Did Obama announce end of 'don't ask, don't tell' today?

[Liberty Star]

Highlights I saw showed no mention of DADT, did Obama end DADT in military as he was speculated to do?


Obama to call for 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal, adviser says

By Laurie Ure, CNN Pentagon Producer
January 27, 2010 7:35 p.m. EST

In any case, would you support such a repeal?

In previous discussions, argument often comes up that if our closet democratic allies who are more religious than US (Turkey, Israel to name two) don't have DADT, why should US? In Israel, they even allow live gay sex shows for their troops morale building during time of war.

Are US policies on homosexuality in the military too inhibitive and fundamentalist? Are Obama advisers right and DADT should be repealed?

[MurrayMe]

I don't understand why the ban is so horrible, I would be GLAD I couldn't serve in the military.

[SamuraisWisdom]

I support a repeal 100%. In a country where people should be treated as individuals with the same rights as anybody else, there is no reason why a gay person should not be allowed to serve in the military.

[FrankRep]

Obama to call for 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal, adviser says

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/27/obama.gays.military/index.html

[Vessol]

In practice I am against it and think anyone should be able to openly serve. However practically I realize it really isn't the biggest of issues and there are far more important things to focus on. My hope is that slowly over time the religious view of using the government to push their religious beliefs will subside and even if they disagree with a persons views or sexual orientation, they respect their rights.

[angelatc]

He said he was going to work with the military powers and end it. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6148956n&tag=api

[Liberty Star]

Ok, thanks guys for links. So it was just a gentle pledge of sort to push it forward but no major decision was announced today.


BTW, I stand corrected, while Turkey does not have DADT, looks like they don't allow open serving according to google.
And "our closet democratic allies" above should be read as "our closest democratic allies".

[BlackTerrel]

I think if you polled the troops (at least from the ones I know) they would be very opposed to serving with gays. That by itself would be a major security concern if you let them in.

Honestly this whole thing is just agenda driven BS. Somehow I doubt there are a bunch of gay people clamoring to join the military.

[Vessol]

Well homosexuals are only roughly 1% of the population, bit overrepresented, regardless we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Majority does not rule. Equality under the law does.

[angelatc]

And "our closet democratic allies" above should be read as "our closest democratic allies".

:D

[commonsense]

Well homosexuals are only roughly 1% of the population, bit overrepresented, regardless we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Majority does not rule. Equality under the law does.

This argument might hold water if sexual orientation was a federally protected class. But it isn't.

[commonsense]

I support a repeal 100%. In a country where people should be treated as individuals with the same rights as anybody else, there is no reason why a gay person should not be allowed to serve in the military.

They can serve in the military. What they cannot do is engage in homosexual conduct (and get caught).

[squarepusher]

Well homosexuals are only roughly 1% of the population, bit overrepresented, regardless we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Majority does not rule. Equality under the law does.

keep believing that

[Vessol]

This argument might hold water if sexual orientation was a federally protected class. But it isn't.

I hate the idea that homosexuals need to be granted extra rights, especially against harassment or w/e. Like I said, overrepresented.


keep believing that

Or at least equality under the law should. Do you disagree.

[Promontorium]

I think if you polled the troops (at least from the ones I know) they would be very opposed to serving with gays. That by itself would be a major security concern if you let them in.

Honestly this whole thing is just agenda driven BS. Somehow I doubt there are a bunch of gay people clamoring to join the military.

I seriously disagree with this.

1. I served, and I support ending the ban.

2. The gay people aren't "clamoring" to join the military there already are a lot of homosexuals in the military, they are asking for equal rights. To not have to be afraid.

If there is any redeemable quality to serving in the military, then what right do you have to force homosexuals to stay out? If there is no redeemable quality to the military, what the hell do you care who gets in?


A good friend of mine, a fine example of military bearing and expertise, was kicked out when his chain of command found out he was gay. Yet at another command, I knew several openly gay women, and no one cared.

I won't presume to know the overall democratic opinion of the military, and I don't care. The military isn't a democracy. You hate black people, you can't trust women, you want to shoot gays? Don't join the military. You're not welcome.


