    vor2 (c4d3dd)

  128. 106.just my couple of cents
    a. …
    b. The reaction to this is very much like integration and allowing women into service. Since the services were integrated before 1964 I am quite sure the concern about people showering together was raised.

    Maybe you and others really believe this. As I said before, I think the amount of melanin in one’s skin is much less of an issue than drastically different anatomical features or which anatomical features a person might find arousing. The analogy of gays /military (or anything else) with {African Americans or women} /military (or anything else) is accurate as far as referring to groups with a history of being discriminated against in some way be society. After that, the analogy is questionable depending in the context it is applied to. But as most discussions in the public sphere, the level of thinking and analysis is superficial (last remark not directed at you, but the general state of affairs)

    c. Just because someone is gay doesn’t mean they will jump any person they are attracted to anymore than “openly straight” people do.

    I’ve gone out of my way repeatedly to allow this as a given. The argument I’m making is if the analagous situation is awkward for heterosexuals (men amd women together) why should it be less so with gays? The issue is personal privacy limits in the presence of one who might find you sexually attractive, or you might find sexually attractive.

    d. Admiral Mullen is spot on. Oaths of enlistment for our volunteer forces specifically swear
    that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God
    So getting out is an option even if you have been in several years. You have the freedom to choose your path.

    And the point is? When people took that oath it did not necessarily enter their minds they would be asked to shower with someone who might be sexually attracted to them, be it a straight guy with gay men, or women and hetero men. As far as having options for career path, you’re merely substituting a new “unfairness” for an old one. I guess that depends on who a person believes is more deserving of being treated fairly/unfairly.

    e. Lastly, people willing to die for their country should be allowed to live as openly as straight people do.

    A personal opinion you are entitled to have. Anybody willing to die for their country should be allowed a lot of things, but if they are willing to sign up and potentially die for their country anyway then it doesn’t matter. Joining the military and dieing for one’s country is no more of a right than my playing second base for the Phillies, my presence would not just be an opportunity for me (to make a fool out of myself), but it would detract from the success of the team. Being in the military means being an overall asset, not a negative. I’m sure that the vast majority of gays in the military currently are an asset to their unit, but I’m not sure a new military-wide policy will benefit every unit.

    They raise some good questions but imo get the gay marriage hysteria mixed in.

    What is “gay marriage hysteria”? The belief that many in the United States want to make marriage between same sex couples the equivalemt of marriage between opposite sex couples in spite of the majority of people not wanting it? That “hysteria”? Or are you assuming that will take place and are referring to the “hysteria” some have about the consequences of such legal action, such as being asked to talk to the principal of my daughters’ school because, when asked, she said she and her parents do not believe same sex and opposite sex marriages are equivalent?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  129. Married interracial couples that were assigned to southern bases until 1967 were told by base leadership not to go off base together because they could be arrested. It happened enough to be a concern. Let’s hope that we don’t have to repeat history because a state doesn’t like another state’s laws on marriage.

    Nobody is being arrested or prosecuted for being in a same-sex marriage.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  130. I still want to know what the backstory is behind the Monterey gay linguist firings is of a decade ago. It just doesn’t make sense that these guys were all fired just because they were suspected of being gay. There had to be a lot more than don’t asking and don’t telling going on up there.

    Wesson (019671)

  131. AW:

    I had that Monty Python clip too and LMAO. Doubt the USMC Silent Drill Team will be learning the RAF routine. For coming out gays should expect this uniformed reaction.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYLqlWSixTI&feature=fvst

    Arch (24f4f2)

  132. Yes, Wesson. There was.

    JD (07faa1)

  133. MD,

    We wil simply have to agree to disagree. I think the comparisons are legitimate – you don’t and apparently we are not going to convince the other.

    The point about hysteria is that repeal of DADT is not in any way connected to instituting gay marriage. The author who raised the point was playing on the polarized opinions about marriage.

    I guess that depends on who a person believes is more deserving of being treated fairly/unfairly

    Who gets to be the grand arbiter of this? Not you or I certainly. The military is run by the civilian elected officials – it was designed this way. For whatever reasons the policy has changed – you don’t agree and I get that. The military has a duty to support what its civilian bosses say and if they don’t agree don’t have to stay. There were some who left due to the integration and allowing of women – their choice.

    vor2 (c4d3dd)

  134. Via Hot Air, the Daily Caller brings up an interesting question not yet addressed by officials: Will he presence of gays int he U.S. military help or hinder our presence in the Muslim countries?

    Will DADT repeal aid America in pushing these countries down a path of cultural openness, or inspire a harmful backlash? This concern, critics say, was not dealt with in the Pentagon’s report on the DADT repeal and was overlooked in the rush to pass the repeal legislation.

    “That is a question those of us working with the Military Culture Coalition put to the working group on more than one occasion and it is not addressed in the report,” Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, told The Daily Caller. “It is one of many issues that were not addressed even though we insisted, we sent them a formal letter and a list of issues that they needed to discuss, and that was one of them which they very pointedly left out.”

    Apparently some seem to see it as an asset in that gays will make the traditional Muslims uncomfortable enough which will give us the upper hand. Possibly.

    “So is it going to be an issue for some? Maybe, but I’ll tell you, as a intelligence officer, I would recommend that we use it as a part of our psychological operations or our information operations. If it pisses off the Taliban, getting shot by a gay guy? Great,” he exclaimed.

