DADT Forum
- Login to post comments
I threatened to start a forum on this subject in the 'Stewart rips McCain' thread due to the number of comments there, and the increasingly difficult ability to keep up with new comments.
I've been pretty clear on my position regarding the current policy and [the now stalled] potential for repeal, but as a matter of fairness and openness, I'll restate it briefly: Part of the reason I chose to end my career in the USMC in 1992 -along with some lower back problems that later required surgery- was the likelihood of a President Clinton and his views of the US Armed Forces, notably his stance on gays which was expressly enumerated during his campaign. Like most active duty members at the time, the prospect of gays serving among us was not viewed with a great deal of enthusiasm, or trust. It seemed like some sort of social experiment for the sake of a small voting bloc. Oddly enough, nearly two decades later, it has proven to be just that.
But more than 18 years since I actively served, I still hold the view that if there is a group of individuals that can't be molded by the Drill Instructors on Parris Island, SC, it's the counter-culture of radical homosexuals. Most likely, even if the courts eventually overturn the policy, these radicals won't be lining up at recruiting stations across the country; they're more bluster than substance. But what they bring to the table is the ability -through lawsuits and political activism- to disrupt the good order and discipline that is essential to training and warfighting. In my view, it is the goal of the homosexual community to interject itself into every facet of society; not simply in an effort to gain acceptance or "equal rights", but in a way that eventually results in power. I don't believe their motives are pure; I don't believe that they simply want to serve. Because they can. And they do. What they want is a protected class; not only in the military but in the whole of society. (The constant comparisons to slavery and a human-rights struggle is all the evidence I need...)
So I ask one simple question: Can anyone delineate any tangible strategic and tactical benefits to allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the US Armed Forces? Soldiering is a life and death proposition. If allowing gays to serve openly does as I suspect -creates a calculable measure of incongruity which ultimately puts lives at increased risk- no one can justify the policy shift. And the argument that the military must adapt and overcome is ridiculous; overcoming extraneous and pernicious impediments placed upon you by members of your side is reprehensible; just ask the squadmates of those killed due in part to the current ROE in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Finally, no one has the right to serve. No one of any shape, size, color, gender, religious influence or sexual orientation has the right to serve in the US Armed Forces. What you must have is the desire to make the commitment, the ability to withstand the rigors of service and the strength of mind and body to put your country and your fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines -above all else.
I think we're on the same page here, for the most part, even though we opposing opinions on the repeal of DADT. Personally I don't think the military should require any exceptions or special treatment of openly gay soldiers. You're right - they do need to assimilate into the military lifestyle 100% - that's what they signed up for.
To clarify my above, I'm only saying that those soldiers who use DADT to leave the service prematurely have dishonored the corps. Only those abusing the law should be denied honorable discharge.
But in the end, it's not my military. I have a limited understanding of the inner workings, and no matter what anyone says, it will most likely be a difficult transition for many involved.
Personally I don't think the military should require any exceptions or special treatment of openly gay soldiers.
Repeal of DADT, opens the door for all the special interests groups based in SF to start pushing for all the other special things. separate berthing, toilets, showers, spouse benefits.
Not to mention the slew of problems that will come with sexual harassment charges.
DADT was a perfect policy to let those who wished to serve, serve. The military is not the place to do PC social experiments. As been stated before the military's main job is to kill people and break things. Not be PC.
I don't think we need to worry about being PC on this topic. It'll be interesting to see how this all progresses - we might both be pleasantly surprised or devastatingly disappointed. There are a lot of people involved who will be responsible for making the transition as smooth as possible, and though there will undoubtedly be some major issues to come out of this, now that the law has been signed we'll sit back and wait. And hope for the best.
And hope for the best.
Ah, the perfect plan for the most powerful military the world has ever known. Gotta love when Democrats are in charge...
there is nothing we can do except hope that activists remain on the sidelines going forward. If left to the military alone, they will find a way to make the transition relatively painless. But if that process doesn't satisfy those who pushed for this legislation, then I think we're in for a serious degradation. That effort will be led by those who have no vested interest or honest respect for our military and it's mission so degradation will be the second bird for them.
I appreciate you stopping by!
And I'm not at all surpised by your position on this subject. It's wrong, of course, like so many of your positions are, but that too, is to be expected. ;-) LOL
Should opponents try to reinstate? Doesn't matter; it wouldn't happen. But what if the policy becomes an unmitigated disaster? Then what?
Always nice to feel appreciated :-) Don't get me wrong, my position on this one is way different than how I feel about other personal freedoms, I totally see both points of view on this topic. Its not really a hot button issue for me.
I also never commented on this topic because I trust what you, the vet, BassDude say becauase you guys have served, but now that it has been repealed, I'm just saying I does not really bother me at all.
if it is a disaster? I guess changes have to made, but I do not believe it will be a disaster, but time will tell.
I haven't posted on the DADT topic because I don't have any strong opinions on the subject. Tthe truth is Homosexuals have been serving all along, just not openly. I was opposed to repeal of DADT because I see it as a destabilizing influence in a military that is already stretched to the limit.