What is this fear mongering shit anyway? A "major security concern"? Who's security concern? The nation? This reminds me of the old arguments about segregation, and denying women their rights.

[Mini-Me]

I think if you polled the troops (at least from the ones I know) they would be very opposed to serving with gays. That by itself would be a major security concern if you let them in.

Honestly this whole thing is just agenda driven BS. Somehow I doubt there are a bunch of gay people clamoring to join the military.

Good...maybe the troops will go on strike this way. ;)

[TCE]

If he ended DADT, it would be probably the only good thing he's done. Remember when Gitmo was to be closed in a year? That was a week ago.

[commonsense]

I hate the idea that homosexuals need to be granted extra rights, especially against harassment or w/e. Like I said, overrepresented.



Or at least equality under the law should. Do you disagree.

They don't need to be granted extra rights nor should they. If a gay person is assaulted or harrassed the matter should be adjudicated the same way it would be for a heterosexual person. Hate crime laws really only act to value the members of the protected class higher than those outside the protected class. If a prosecutor wants to use the victim's sexuality or minority status as aggravating evidence for the purpose of sentencing, so be it. But new crimes should not be created based on how a person identifies himself. My life is worth no more and no less than a homosexual. And a white person is worth no and no less than a member of a minority group, etc.

[squarepusher]

I hate the idea that homosexuals need to be granted extra rights, especially against harassment or w/e. Like I said, overrepresented.



Or at least equality under the law should. Do you disagree.

well, I am not sure if I believe it, but now a days 'special rights' seems to be the new fad, and also seems to be money allows you more rights (corporations, etc)

[Vessol]

well, I am not sure if I believe it, but now a days 'special rights' seems to be the new fad, and also seems to be money allows you more rights (corporations, etc)

Sad, but true. Idealy though I think all should receive equal rights under the law. And in that respect, everyone should be allowed to serve in the military if they can meet the physical and mental requirements for duty.

[Promontorium]

They can serve in the military. What they cannot do is engage in homosexual conduct (and get caught).

No, homosexuals do serve in the military. They need not perform any homosexual act to be kicked out.

Simply saying "I'm gay" is grounds for discharge. And I've seen it happen.

I disagree with Ron Paul's apologist attitude on this as well. Never before or since have I seen as much flagrant heterosexuality as I have in the military. Marriages mean nothing. One night stands every night. Nothing but males hitting on female coworkers day and night. Sexual harrassment beyond comprehension.

And here you are like "If I see one gay hair on his head, it'll be a disgrace to the uniform."

I have seen some disgusting shit in my years in the military. Never was it homosexual.

You think flagrant and unbecoming sexual misbehavior should be strictly enforced? Half the straight military should be kicked out.

I have never seen such wanton behavior from homosexuals in the military. They know they are under a microscope. They know they won't get equal treatment. Fear is their great motivator, and you champions of liberty are certainly doing absolutely nothing for actual individual rights.

[Vessol]

No, homosexuals do serve in the military. They need not perform any homosexual act to be kicked out.

Simply saying "I'm gay" is grounds for discharge. And I've seen it happen.

I disagree with Ron Paul's apologist attitude on this as well. Never before or since have I seen as much flagrant heterosexuality as I have in the military. Marriages mean nothing. One night stands every night. Nothing but males hitting on female coworkers day and night. Sexual harrassment beyond comprehension.

And here you are like "If I see one gay hair on his head, it'll be a disgrace to the uniform."

I have seen some disgusting shit in my years in the military. Never was it homosexual.

You think flagrant and unbecoming sexual misbehavior should be strictly enforced? Half the straight military should be kicked out.

I have never seen such wanton behavior from homosexuals in the military. They know they are under a microscope. They know they won't get equal treatment. Fear is their great motivator, and you champions of liberty are certainly doing absolutely nothing for actual individual rights.

+1, I see this often in the town I live in which is right next to a base. Sadly there is a lot of fights and such nightly bar fights between two marines whom were caught on their wives cheating on them. Honestly it's pretty natural considering the stresses of the jobs they have on family life.
I also have a few family members in the military whom's family life is very turbulent. It's a high stress job.

[Promontorium]

well, I am not sure if I believe it, but now a days 'special rights' seems to be the new fad, and also seems to be money allows you more rights (corporations, etc)

What choice is there?

