Gays in U.S. military (merged)

[mariomike]

Like they say on Seinfeld: "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

 

[KingKikapu]

Gentlemen, if you're going to call him out for not practicing what he preaches, maybe you should also consider what he is preaching is rather benevolent compared to 'the final solution'.  Comparing the expulsion of a pilot vs the genocide of millions and calling it the same thing is frankly showing very poor taste.  The Nazis weren't just turning a blind eye to atrocities and oppression: they were committed instigators in the matter.

Let's not stack the deck in a ridiculous way shall we?.  The two situations lack any semblance of parity. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

Well, now that both the Nazis and Seinfeld have been invoked, the best response to Godwin's Law is a lock.

Thanks for your participation, the usual caveats apply (if new factual information appears).

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Michael OLeary]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/05/ap_military_gays_policy_052109/

White House says it is reviewing gays policy

By Philip Elliott - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday May 21, 2009 20:16:10 EDT

WASHINGTON — The White House insisted Thursday that officials are working to overturn a policy that bans homosexuals from serving openly in the military, reacting to Pentagon assessments that such efforts were a low priority and to Democratic activists’ complaints of slow progress.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters that President Barack Obama is committed to reversing the Clinton-era policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which blocks gays’ service if they should disclose their sexual orientation. Congress would have to take action to change the policy. Recent polls indicate the ban and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy are losing support.

“Try as one may, a president can’t simply whisk away standing law of the United States of America,” Gibbs said. “But if you’re going to change the policy, if it is the law of the land, you have to do it through an act of Congress.”

The administration has drawn criticism from gay and lesbian activists for not moving quickly enough to repeal the policy. Democratic activists and fundraisers met last weekend in Texas to coordinate an online campaign known as the Dallas Principles to prod the president.

“We face a historic opportunity to obtain our full civil rights; this is the moment for change,” the group said in a mission statement. “No delay. No excuses.”

Opponents of the policy face problems, however.

On Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the military has no plans to repeal the policy, and the White House had not asked for the 1993 policy to be scrapped.

Two days later, Gibbs said Morrell had backed off that position; Morrell released a statement hours later doing just that.

“President Obama has been clear in his direction to Secretary [Robert] Gates and [Joint Chiefs] Chairman [Mike] Mullen that he is committed to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. He has also been clear that he is committed to do it in a way that is least disruptive to our troops, especially given that they have been simultaneously waging two wars for six years now,” Morrell said.

“Although this will require changes to the law, the secretary and chairman are working to address the challenges associated with implementation of the president’s commitment,” he said.

Even so, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, the White House’s national security adviser, this month told ABC’s “This Week” that he was not sure the policy would be overturned.

“We have a lot on our plate right now,” he said.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Lawmakers ask Obama to ignore "don't ask, don't tell"

Blog link.

Posted June 22nd, 2009 by Leo Shane
in

    * Stripes Central

Last week Congressional officials told me they're unwilling to move ahead with a legislative repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law without vocal support from the president. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went even further, saying that language for legislation needed to start at the White House before the Senate will consider action.

Today, 77 members of the House again tried to prod President Barack Obama into action, sending him a letter urging he "suspend" enforcement of the military ban on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers in the ranks. More precisely, that means:

"We ask that you direct the Armed Services not to initiate any investigation of service personnel to determine their sexual orientation, and that you instruct them to disregard third party accusations that do not allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is, we request that you impose that no one is asked and that you ignore, as the law requires, third parties who tell."

More at link.

 

[chrisf]

Surpirsed this hasn't been posted yet.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B5NV20101013

Last Tuesday, a Judge ruled "Don't ask, don't tell" to be unconstitutional.

The administration responded by requesting the judge stay the ruling.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D5HQ20101014

 

[Jarnhamar]

Land of the Free?

 

[Nemo888]

Good soldiers getting Dishonourable Discharge's for being gay regardless of how good they were seemed very unfair. Not to mention Veterans  benefits problems and all that. As long as you fight I don't care who you ,...

 

[TimBit]

As long as you fight I don't care who you ,...

Ha ha very well put.

 

[chrisf]

I don't claim to have any understanding of the american legal system, but I have to question the presidents comments that's it's not just somthing he can change with the stroke of a pen... isn't that exactly within the powers of a president? Isn't he the commander  and chief?

 

[aesop081]

I don't claim to have any understanding of the american legal system, but I have to question the presidents comments that's it's not just somthing he can change with the stroke of a pen... isn't that exactly within the powers of a president? Isn't he the commander  and chief?

The problem is that this a decision by the court. It could be apealed and reversed at any time in the future. This would place openly gay members in a bad situation if the were recruited now and the court's decision reveresed later. The Obama administration wants the court's decision stayed and for congres to change the law itself so that openly gay military members can be recruited without running the risk of an apeal making it illegal for them to serve once again.

Changing and making laws is not for the US executive branch (the resident) to do. It is for the legislative branch to do.

 

[Journeyman]

.....have to question the presidents comments that's it's not just something he can change with the stroke of a pen... isn't that exactly within the powers of a president? Isn't he the commander  and chief?

Technically, Obama can. Practically, there's still much concern about the knock-on effect of the legislative change. That is why there's now a year-long study on the potential effects of the law's repeal (and I suspect to allow time for building consensus and acceptance within the military).

There are a lot of similarities with the US de-segregating their military in the late-'40s or increasing the presence of women in front line units over the past 10 years. The former took the Korean War to make it happen. The latter occurred because of the increased presence of women within the military and there being no cleanly-defined "front-lines" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are there still race-related hate crimes? Yep. Are women still harassed? Yep. But I'd argue in both cases the incidents are declining; it's inevitably the way ahead.

