PDA

View Full Version : "Don't Ask Don't Tell" to End



30 cal slut
01-14-09, 11:09
hopefully not opening up a can of worms. personally, i'm not sure if this is a big deal anymore. but ...

just wondering what the .mil members here have to say.



Obama will end 'don't ask' policy, aide says
Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 14, 2009
(01-13) 20:21 PST -- President Obama will end the 15-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has prevented homosexual and bisexual men and women from serving openly within the U.S. military, a spokesman for the president-elect said.

Obama said during the campaign that he opposed the policy, but since his election in November he has made statements that have been interpreted as backpedaling. On Friday, however, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, responding on the transition team's Web site to a Michigan resident who asked if the new administration planned to get rid of the policy, said:

"You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.' "

The little-noticed response, made in a video posted on change.gov, made barely a ripple outside blogs focused on the gay community, but that's not surprising, said those who have been pushing to overturn the ban. Not only was Obama's position expected, they said, but support for reviewing or repealing the policy has grown markedly in recent years, including some from unexpected quarters.

The end of "don't ask, don't tell" might not happen immediately, several critics of the policy said. Although they appreciate clarity from Obama on the issue, they anticipate that the demands of the economy and two wars are likely to trump a speedy policy reversal.

"The question isn't if we do it, and the question isn't when we do it, it's how we do it," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, whose 2006 bill to repeal the ban earned broad support among Democrats in Congress but did not move forward in the face of a near-certain veto by President Bush.

"I'm going to reintroduce the bill in the next few weeks," Tauscher said. "We've got the American people behind us."

Changing attitudes

An ABC poll in July found that three-quarters of Americans supported allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military compared to 44 percent of Americans who expressed the same support in 1993, when President Bill Clinton approved "don't ask, don't tell" as what he called an "honorable compromise" that nevertheless bitterly disappointed his supporters in the gay community.

Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., both of whom backed the 1993 policy, recently called for it to be re-evaluated. John Shalikashvili, who followed Powell as chairman, has called for its repeal, as has former Georgia Republican Rep. Bob Barr, an opponent of gay rights and legal protections for gays. In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Barr disparaged the policy as wasting money and talent.

The current leaders of the military, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have neither supported nor opposed ending the policy in recent comments, saying pointedly that Congress and the president make the laws; the military follows them.

Recently, the main active support for "don't ask, don't tell" has come from the nonprofit Center for Military Readiness, whose founder, Elaine Donnelly, and other officers did not respond to requests for comment.

Donnelly has argued that ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military would devastate unit cohesion and morale by ordering heterosexual troops into "forced cohabitation" with openly gay and lesbian troops. But critics of the policy say society has changed since "don't ask, don't tell" was implemented to address similar concerns.

"We had a decade in the 1990s where people came out, and people came to know that their sisters and their mothers and their colleagues and their children and their friends were gay," said Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow with the Palm Center at UC Santa Barbara, which conducts research on sexual minorities in the military.

"Familiarity breeds tolerance and even acceptance."

More recent years have seen high-profile discharges of gay Arabic linguists and other troops whose military jobs were deemed essential in Iraq, Afghanistan and the "war on terror" - dismissals that struck many people as inexplicable, said sociologist Melissa Embser-Herbert, author of "The U.S. Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy: A Reference Handbook."

"We know of gay, lesbian, bisexual veterans who have served in combat theater, and I think that's also a big piece of it," she said. "It's a much harder sell to the general public that that person who died or lost a leg didn't deserve to be serving their country."

The military also has experienced a shift in attitudes, according to a number of studies. A 2006 Zogby International poll found military members who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan to be split on the issue, with about a quarter saying gays should be able to serve openly and a bit more than a third saying they should not.

But about a quarter of respondents said they knew a gay person already serving in the military, and a large majority of those - about two-thirds - said the presence of a gay person in their unit made no impact on their personal or their unit's morale. Three-quarters said they would have joined the military even if gays were permitted to serve openly.