If you leave the rules to the collectivists, then they write collectivist rules. This nation has never in its entire history upheld equal protection under the law for all its citizens.

It's been a sloooow chipping away towards individualism.

We just need to look past slavery, forced death marches, subservient women, and then we can noodle our way into the late 20th century, where we only have to worry about racist laws about where a person could live, or whether or not they could vote, or where they had to sit when told to like good subhumans. If we move the bar to 2/3rds into the 20th century, at least most of the racist/sexist laws are gone, just the racist sexist culture remained.

One generation later, what's everyone bitching about? Aren't you over having been oppressed for the entire nation's history yet?

Problem is, as long as hmans are viewed as parts of groups, there won't be a whole unifying respect for individuals. If the philosophy of collectivism continues, so will the policies, where any fluctuations will be met by laws pertaining to groups, not individuals.

Even Ron Paul doesn't support individualism completely, as he has proven with his inabililty to outright reject don't ask/don't tell.

There is no trend towards complete individualism, and there has never been complete individualsm. So these groupings, these ideas like 'no gays allowed' or 'hitting a black man is a hate crime' or 'drunk chicks can't consent, but drunk guys can' will perpetuate.

[commonsense]

No, homosexuals do serve in the military. They need not perform any homosexual act to be kicked out.

Simply saying "I'm gay" is grounds for discharge. And I've seen it happen.

I disagree with Ron Paul's apologist attitude on this as well. Never before or since have I seen as much flagrant heterosexuality as I have in the military. Marriages mean nothing. One night stands every night. Nothing but males hitting on female coworkers day and night. Sexual harrassment beyond comprehension.

And here you are like "If I see one gay hair on his head, it'll be a disgrace to the uniform."

I have seen some disgusting shit in my years in the military. Never was it homosexual.

You think flagrant and unbecoming sexual misbehavior should be strictly enforced? Half the straight military should be kicked out.

I have never seen such wanton behavior from homosexuals in the military. They know they are under a microscope. They know they won't get equal treatment. Fear is their great motivator, and you champions of liberty are certainly doing absolutely nothing for actual individual rights.

I don't think you entirely know what you are talking about. I said "homosexual conduct" is grounds for separation. Per Pentagon policy, a statement that the member is gay IS homosexual conduct. Also, I never made reference to a "disgrace to the uniform", so I'm not quite sure where you were going with that.

I was a JAG and both prosecuted (they don't get prosecuted but administratively separated) and defended several gay servicemembers. In every single instance, the command processed the member for separation because there was some aggravating behavior on his or her part. For example, they attended a gay pride parade in uniform, or tried to get charges filed against their partner for sleeping with them and having HIV. (the partner was a civilian). Has every SM kicked out of the military engaged in aggravating behavior? Most likely not. But based on the cases I was involved in, they did.

As for heterosexual misconduct, in my experience, it was prosecuted much more often and much more harshly than homosexual misconduct. I have prosecuted several hetero SM's for adultery (full blown criminal courts-martial, not administrative sep boards). Gay service members CANNOT be charged criminally, and CANNOT be separated with an other than honorable discharge when separated because of their orientation. The order is very explicit about this.

I also don't think every gay SM is cowering in fear while they serve. I have a few friends who are still on active duty and are gay. They are not afraid, get promoted with and ahead of their peers, and live with same-sex partners, etc. They just don't bring it to work with them and all but one of them thinks the policy should be kept as is. Again, just my experience, and I'm sure others would have different stories to tell.

And I agree with you that heterosexual behavior that causes a problem at work should be dealt with to the same extent. And from what I saw, it was.

[BlackTerrel]

I seriously disagree with this.

1. I served, and I support ending the ban.

2. The gay people aren't "clamoring" to join the military there already are a lot of homosexuals in the military, they are asking for equal rights. To not have to be afraid.

I haven't served but I really respect those that do - so you have my respect. But just based on my friends and family who are serving now I disagree.

What is the military's opinion on people who like to have sex with sheep? Or people with tourettes? Or people with multiple personalities?

I imagine there are a lot of personality issues that people have that don't really make sense in the military.