 

[Wookilar]

Building the consensus in side the various US forces may be the hardest part. During a leadership conference at West Point a few years back led to some very interesting, and surprising (for me), conversations. This was all with Cadets at West Point, but those Cadets then are Pl Comds now (at the very least).

Some people have very strong convictions about this down there, and all the vocal ones, inside the Army, seem to be on the "NO!!!" side. The old saw about degrading morale, combat inefficiencies etc.

Wook

 

[The Bread Guy]

Some people have very strong convictions about this down there, and all the vocal ones, inside the Army, seem to be on the "NO!!!" side. The old saw about degrading morale, combat inefficiencies etc.

From my limited dealings with U.S. troops (officer and NCMs), have to say I've heard the same thing from some, but strongly.

There are a lot of similarities with the US de-segregating their military in the late-'40s or increasing the presence of women in front line units over the past 10 years ....

Good analogy - not so much a switch to turn on/off, but cranking down the dial.

 

[Jarnhamar]

From a civilian point of view, they seem totally okay with forceing the armed forces to accept homosexuality and say STFU and accept it, soldier.

It's a process that has to happen over time.  Like CDN Avaitor said, nothing stops the rule being overturned again putting gay service members in a sticky situation.

Female soldiers in combat arms. Lots of dudes are quick to defend the idea. If a woman can do the same job as a man then she's good to go!
Except when you're working together for a while, and the story changes a bit.

the US war machine is still deeply religious-driven and there is still a lot of segrigation depending on where you go and when.

 

[LineDoggie]

Land of the Free?

Indeed, they are. Are homosexuals being rounded up and taken away to be shot? sent to camps? or are they allowed to voice their opposition?

We dont allow many categories to Serve:
Overweight/Underweight
Drug Dependence
History of Psychotic Disorders
Questionable Moral Character
Sexual Perversion
History of Anti Social Behaviour
History of Venereal Disease
Person whose enlistment is not clearly consistent with interests of national security under AR 601–280
Person under civil restraint, such as confinement, parole, or probation.
Any applicant (officer and enlisted) who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense is not eligible for enlistment or appointment. Further, personnel separated as a result of the convicted sex offender policy are not eligible to reenter. There is no grandfather clause to this policy. The following offenses are covered under this policy:
1.Rape
2.Carnal Knowledge
3.Forcible sodomy
4.Sodomy of a minor
5.Conduct unbecoming an officer (involving any sexually violent offense, a criminal offense of a sexual nature against a minor or kidnapping a minor)
6.Prostitution involving a minor
7.Indecent assault
8.Assault with the intent to commit rape or sodomy
9.Indecent act with a minor
10.Indecent language to a minor
11.Kidnapping of a minor (not by a parent)
12.Pornography involving a minor
13.Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or assimilative crime conviction (involving any sexually violent offense or a criminal offense of a sexual nature against a minor or kidnapping of a minor)
14.Attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation to commit any of the offenses in 1 through 13 above
Single Parent without family care plan
Debtors
Convicts


According to DoD sources, Approximately 750 Homosexuals per year are discharged from the 4 Branches, less than a Battalion at full strength out of a  total strength of  1, 477, 896 Active Duty, and 1, 458,500 Reserve/Guard.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Indeed, they are. Are homosexuals being rounded up and taken away to be shot? sent to camps? or are they allowed to voice their opposition?

We dont allow many categories to Serve:
Overweight/Underweight

I stopped at the first line, did a quick search and came up with an article and a picture.

http://calorielab.com/news/2005/09/29/military-putting-overweight-soldiers-on-diet/

Weight management in the military used to be simple: get distended, get discharged. But with recruiting difficulties and overstretched commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the various branches of the military are finding that they cannot afford to lose the several thousand overweight soldiers who until now have have been routinely separated. 

It sounds like the army is worried about loosing several thousand soldiers..

And this gentlemen who's picture I'm sure you'vbe came across.

According to DoD sources, Approximately 750 Homosexuals per year are discharged from the 4 Branches, less than a Battalion at full strength out of a  total strength of  1, 477, 896 Active Duty, and 1, 458,500 Reserve/Guard.

Considering the number of (non gay) US soldiers going on shooting rampages, throwing grenades at their commanders,  killing a dozen people cause their 'soldiers of allah',  I personally think you guys have more pressing matters to worry about but that's just me.

In the end all these arguments turn out the same.
You have people who think gays should be allowed to serve.
You have others who think they shouldn't.
Some don't think they should but don't care either way.
Everyone has points for and against with no ground given.

In the end;
If the US government decides they can serve then you'll have to accept it and soldier on or quit.

 

[HavokFour]

Personally, I'd be more worried about the overweight soldier having a heart attack mid firefight than a gay soldier checking me out (I'd take it as a compliment ;D).

 

[observor 69]

The New York TImes

December 18, 2010
Senate Repeals ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Saturday struck down the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, bringing to a close a 17-year struggle over a policy that forced thousands of Americans from the ranks and caused others to keep secret their sexual orientation.

By a vote of 65 to 31, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate approved and sent to President Obama a repeal of the Clinton-era law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy critics said amounted to government-sanctioned discrimination that treated gay and lesbian troops as second-class citizens.

Mr. Obama hailed the action, which fulfills his pledge to reverse the ban. “As commander in chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known,” Mr. Obama said in a statement after the Senate, on a 63-33 vote, beat back Republican efforts to block a final vote on the repeal bill.

The vote marked a historic moment that some equated with the end of racial segregation in the military. It followed a review by the Pentagon that found little concern in the military about lifting the ban and was backed by Pentagon officials as a better alternative to a court-ordered end.



More at LINK

 

[brihard]

About damned time. Right on.

If they're willing and able to serve their country, let 'em. I've never been bothered by any of the homosexuals I've served with. People with obsolete mindsets will have to get with the times.