A more recent, if unscientific, readership survey by the Military Times group of newspapers reported that about 58 percent of active-duty respondents opposed repealing the ban, a number that was cited in some media accounts as reflecting broad military opposition to a change.

But the newspapers that conducted the poll warned that their readers were not a perfect mirror of the military - they were more likely to be older, male, careerists, officers and politically conservative. In that context, sociologist Embser-Herbert said, it is remarkable that the level of opposition was not higher, because it is the younger, enlisted troops who are more likely to favor allowing gays to serve openly.

'Will and Grace' generation
"It's the 'Will and Grace' generation," she said. "They've grown up seeing gay people on TV and having friends in 10th-grade come out."

In the 1980s, when John Caldera was a Navy hospital corpsman, "don't ask, don't tell" was not yet policy, but was practice. Caldera, a gay man now a member of the San Francisco Veterans Commission, recalled how any sailor whose medical problem was diagnosed as HIV would be sequestered in a ward to await the inevitable investigation of presumed homosexuality and likely discharge.

"The policy ... should have never been created," he said. "With this new administration, I look for the light at the end of the tunnel."

Today, Caldera is one of several gay veterans in American Legion District 8 in San Francisco whose commander, Michael Gerold, a veteran injured in a firefight in Afghanistan, appointed an openly gay veteran as district finance officer without hesitation.

"He's an Iraq-Afghanistan veteran. It's just not an issue. Core competencies and leadership, that's what I need," he said. "I don't give a darn about the rest."

Another legion officer, Matt Shea, chief of staff of American Legion Post 911, recalled deploying to Iraq with a friend and fellow squad leader who later came out to him.

"It's about competence, about being able to do your job. He was a better leader than most, took care of his guys better than most I'd seen," said Shea. "Who ... cares? Seriously."

E-mail Matthew B. Stannard at mstannard@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/MNTG159HHG.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Army Chief
01-14-09, 11:27
Simply fabulous.

First they told us to look the other way and not ask any questions.

Then they made us sit in "Consideration Of Others" classes on tolerance and dignity and respect every few months until we could actually taste the vomit in our mouths.

Now they are going to order us to embrace this as an acceptable lifestyle choice, and presumably pay the price if we offer any dissent?

Sorry boys, I'm a little too old school for that. It is my firm belief that we're talking about a moral defect here, and if you insist upon throwing that in my face, prepare to have it thrown right back. My authority on that trumps whoever you get to sign the order, trust me.

AC

parishioner
01-14-09, 11:35
It is my firm belief that we're talking about a moral defect here, and if you insist upon throwing that in my face, prepare to have it thrown right back.

AC

Agreed. Tolerance is a two way street.

variablebinary
01-14-09, 11:45
Agreed. Tolerance is a two way street.

No it isnt. Havent you ever been through diversity training before :p

parishioner
01-14-09, 11:48
No it isnt. Havent you ever been through diversity training before :p

Correction. Tolerance should be a two way street.

hemi5oh
01-14-09, 12:50
They will take anyone just to get numbers back up, unbelievable. I got out just in time.

Macx
01-14-09, 13:35
So tempted to rant . . . begs the question why not take down the combat bar for women and do away with gender specific facilities . . . . if gender/ sexuality isn't an issue.

AirmanAtwood
01-14-09, 13:56
GREAAAAT, now when I go active duty in Feb, They'll be flamboyantly gay individuals working with me making me uncomfortable and not able to perform my duties to 100% of my abilities because I'm constantly watching my back. Not saying I hate gays, but I am not comfortable around them. I'v been hit on by them when I was in high school and that shit doesn't fly with me. It's just not right for a guy to want it in the rear.

Outlaw5
01-14-09, 14:54
Don't worry, once you are on active duty and an openly gay man "hits on you"...tell them to leave you alone once and if he doesn't.....charge him sexual harassment......make a great story and prove that the decision by the policy makers was probably wrong. If the gay individual leaves you alone then be professional and execute your missions accordingly. If you can't then you probably shouldn't be a military professional. My .02.