[Liberty Star]

There is big difference between humans and animals, what kinda question is that.

[jmdrake]

I hate Google "context" ads.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If Obama really does it, it's a popularity stunt, he doesn't give a shit about gays.

[jmdrake]

This is one of those "take it or leave it" issues for me. I'll be upfront and say I've never served in the military so I have no idea what's at stake. It is interesting to note though that in my constitutional law class even the most strident pro gay marriage, pro abortion, feminist member of the class supported the DADT policy based on the idea that "If the military says we need it I want to defer to them."

One question for those who have served. What kind of privacy is there? I know the men's showers in HS and college (where I went anyway) had no privacy. There could have been some gays at the school, but if so I didn't know it. I wouldn't want to shower in front of a gay man the same way most women wouldn't want to shower in front of a hetero man. Come to think of it, I was never comfortable with those open showers period. (I'm digressing I know). Obviously this isn't not a problem that can't be fixed. (Shower curtains?)

The other thing that gives me pause is how far the courts might run with the whole gay rights thing. When I read the Bob Jones University case it made my hair stand on end. That's the case where the court upheld the IRS stripping the tax exempt status of a university that banned interracial dating. Part of the courts reasoning was the affirmative steps all 3 branches took in affirming equal rights for blacks (including the executive branch integrating the armed forces) meant that allowing BJU to continue having a "charity" status went against public policy. So here's my nightmare scenario. Gay marriage becomes the law of the land. DODT gets overturned. Then there's a tax exempt challenge to all religious institutions that cling to "One man, one woman" as the only legitimate marriage and denies "equal rights" to those that don't conform. You might say "But that's discrimination". Yes. But so is barring men who aren't celibate from the priesthood, or saying that you must believe in Jesus to teach in our seminary or a whole host of other religious based standards.

I did ask a professor about this and he said the courts typically take actual religious beliefs into account in such cases and BJU didn't actually assert any and isn't strictly a religious based school.

Beyond those two issues, I really don't care. I can't imagine joining the military at a time when we are engaged in open ended questionable wars, but that's just me. But there may be one hidden benefit to keeping DADT. If this country ever institutes a draft again it could be a way out (no pun intended) besides going to Canada. :p

[jmdrake]

If Obama really does it, it's a popularity stunt, he doesn't give a shit about gays.

Yeah. He's got to shore up the base somehow. And this is one thing he could do by executive order.

[purplechoe]

In practice I am against it and think anyone should be able to openly serve. However practically I realize it really isn't the biggest of issues and there are far more important things to focus on. My hope is that slowly over time the religious view of using the government to push their religious beliefs will subside and even if they disagree with a persons views or sexual orientation, they respect their rights.

Don't make the assumption that everyone who holds a certain view that many contribute to the religious right is doing so on religious basis. For example, I'm against abortion not because I adhere to some religious dogma, but because I believe that killing a fetus is murder.

[Promontorium]

I don't think you entirely know what you are talking about.

I served 6 years in the Navy. I was on 3 ships, for a total of 4 1/2 years at sea.

The only way I can demonstrate my point, and that I know damn well what I'm talking about, is to be very specific.


You are a lawyer. You know most discharges from the Navy occur without any lawyers around. The Captain pulls the sailor aside and says, "now we can take this to court, or you can just sign these papers saying you voluntarily quit the Navy under Other Than Honorable circumstances.

I've watched a lot of sailors get out in this way, for a plethora of reasons. I've only ever known 2 people to see a JAG officer first, 1. Drunk driving crashed into a sign and destroyed it causing thousands in damage after a previous drunk driving accident that involved injuries to another person and a shoplifting incident, then came JAG. 2. selling illegal drugs on the ship to a lot of sailors who tested positive.

I could list all day the offenses that would never warrant any legal team to show up, maybe one NCIS agent who would close the file. One guy left my command, went into a foreign nation and did a lot of drugs, came back a couple weeks later, paper work, gone. One guy got high as hell, beat up his friend, stripped naked in a park, punched an ambulance, fought off 9 police until they took him in a straight jacket to jail for weeks, came back, processed out without any legal action.