I DO think open homosexuality in the ranks, especially in this climate of in-your-face homosexual advocacy, is going to present all sorts of leadership challenges in the military. In effect, by making homosexuality accepteble in the ranks, gays are going to be afforded a whole host of 'special privileges' that will arise out of various other Federal anti-discrimination laws as they will be applied to gays.
What is of greatest concern will be possible petitions by gay soldiers outside the UCMJ's scope. We have seen the courts in the last decade extend civil legal protections to various classes of legal and illegal combatants, an area which heretofore has been the exclusive domain of the executive branch. I would expect to see another such landmark precedent from the courts with respect to gays in uniform, which will further hamstring the military.
Let me start by saying I do understand and even agree with many of your concerns, and while I'm not one who believes this is something that can be implemented immediately, I do believe that within a few years many of our concerns will disappear as our soldiers become acclimated to openly gay servicemen.
There is one underlying problem, and that is the militant, extreme homosexual core who tend to scare the crap out of most reasonable people. They've made their own micro-agenda speak for all homosexuals, and have many convinced we will soon see pink camouflage uniforms.
These are not the gays and lesbians who belong in the military. Those who are currently serving while following every order including DADT have every right to be there. They have chosen to follow the code, and a great percentage have done so without fail.
And these are the soldiers and officers who I defend, as I ask the question, if these men and women have so far served with complete dedication and honor, why would their homosexuality become an issue in the post-DADT era?
First of all, anything being jammed through during a lame duck has lost all legitimacy for me. But that's just me.
Secondly, the system wasn't broken and didn't need fixing. What was needed however, was democrats showing voters they could still use their muscle. The timing of Repeal was all about that.
Thirdly, the arguments for repeal are complete fiction. If you get a chance, click the link from my 12/18 comment. You're welcome to read through the entire thing, of course, but the Discharge Statistics section beginning on page 5 is particularly enlightening.
As I said, my issue with repeal has always been about trust. I agree that the crowd from the Fulsom Street Fair is not lining up at the recruiter's station itching to enlist. But they are certainly ecstatic about the vote, no? Why would that be? Because it's a political agenda being advanced, one stepping stone at a time. This was never about significant numbers of gays wanting to serve but refusing to "lie" and this was never about those who've been discharged. This was about political power.
I believe there are historical examples of militaries being manipulated in order to create political power. Is this what we're witnessing?
Now real quick, are we discussing the timing of the repeal of DADT, or the argument over whether or not it should be repealed?
And this is seriously annoying that I still have to preview my forum posts.
obviously -given my prior comments- but the timing was surely part of the equation. The equation being that repeal was about politics, not civil rights, or equality, or any of the main arguments presented during the debate.
There are those who believe that repeal invites integration. I believe that it creates segregation. Imagine if Catholics decided they would only serve if everyone had to attend Mass. (Certainly sitting through an hour or so ritual every week wouldn't hurt anyone, and those not Catholic may actually learn to appreciate them more.) What you would have is Catholic service members and non-Catholic service members. The non-Catholics might be more tolerant, but I'm not sure that's the mission of our Armed Forces.
Going to preview now...
And...saving.
First off, I'd like to disagree on your point of the lame duck congress. While I fully understand the concept, as long as they're on the payroll, our reps should be at work. Just because they're on their way out doesn't mean they should sit back and lay supine. The timing is merely an effect of a democrat majority, but it was only with the help of roughly a dozen republicans that repeal passed.
Now no one has mentioned a timeline, and I'm curious to know how this new(er) version of desegregation will be implemented. I'd say it's a pretty big part of the decision to repeal.
What this really comes down to is a disagreement over whether or not gay soldiers can serve at the level of straight soldiers. We know with certainty that to date we have had many gay servicemen and women who have served with honor, which then leads us back to the beginning:
Can openly gay soldiers serve with the same honor?
but my short answer is "maybe". It remains to be seen.
Those who've assimilated into the military lifestyle and have had a successful career, are military first, gay second. Likewise, heterosexuals serving successfully are military first, straight second. When gays get off my bus with a tag that says gay, I don't think they'll transition well to the military life.
There is one serious drawback for gays with this ruling, however. Until now (actually, implementation) gays who couldn't adjust simply had to "out" themselves to garner an early separation. And since roughly 85% of the ±13,500 discharges under DADT were members who outed themseves, this will likely be an issue. Don't be surprised that as implementation nears, a rash of new discharges take place.
That could be a blessing in disguise. If gays can no longer use the excuse of being gay to prematurely exit the military, it could become a deterrent. Those who aren't "serious" about enlisting knowing their "out" is no longer an option might reconsider the lifestyle choice.
there wasn't a need to alter the policy.
Certainly those who pushed for repeal, especially the radical gay left, didn't see this as a deterent to enlistment. So is it possible they were wrong on this issue?
I think there are some truly great soldiers who've served with the utmost professionalism both past and present, who would love to have to stop lying to their fellow servicemen and -women. Most gay people I know never speak of it, and I am often surprised to learn a coworker might be gay after working together for years. They're the same person to me, gay or straight.