BAC
01-14-09, 15:17
Lightfighter had a very good discussion on this. If anyone here is a member at Lightfighter, I recommend heading over to the Crusader Hall and reading it.

The enlisted who are gay are not the problem: the gays who are enlisted are. If you're professional, you act like it. A lot of folks have served with people who were gay and never knew it, because they were people and professionals that just happened to be gay.

One standard for everyone, in all things. If you can't hack it then you can't hack it; it's that simple. If you harass someone, you face the consequences for it. If you fail to perform your duties, you face the consequences for it. Enforce all standards equally.


-B

AirmanAtwood
01-14-09, 15:19
Lightfighter had a very good discussion on this. If anyone here is a member at Lightfighter, I recommend heading over to the Crusader Hall and reading it.

The enlisted who are gay are not the problem: the gays who are enlisted are. If you're professional, you act like it. A lot of folks have served with people who were gay and never knew it, because they were people and professionals that just happened to be gay.

One standard for everyone, in all things. If you can't hack it then you can't hack it; it's that simple. If you harass someone, you face the consequences for it. If you fail to perform your duties, you face the consequences for it. Enforce all standards equally.


-B

The ones I'm worried about are the ones who are extremely forceful with gay rights thought and expect you to be accept them or they raise hell about you being sexist

bkb0000
01-14-09, 16:05
Dont Ask Don't Tell was already ridiculous- it allowed gays into the Army, but people complained about it? Wasn't good enough.

lame. what's going to happen is they're going to become targets, and soldiers who wouldn't otherwise find themselves in trouble will find themselves article 15'd for harassments and assaults they shouldn't have ever been given the opportunity to commit.

i'm all for personal accountability, but i also understand the group mindset of young arrogant soldiers- and that every reasonable effort should be made to not put them in positions to do stupid things that will negatively effect their careers. keeping fags out of their units seems like an essential element of that effort.

Iraqgunz
01-14-09, 16:30
A few thoughts, issues and complaints. Let's say this shenanigans gets the go ahead. What happens if you have a squad and within that squad there are a few guys with a religious upbringing and inn comes an openly gay member and other squad members refuse to sleep in the same room or quarters with him because they say it is against their religion. How is the command going to deal with this? Are they going to deny their rights to make a special interest group happy?

Studies have shown that homosexual males run a greater risk of contracting HIV and hepatitis (IIRC) so how does the military plan on addressing this issue? Are military members going to have problems when the first gay joke is made either inadvertently or on purpose? How will allowing openly gay personnel to serve affect manpower? Will we lose more military members who decide to not re-enlist or end their careers as opposed the amount of openly gay personnel that may enlist?

I know that there have always been gays in the military. As a matter of fact we had at least 2 in one of my units in Germany. Needless to say they didn't fare well among a bunch of grunts.

richl025
01-14-09, 16:36
Dont Ask Don't Tell was already ridiculous- it allowed gays into the Army, but people complained about it? Wasn't good enough.

lame. what's going to happen is they're going to become targets, and soldiers who wouldn't otherwise find themselves in trouble will find themselves article 15'd for harassments and assaults they shouldn't have ever been given the opportunity to commit..

You can make the same argument about a soldier accused of rape... if we hadn't let the damned wimmen into the army, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to commit rape!

Or lynching - who let all those damn blacks in the army anyway? It's their fault, I say!

(sarcasm off now)

I've been in the army for quite awhile, and my personal attitudes have changed since the time I was a young infantryman... yes, I was relatively intolerant as a youngster, and certainly didn't know any gays growing up.... but I also didn't know too many (?any?) black people before I enlisted, either.

I've met a few closeted homesexuals during my time in the military. Well, I'm sure I met many more about whose sexual orientation I never knew. The majority of those were good troops who had no desire to harass heterosexuals in any way. It really sucks for them to have to live a lie, to always show up to unit functions without a spouse or significant other.

I know one soldier who has been in a committed relationship for 14 years. If this person were to stop a bullet in Iraq, his "spouse" would not even find out about it from the Army, because the spouse does not exist! Yet this person continues to serve (and is pretty well respected) for the same reason the rest of us do - love of country, love of service. I only found out about this soldier's sexual orientation after knowing him for over 3 years, by the way, and asking directly.