NJPs. NJPs all the way. Commands don't like sending their people up for anything. No matter how bad the person, in the Navy looking good is infinitely more important than being good.

As a lawyer, and an officer, you would have been completely insolated from 90% of the shit that actually goes down. NOBODY wants to bring it to your level.

Except when the person being railroaded out of the military wants to fight back, or the crime is simply beyond washing away.


You say you only handled cases where the homosexual did something flagrantly gay. That's certainly fine, but you are being dishonest, with yourself as a lawyer, knowing full well the law isn't "Don't be a gay activist" or "Don't give your fuck buddy AIDS" it is "Don't tell".


I've written this before, but I suppose it's worth stating again. I had a co-worker on my ship. He was legally married in Massachusetts to another man. Knowing that the policy is "don't ask, don't tell" and not, as you seem to be misleadingly suggesting "don't go to gay pride parades, or give fuck buddies AIDS".


He was one of the finest workers on the ship. He joined for purely patriotic reasons. He was completely straight-edge. Perfect military bearing. He was an expert in his field.

I was rather social and overbearing back then. I would start up a conversation with anyone and really get to know people. I would pry, allude, allure, prod, and like a locust move on, building this colllection of knowledge about people.

Well somehow a 2 hour discussion led to me figuring out he was gay. He hadn't told a soul until then. He had no intention of telling anyone else.

And every one of you can try to tell me, no one is scared in the military of people finding out about their lives, but if you've served (and here, being an officer doesn't count), you know the military thrives on fear of reprisal. Check the heart rate of any servicemember who might show up 2 minutes late. Servicemembers sweat the big stuff, the small stuff, every damn thing in between. It would take me a lot more words to explain why, so if you really want me to, I can do it elsewhere. I have seen the fear.

Many people have this misconception about fear. That it makes you weak. Fear makes the trained servicemember a fucking machine. The scared-unthinking-unquestioning servicemember will not fail.

Being gay isn't a fucking parade. Entire religions despise you, condemn your every breath. It is absurd to claim any gay person doesn't have at least some idea what their sexuality means to many people in this world.

But you can continue to call me a liar. I'm just going to tell this one story.

This sailor, with perfect military bearing, an example of Honor, Courage, and Commitment in the United States Navy, found one day, that his husband was very sick. He had told me once, that his husband was dying, and this marriage, although loving, had nothing to do with sex, but support for a loved friend (albeit gay loved friend) who was dying of cancer. So this sailor asked for leave.

The sailor couldn't say why he wanted leave, because the policy is not DON'T GIVE AIDS OR GO TO GAY RALLIES, IT IS DO NOT FUCKING TELL. But they wouldn't grant him leave. And that in itself is a really long story about life in another country. So he asked for emergency leave. This can only be granted to see immediate family. Against the wall, with only 2 choices, shut up and let his husband die alone, or hope his boss wasn't a prick, he chose door number 2. He told. His chain of command's reaction was not so fluffy and understanding as this JAG officer would have you believe. He immediately began paperwork on discharging my friend. He was not granted leave to see his legal husband die.

I'm not arguing that gay people deserve special treatment. I'm arguing for individualism. DADT is a bullshit law.

I think your idea about prosecution of heterosexual misbehavior being sufficient is laughable. I did not illustrate it to suggest more people should be prosecuted, I illustrated it because I know it's the backbone of the lie that homosexuals need only be as "good" as heterosexuals, and they won't be discharged.

My friend was straight-edge. He was entirely celibate. No alcohol. No partying. He did his job. He read books. He played music. He was married. He was kicked out for that, and nothing more. He was kicked out because it DID NOT MATTER HOW MANY HOOPS HE JUMPED THROUGH. He was set up for failure from day 1.

This whole DADT bullshit reminds me of the Jim Crow laws written post reconstruction. They were promoted as a fair and even-handed way of keeping black people from ever being seen or treated as equals, without all the messy lynchings and rapes.

If you want to keep gays out of the military, no more of this DADT, say what you really mean. "******s not welcome." That should be the name of the law. You don't respect individualism, don't hide behind the veil of it. Draw your line in the sand, and let's see where people stand.