    The other thought is it might possible drive the traditional Muslims away from the negotiating table.

    “Can gays serve as military advisers to Muslims?” he asked in an e-mail to TheDC. “What about Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan? Will gays be able to be out among the Muslims and how much will that drive Muslims away from the nation-building effort?”

    Babbin was especially concerned about the propaganda and recruitment value DADT repeal will have for terrorists.

    “Propaganda that says gays are among (and the propagandists will say they amount to all) the US troops may turn more young Muslims into terrorists than Guantanamo Bay’s prison ever did…..The burden on our guys – to gain confidence and provide security – is increased many-fold by having to overcome the Muslim intolerance of homosexuality,” wrote Babbin to TheDC.

    My question in either case would be how will anyone know they’re gay – and why should it be explained, said, or made known? Why would anyone’s sexuality be the subject of discussion or debate on a battlefield in the first place?

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  135. Can you defend this?

    Yep. But not because he’s homosexual (or bisexual) but because of things like this…

    USAtoday.com:
    Jim Kolbe has recently sought support for a guest-worker bill he introduced in July 2003….
    Comment by Mark — 12/22/2010 @ 8:22 pm

    Mark, my link described a story at the 2000 Republican Convention, where Conservative Christians turned their back on a gay speaker.

    Your story about something in 2003 has nothing to do with it, certainly not as a defense for that kind of behavior, and had nothing to do with the audience rudeness.

    So yet again, I have to specifically state that Republicans look ridiculous and intolerant, accomplishing nothing by being rude to a speaker simply because he is gay.

    So, continue to whinge and handwring over this issue that has already been settled to the satisfaction of 60% of Republicans. Enjoy~!:-)

    TimesDisliker (87813d)

  136. vor2-
    Yes, we can agree to disagree. However, as in my interaction with “Nate_MI” above, I’m interested first in understanding the steps in the thinking, not just a “final verdict”. I gave reasons why I think the comparisons are not legitimate, your reponse is to simply say you disagree rather than discuss the specifics.

    repeal of DADT is not in any way connected to instituting gay marriage (my bold)

    I will definitely agree with you that there is no direct connection between repeal of DADT and gay marriage, but I disagree that there is “no connection in any way”. Wherever “gay rights” have been championed, one of the issues soon raised has to do with extending benefits to same-sex partners or not, and that rapidly becomes part of the discussion on the equivalency of same sex and opposite sex relationships. Now, you may think that is a good thing, many people do. But whether you think it good or bad, I think it is fair to say the “repeal”* of DADT does intermingle with the discussion of same-sex marriage.

    *(as discussed before, it is not about returning to the status quo before DADT, which is what “repealing” it would be about).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  137. Md,
    I’ve given several reasons I think the integration/women issues are similar to this.

    “no connection in any way” is accurate but that falls far outside what is being done with DADT repeal. I expect that you will see some activists push the marriage issue but that is for society at large.

    DADT was a terrible approach to begin with – it made it much more difficult to manage the issue for line supervisors and officers. Yes/No, Up/Down stands&positions are what military people want from their civilian leaders. DADT was a punt.

    Times have changed and a fair majority of people seem to believe that it is time to make a call on whether gays serve openly.

    vor2 (c4d3dd)

  138. “I still want to know what the backstory is behind the Monterey gay linguist firings is of a decade ago.”

    Wesson – I have no idea if it applied to the situation with the linguists, but someone researching discharges related to sexual orientation found that north of 80% of that frequently cited 13,500 number were initiated by the service member rather than other parties.

    daleyrocks (bfdac7)

  139. I know this isn’t who you are talking about but the discussion reminds me of him: Dan Choi outed himself and was discharged as a result.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  140. DRJ – No, I was reading a post on another blog regarding myths about DADT. Someone had apparently taken the time to research the 13,500 discharges and determined that over 80% were initiated, the implication being the service member desired separation, by the individual, rather than third parties.

    daleyrocks (bfdac7)

  141. DRJ – Here is the article from National Review Online which refers to the study I described.

    daleyrocks (bfdac7)

  142. Comment by vor2
    The constitutional right to marry is something that will or won’t happen based on what the citizens, voters and legislators determine. It is separate from allowing people to serve who are openly gay – just as “openly straight” people are allowed to serve.
    — I know that. I was respoding to a since-removed (Why?) post by the ever discursive Larry Reilly.

    If the constitution is changed the military will follow its civilian leaders in ensuring new rules are followed – that is their duty.
    — Do you know something the rest of us don’t, about a federal constitutional amendment to allow same-sex marriage?

    Separate the issues and the repeal of DADT looks less of a big deal than some are portraying it.
    — As I wrote in an earlier post where I said that most gay service members are going to remain in the closet, despite their newly sanctioned right to “serve openly.”

    Icy Texan (5f649c)

  143. I just finished reading The Weapon – which, as part of the story background includes gender- and orientation-integrated Armed Forces contrasted with nanny-state forces …

    I have been maintaining for over 15 years that, in the US, the sensible course is for the State to get out of the marriage business and just do civil unions between consenting adults … then those who wish can go to the religion of their choice and get married if their religion permits/supports it

    Alasdair (e5a51f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2056 secs.