And I think the majority of gay men and women currently enlisted wouldn't change in performance in the slightest; only an overwhelming feeling of relief knowing if their secret gets out it won't mean an end to their careers.
You're applying the witch-hunt myth to the argument. In virtaully every MSM story about repeal, they would site some soldier, sailor or airman who professes to know who's gay in his unit, and isn't bothered by it. I suspect they're probably telling the truth, too. So if gay service members are well known to the rest of their unit, then how can they be worried about being outed and having their career ruined?
You comment leads me to believe that you didn't read the link I posted above. That's okay, here's a few of the highlights:
First, we found that the large majority of the discharges for homosexual conduct are based on the statements of service members who identify themselves as homosexual, as opposed to cases involving homosexual acts. The services believe that most of these tatements— although not all of them—involve service members who voluntarily elect to disclose their sexual orientation to their peers, supervisors or commanders. The increase in the number of discharges for homosexual conduct since 1994 is attributable to this increase in statement cases. Discharges for homosexual acts and marriages has declined by 20% over the past three years [1994-1997]. Second, most of those discharged under the policy are junior personnel with very little time in the military, and most of the increase in discharges for homosexual conduct has occurred in this sector. The number of cases involving career service members is relatively small. Third, the great majority of discharges for homosexual conduct are uncontested and are processed administratively. Finally, more than 98% of all members discharged in Fiscal Year 1997 under the policy received honorable discharges. (Separation of enlisted members in their first 180 days of military service are generally uncharacterized.) Discharges under other than honorable conditions or courts-martial for consensual homosexual conduct are infrequent and have invariably involved aggravating circumstances or additional charges.21
No, I didn't read your links. I can be lazy like that.
I don't doubt the findings from your link. In fact, perhaps I haven't been clear enough but this is not anything I have denied while being quite close to my own position.
So those who have taken advantage of DADT, and lets face it - a straight or 2 snuck out as well, are soldiers we didn't want anyway. It was a huge waste of money and time and if there was a way to seek damages on the military's behalf, I'm all for it. But at least they got out during the early stages before they put lives at risk. Either way they lack the honor to serve, because they put their selfishness ahead of their oath.
The last example, if I'm understanding correctly, refers to honorable discharge status for those who violated DADT. If so, that's f***ed.
this realy sucks.
And my temp house representative voted for it too.
No wonder Djou got his pink slip after 8 months.
But then again, I now belong to the most liberal state in the Union
but I wanted to post this link for future reference: Congressional Research Service, Homosexuals and the US Military: Current Issues. July 2009.
This paper destroys the typical liberal arguments for repeal but is never sourced among media reports. Suffice it to say, there are no witch-hunts; most discharges have been the result gays outing themselves; and the largest percentage of active duty discharges under DADT was 0.089% in 2001.
The reality is,not everyone is cutout to be a soldier, sailor, or airman. This eliminates the convenient excuse to exit service without a blemish on your record. There will be many unintended consequences as a result of this, another liberal policy of 'good intentions'.
Repulicans voting for repeal were Brown, Kirk, Voinovich, and the Maine Girls.
So here's my question: Since the Administration and Democrats is Congress have been loathe to use the term "Victory" when describing the US Armed Forces role in the war on terror, how might this Senate vote be described for the homosexual community?
Certainly everyone wishing for repeal of DADT can't also be in favor of degrading our military; so they must be taking the position that repeal will be beneficial outside of the gay agenda.
Anyone?
And it shouldn't be repealed for the simple fact that it will cause soldiers to be at increased risk.
BK, well stated and by someone who knows what he is talking about.
Personally, I think it's a military decision that needs to be made by the military. The professionals know the best methods for keeping order and moral. Quite frankly, if gays need to be recognized as gay in the military, they are to interested in themselves as individuals and not interested enough in the unit.
- Login to post comments
(Moved the thread stream to the left edge for clarity.)
The last example, if I'm understanding correctly, refers to honorable discharge status for those who violated DADT. If so, that's f***ed.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The report stated that in 1997, 98% of those discharged under DADT received an Honorable Discharge. And those that didn't, were most often facing other charges not related directly to DADT.
I'm okay with the Honorable Discharge simply because anything outside of that -save a medical- could really hurt you in the future. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a gay soldier decided that -even if his peers didn't know his orientation- he or she might be so uncomfortable that they could no longer adequately serve. I wouldn't advocate punishing someone with a Bad Conduct or worse yet, a Dishonorable Discharge. That's a life sentence.
I don't mind gays serving so long as they first prove their mettle, and second assimilate into the military lifestyle. Asking others to accept their lifestyle is the problem. No other service member has the right or protected status (which will be the case for gays) to insist all service members accept their particular special interest. Imagine if Catholics demanded that all service members attend a weekly religious event and insisted they pray the Rosary. I realize it's not quite the same thing, but I suspect if Catholics made such a demand, the entire Left would be up in arms about people's individual freedom(s) to not associate themselves with -or put aside their personal beliefs in favor of tolerance for that particular special interest.