And for all of you frantically coming up with hypotheticals about why no one would tolerate gays in the military

1. They are already there. And remain employed at the whim of their boss, or their own ability to never say a fucking word.
2. It's the same bullshit people said about women, and black people. Litterally. You're like puppets. Every point you make was made by previous sexists and racists, and somehow, it still hasn't been a real showstopper.

[purplechoe]

Wow, great post /\. Thanks for sharing that story Promontorium...

[jmdrake]

1. They are already there. And remain employed at the whim of their boss, or their own ability to never say a fucking word.
2. It's the same bullshit people said about women, and black people. Litterally. You're like puppets. Every point you make was made by previous sexists and racists, and somehow, it still hasn't been a real showstopper.


Really? White men were worried about black men checking them out in the shower? That's a new one.

[commonsense]

I served 6 years in the Navy. I was on 3 ships, for a total of 4 1/2 years at sea.

The only way I can demonstrate my point, and that I know damn well what I'm talking about, is to be very specific.


You are a lawyer. You know most discharges from the Navy occur without any lawyers around. The Captain pulls the sailor aside and says, "now we can take this to court, or you can just sign these papers saying you voluntarily quit the Navy under Other Than Honorable circumstances.

I've watched a lot of sailors get out in this way, for a plethora of reasons. I've only ever known 2 people to see a JAG officer first, 1. Drunk driving crashed into a sign and destroyed it causing thousands in damage after a previous drunk driving accident that involved injuries to another person and a shoplifting incident, then came JAG. 2. selling illegal drugs on the ship to a lot of sailors who tested positive.

I could list all day the offenses that would never warrant any legal team to show up, maybe one NCIS agent who would close the file. One guy left my command, went into a foreign nation and did a lot of drugs, came back a couple weeks later, paper work, gone. One guy got high as hell, beat up his friend, stripped naked in a park, punched an ambulance, fought off 9 police until they took him in a straight jacket to jail for weeks, came back, processed out without any legal action.

NJPs. NJPs all the way. Commands don't like sending their people up for anything. No matter how bad the person, in the Navy looking good is infinitely more important than being good.

As a lawyer, and an officer, you would have been completely insolated from 90% of the shit that actually goes down. NOBODY wants to bring it to your level.

Except when the person being railroaded out of the military wants to fight back, or the crime is simply beyond washing away.


You say you only handled cases where the homosexual did something flagrantly gay. That's certainly fine, but you are being dishonest, with yourself as a lawyer, knowing full well the law isn't "Don't be a gay activist" or "Don't give your fuck buddy AIDS" it is "Don't tell".


I've written this before, but I suppose it's worth stating again. I had a co-worker on my ship. He was legally married in Massachusetts to another man. Knowing that the policy is "don't ask, don't tell" and not, as you seem to be misleadingly suggesting "don't go to gay pride parades, or give fuck buddies AIDS".


He was one of the finest workers on the ship. He joined for purely patriotic reasons. He was completely straight-edge. Perfect military bearing. He was an expert in his field.

I was rather social and overbearing back then. I would start up a conversation with anyone and really get to know people. I would pry, allude, allure, prod, and like a locust move on, building this colllection of knowledge about people.

Well somehow a 2 hour discussion led to me figuring out he was gay. He hadn't told a soul until then. He had no intention of telling anyone else.

And every one of you can try to tell me, no one is scared in the military of people finding out about their lives, but if you've served (and here, being an officer doesn't count), you know the military thrives on fear of reprisal. Check the heart rate of any servicemember who might show up 2 minutes late. Servicemembers sweat the big stuff, the small stuff, every damn thing in between. It would take me a lot more words to explain why, so if you really want me to, I can do it elsewhere. I have seen the fear.

Many people have this misconception about fear. That it makes you weak. Fear makes the trained servicemember a fucking machine. The scared-unthinking-unquestioning servicemember will not fail.

Being gay isn't a fucking parade. Entire religions despise you, condemn your every breath. It is absurd to claim any gay person doesn't have at least some idea what their sexuality means to many people in this world.

But you can continue to call me a liar. I'm just going to tell this one story.