I've been in the Army for 22 years now, from the infantry to special forces to the medical corps as a doctor. I usually lurk only on these forums (which have been a gold mine of information, by the way) but I felt the need to chime in here, because it seems like only the most intolerant people ever speak up about these issues.

I will now fade back into lurk mode, and no longer participate in this thread, unless people have specific questions. I encourage any other active duty here who are not scared by homosexuals serving openly to chime in with their opinions.

thopkins22
01-14-09, 16:41
I'm not gay, nor in the military. But I've existed in "locker room culture" for years, and I'll bet hundreds of dollars that there is and will continue to be far more distracting heterosexual activity than than there will ever be distracting homosexual activity.

Would I be comfortable? I don't know, but I do know that being comfortable isn't a right assured to me in this country.

KeepTheChange
01-14-09, 17:08
I'm not gay, nor has the thought ever entered my mind.

That said, I believe in the freedoms given to me by a higher being. As long as an individuals actions bring no harm to themselves or another, let no government infringe upon those rights.

I don't want the gov dictating to me what I can and can't do with my weapons, no more than I approve of the gov telling homosexuals what they can and can't do with their guns. :D

BAC
01-14-09, 17:13
The ones I'm worried about are the ones who are extremely forceful with gay rights thought and expect you to be accept them or they raise hell about you being sexist

Those are the gays who are servicemen/women, not the servicemen/women who are gay. There is a difference. Tell them to knock it off the same as you'd tell anyone who is being disruptive to knock it off. If they want equal treatment, tell them to act like equals and make sure they follow the same rules as everyone else.

Iraqgunz brings up a valid point about sleeping arrangements. An NCO asked about that on Lightfighter, citing that if men and women aren't allowed to sleep together, and you have a gay man or woman you're trying to bunk with someone, what should he as an NCO do? It's a good question, and probably the only good one I've seen to date. I don't see a person's religion being overly important in the sense that you enlisted to be a soldier (sailor, airman, Marine), not a good Christian (or whatever you are that this would offend you).

The issue here isn't that they're gay. The issue is whether or not a group of people should be treated any differently than the larger population. If gays are being treated differently, shame on the military. If gays are requesting privileges and immunities beyond those every serviceman/woman is entitled to, shame on them.


-B

high888
01-14-09, 17:17
Just want you want. You're in the shower minding your own business and some other
"guy" is eyeballing your Hersey Highway. No thanks.

RogerinTPA
01-14-09, 17:18
If it's mutual respect and tolerance gays are looking for, will they wear a "G" on there lapel pins, or "G" tatoo on their forehead or issued a pink scarf to ID who's who? We all know what a female looks like, what a male looks like. The hetero's need to know what team, an "alleged" male, is playing for. You wouldn't want your ass shaved while you were sleeping would you? Anybody remember the "Ether Bunny" from the first Gulf War??? :eek: I'm glad I'm not on active duty. :rolleyes:

KeepTheChange
01-14-09, 17:25
Just want you want. You're in the shower minding your own business and some other
"guy" is eyeballing your Hersey Highway. No thanks.

They are already there. This law will not change that.

I don't like the law. But I wont demand my civil rights on one hand, and hypocriticaly deny someone else's with the other hand. And I don't want my government doing it either. Especially my government.

bkb0000
01-14-09, 17:32
They are already there. This law will not change that.

I don't like the law. But I wont demand my civil rights on one hand, and hypocriticaly deny someone else's with the other hand. And I don't want my government doing it either. Especially my government.

serving in the military isn't a civil right.

NoBody
01-14-09, 17:45
Deleted.

KeepTheChange
01-14-09, 18:02
Nobody, there are already homosexuals serving with you. Have they rendered you operationaly ineffective, or caused a breach in your personnal safety? Have they effected the operational abilities or safety of your unit?

I see homosexuals as in a similar situation as firearms owners.