This sailor, with perfect military bearing, an example of Honor, Courage, and Commitment in the United States Navy, found one day, that his husband was very sick. He had told me once, that his husband was dying, and this marriage, although loving, had nothing to do with sex, but support for a loved friend (albeit gay loved friend) who was dying of cancer. So this sailor asked for leave.

The sailor couldn't say why he wanted leave, because the policy is not DON'T GIVE AIDS OR GO TO GAY RALLIES, IT IS DO NOT FUCKING TELL. But they wouldn't grant him leave. And that in itself is a really long story about life in another country. So he asked for emergency leave. This can only be granted to see immediate family. Against the wall, with only 2 choices, shut up and let his husband die alone, or hope his boss wasn't a prick, he chose door number 2. He told. His chain of command's reaction was not so fluffy and understanding as this JAG officer would have you believe. He immediately began paperwork on discharging my friend. He was not granted leave to see his legal husband die.

I'm not arguing that gay people deserve special treatment. I'm arguing for individualism. DADT is a bullshit law.

I think your idea about prosecution of heterosexual misbehavior being sufficient is laughable. I did not illustrate it to suggest more people should be prosecuted, I illustrated it because I know it's the backbone of the lie that homosexuals need only be as "good" as heterosexuals, and they won't be discharged.

My friend was straight-edge. He was entirely celibate. No alcohol. No partying. He did his job. He read books. He played music. He was married. He was kicked out for that, and nothing more. He was kicked out because it DID NOT MATTER HOW MANY HOOPS HE JUMPED THROUGH. He was set up for failure from day 1.

This whole DADT bullshit reminds me of the Jim Crow laws written post reconstruction. They were promoted as a fair and even-handed way of keeping black people from ever being seen or treated as equals, without all the messy lynchings and rapes.

If you want to keep gays out of the military, no more of this DADT, say what you really mean. "******s not welcome." That should be the name of the law. You don't respect individualism, don't hide behind the veil of it. Draw your line in the sand, and let's see where people stand.


And for all of you frantically coming up with hypotheticals about why no one would tolerate gays in the military

1. They are already there. And remain employed at the whim of their boss, or their own ability to never say a fucking word.
2. It's the same bullshit people said about women, and black people. Litterally. You're like puppets. Every point you make was made by previous sexists and racists, and somehow, it still hasn't been a real showstopper.

Wow! You're a real bitter person, and the life of the party I'm sure. And a full six years of service! Yes, you must be a veritable expert on all matters relating to military justice. Unfortunately, you are completely full of shit in all your assumptions about me.

First off I served 20 years, and went on four deployments. I wasn't some piss ant junior Navy lawyer (all STAFF officers) with two little ribbons on my chest. I was a Marine lawyer (all LINE officers), and before that I was a ground officer. Prior to OCS, I was an enlisted Marine. So your bullshit theory that I was "insulated" from what happened in the ranks is just that... bullshit.

In your small "isolated" experience you might have seen what you thought were unilateral discharges. What you don't know is that even if a Captain did something shady (and yes, I've seen that), a Captain is not a separation authority, per numerous Marine and Navy orders. Only an admiral or a general can sign off on final separation paperwork, and it has to go through a process called review before it ever gets to the separation authority. During review, a lawyer completely unaffiliated with the command goes through the record to check for due process violations. So in your example, even if the sailor was intimidated in signing the paperwork for an OTH and left the ship, etc., a lawyer would have seen it before the final separation took place. An SM cannot waive a board without the advice of counsel, I don't care what some overzealous captain on a ship says. The process would have been corrected at some point.

When I worked in review, if there was no counsel of record listed, a red flag went up in my mind. I would either call the command or track the member down, and if the member was not allowed to seek counsel before waiving a board, accepting NJP, etc., I rejected the package. It stopped at my level. A few times I had to get cover from higher to rein in the separation authority if they didn't understand the rejection or wanted to proceed anyway. 100% of the time the processing stopped.

Like the thousands of sea lawyers who have gone before you, your ignorance is comical. Separations NEVER take place without lawyers around. Even if you at your level didn't see them.

As for you saying I'm being dishonest, you are again, full of shit. I said 100% of the time when a member was separated for homosexual conduct, they completely skylined themselves and were creating a disruption at work. In the case of the AIDS "fuck buddy" as you call it, the Marine was getting in fights on the phone with the partner, emailing him back and forth using his govt computer and email, and doing all this quite out in open. It was a complete disruption in the office. I would qualify that as "telling" wouldn't you? If he had kept his personal life to himself and not asked the company gunny for help in bringing up attempted murder charges on the "fuck buddy" for sleeping with him with AIDS, he would still be serving today. That behavior would have gotten a hetero member kicked out too.

Which brings me to my next point. Your assertion that my point on heterosexual conduct is laughable, is itself laughable. I was correcting your completely bullshit point that heterosexual conduct is adjudicated less severely or less often than homosexual conduct. In fact, homosexual conduct is the only misconduct in the military that is not a criminal offense. For example, a member could cheat on his wife with another woman and leave the service with a FEDERAL conviction, a BCD and perhaps even some confinement time (though not usually). A member who cheated on his wife with another man would face no criminal charges, would be ADMINISTRATIVELY separated and could receive no lower than a general characterization of service. The command wouldn't have even touched the adultery issue, for PC reasons, and would have proceeded straight to DADT. I'm sure the hetero adulterer would have LOVED to have been given the adsep option, but I digress. Your assertion that gays are getting booted with OTH's is complete bullshit. It's ILLEGAL.

The fundamental problem with your argument on DADT is that you're "just arguing for individualism." If you really were in the military, you should know there is no such thing in the armed services, and there never will be. If you have a problem with that, you shouldn't ever join no matter what your sexual orientation is. Second, your argument rests on the assumption that there is a constitutional right to serve in the military. There isn't. Finally, as a former SM, you should also know that personal freedoms are not absolute in the military. Many of our civil liberties are restricted in ways that would NEVER be acceptable in civilian society. Certainly you know that this is necessary because of the unique nature of military society, the need for unit cohesion and good order discipline, and the desired end state of achieving mission accomplishment.

Perhaps someday society will change to a point where allowing gays to serve openly in the military will not cause disruptions. I don't think we're there yet. I personally think it's unfortunate because I don't hate gay people (contrary to what you may think) and realize that their situation is no picnic. My opinions are not based on religion or any particular ideology. They are based on my many years of service (at all ranks) and my sincere belief that the necessities mentioned aboved (unit cohesion, etc.) would suffer if DADT were repealed overnight at this time.

I was personally never offended serving with people I knew or suspected were gay. Unfortunately not all young males are this open-minded. And like it or not, the military relies on those young males especially since there are not enough gay people to meet the recruiting requirements of the service. I may not agree with that, and you may not agree with that, but it's the nature of the beast.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Everyone should be treated the same gay, straight, or omni-sexual.

Here's how you solve this problem.

1) No romantic relationships allowed for the duration of your military service.
2a) Mandatory celibacy or 2b) Mandatory promiscuity.

Like someone said earlier, the military isn't a democracy. You don't have the same rights as a civilian. Don't like the rules? Don't join.

[MelissaWV]

Factor not yet mentioned:

Removal of Don't Ask Don't Tell means that, if a draft is put into place, you cannot simply say "I'm gay!" and get out of serving.

All that aside, I have no idea why this requires a policy. Put laws into place about conduct, and enforce them. If someone decides to beat the tar out of a fellow Army-guy because the victim is homosexual, brown, white, tall, short, or whatever else... then the person doing the beating should be punished for beating someone up in accordance with the circumstances. What's so difficult? Assault isn't okay regardless of who's the victim. Self-defense is okay regardless of who's the victim. Rape isn't okay regardless of who's the victim. Punish actions, not situations, and you'll be fine.

[Liberty Star]

This is pretty remarkable, how did Obama find such supportive admiral:


Adm. Mullen Is Not Backing Down on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal

The Washington Independent - Spencer Ackerman - ‎10 hours ago‎

“I also believe the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change, but I do not know ...

http://washingtonindependent.com/75653/adm-mullen-is-not-backing-down-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal


If current policy is repealed, how would that effect openly gay soldiers going to conservative countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, how would they get alomg and bond with their Iraqi/Afghan bretheren? This is just one of the few issues. There is many evangelicals in the military, this is not going to be easy for Obama.