For both groups there are a vast number of people who would immediately brand you as an undesireable person and tread on your rights without knowing you for a moment.

I ask respect and understanding from people, and I give it in return.

I would consider myself a hypocrit to say, "give me my 2nd ammendment rights", then turn around and see another American be oppressed. Same thing with the 1st ammendment, I might not agree with something someone has to say, but I'll defend that right to the bitter end under most circumstances.

John Bernard Books (The Shootist):
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."

With that I'll adjorn from this thread, because I don't have a dog in that race anyway.

NoBody
01-14-09, 18:16
Deleted.

KeepTheChange
01-14-09, 18:24
No I have not, and it's something I've always deeply regretted.

I stumbled into a very high paying job months after leaving highschool and I'm still in that job to this day. Maybe I should of joined the reserves, but I was too into learning my trade at that age.

So I don't leave you guessing, I'm a crane operator at a sea port. But yeah man, I wish I they would accept my 42 year old arse today. And I'd be willing to do the dirt. If you can pass the fitness tests they should let you serve no matter your age.

bkb0000
01-14-09, 18:31
No I have not, and it's something I've always deeply regretted.

I stumbled into a very high paying job months after leaving highschool and I'm still in that job to this day. Maybe I should of joined the reserves, but I was too into learning my trade at that age.

So I don't leave you guessing, I'm a crane operator at a sea port. But yeah man, I wish I they would accept my 42 year old arse today. And I'd be willing to do the dirt.

i had a 42 year old body builder in my IET company when i joined up in '00. he'd gotten some kind of waiver. had two blown/reconstructed knees from weight lifting, too. came in as a spec4 with a Ranger option. didn't even make it through airborne with those knees, though.

maybe the guy was giving blowjobs to the right people- but it can be done.

ReCon_1
01-14-09, 18:33
I'm not gay, nor in the military. But I've existed in "locker room culture" for years, and I'll bet hundreds of dollars that there is and will continue to be far more distracting heterosexual activity than than there will ever be distracting homosexual activity.

Would I be comfortable? I don't know, but I do know that being comfortable isn't a right assured to me in this country.

This (due to years of athletics and extended stays outdoors) on one note. However, if Gays get to shower, cohabit, etc with the desire of their eyes (men): why not heterosexuals showering, cohabiting, etc with the desire of their eyes (women)?

Because of all the problems that will necessarily ensue. It is not rocket science. It is not prejudice, bias, or discrimination!

thopkins22
01-14-09, 18:34
We "discriminate" all the time against those that are physically weaker, mentally challenged, obese, blind, etc.

All things that can prevent you from completing a task the Army has given you. Unless you've been ordered to reproduce, gay doesn't exactly fit in that category.

bkb0000
01-14-09, 18:37
http://www.funnycollection.org/img/funny-cartoon-gay-soldier.jpg

Army Chief
01-15-09, 01:27
The enlisted who are gay are not the problem: the gays who are enlisted are. If you're professional, you act like it. A lot of folks have served with people who were gay and never knew it, because they were people and professionals that just happened to be gay.

I would concur with this. I don't hate homosexuals, and I don't support the idea that they should be singled out for harrassment; I just have a strong moral reservation regarding their orientation. For the sake of consistency, it really isn't a much different objection than I have to other forms of sexual misconduct (i.e. heterosexual adultery or sex with minors) as defined by the Army. Lest we forget, Soldiers live by a different code than the public at large, and we do that for a reason.

The problem I have is with being re-cast as some kind of intolerant homophobe because of my beliefs on this matter. Intolerant homophobe? What? I'm not afraid of homosexuality, and I'm certainly not looking to see anyone abused -- I just happen to have a moral objection to this particular lifestyle choice. Keep your mouth shut about it, don't throw throw your lifestyle in my face or otherwise become a distraction, and do your job. Who you choose to manipulate your member is of no interest to me.

I suppose the next challenge will come when DoD is pressured to begin making accommodation for trans-gendered people as well. If you don't think that is on the G/L/T agenda, then you haven't really been paying attention.

AC