• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Gays in U.S. military (merged)

I'm sorry......i know this wont add much buti'm having nightmares

This thread is starting to give me flashbacks from my OPMEs.......Leadership and ethics !!

(anyone whos done it wll know what i am talking about)
 
I think we have covered the topic. Probably should lock it unless something new develops, like Congress changing the UCMJ. Otherwise we are looking at a philosophical discussion where the sides are entrenched.
 
Sounds reasonable.

Any changes to policy or anything else relevant to post...the usual caveat applies...PM a mod.

The Army.ca Staff
 
Discharged gay sailor is called back to active duty
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=53187&archive=true

By Joseph Giordono, Stars and Stripes Pacific edition, Sunday, May 6, 2007

On his wedding night in July 2004, then-Petty Officer 3rd Class Jason Knight finally accepted a truth he had fought against for years: he was gay.

Almost immediately, he moved to get his marriage annulled. He apologized to the woman he’d married. And when it came time to explain his changing circumstances to the Navy, he left nothing out. Under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, he was quickly discharged from the service.

But now — whether through a clerical oversight or what some claim is an unwritten change in policy to keep more gay servicemembers in the ranks at a time of war — Jason Knight is back on active duty.

Since promoted to petty officer second class, Knight is finishing a scheduled one-year tour in Kuwait with Naval Customs Battalion Bravo. And, already kicked out of the Navy once, he sees no need to hide his sexual orientation.

“I thought it was a joke at first,” he said, remembering the day he received his recall orders. “It was the ultimate kick in the ass. But then I thought, there isn’t much they can do to me they haven’t done the first time.”

It was comments by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that spurred Knight to come out publicly a second time. In defending the military’s policy, Pace called homosexual acts immoral and contrary to military values.

“Though I respect [Pace] as a leader, it made me so mad,” Knight said.

“I spent four years in the Navy, buried fallen servicemembers as part of the Ceremonial Guard, served as a Hebrew Linguist in Navy Intelligence, and received awards for exemplary service,” he wrote in a letter to Stripes. “However, because I was gay, the Navy discharged me and recouped my 13k sign-on bonus. Nine months later, the Navy recalled me to active duty. Did I accept despite everything that happened? Of course I did, and I would do it again. Because I love the Navy and I love my country. And despite Pace’s opinion, my shipmates support me.”

Those shipmates include his direct supervisors in the customs battalion.

“He’s better than the average sailor at his job,” said Bill Driver, the leading petty officer of Knight’s 15-person customs crew in Kuwait. “It’s not at all a strange situation. As open as he is now, it was under wraps for quite a while. It wasn’t an issue at work.”

Another sailor with the detail, Petty Officer 1st Class Tisha Hanson, works in admin and has had to process discharges for homosexual sailors before.

“I’ve obviously never heard of something like this happening before,” she said of Knight’s return to active duty. “But it doesn’t bother me. The Navy tends to keep people who don’t want to be here, but Jason does.”

In Knight’s case, he was given an honorable discharge when booted from the Navy on April 4, 2005. Though it’s not widely known, a clause in the military’s policy on discharging gays allows commanders discretion on what form of discharge to give a gay servicemember.

In many cases, a legal expert at an advocacy group working to repeal the policy said, that’s exactly what happens.

“The vast majority of [discharge papers] give the narrative reason as ‘homosexual conduct,’” said Kathi Westcott, the deputy director for law at the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network in Washington, D.C.

But, “individual commanders sometimes think the servicemember is a good troop, and they don’t want them to begin their next life with a ‘black mark,’” she said.

Westcott said that Pace’s comments — and a study showing declining numbers of discharges for gay servicemembers — have reignited debate about the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The renewed debate includes suggestions that the Pentagon is less interested in kicking out gay servicemembers during war. Pentagon stats show that discharges of gay servicemembers dropped to 612 in 2006. The peak of such discharges was in 2001, when 1,273 were reported.

more at link
 
check out this PDF report for a view on the $ the policy costs
Financial Analysis of Don't Ask, Don't Tell: How Much Does the Gay Ban Cost?
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/2006-FebBlueRibbonFinalRpt.pdf
(not to mention experince when it is needed)


This policy is so shortsighted in my view, the US military is saying that they do not wish to accept their members sexual orientation on the one hand but on the other showing that they can not get by without LGBTQ people. Its a policy only someone who wanted to have it both ways (no pun intended) could come up with.
Either accept them all or ask and boot them all! I would argue they should accept them all!
 
The man says he had to reimburse the Navy his sign up bonus.......

Wonder if they gave it back to him when he was called up again?
 
As long as everyone stays on topic, things will be fine.... IMHO
 
geo said:
The man says he had to reimburse the Navy his sign up bonus.......

Wonder if they gave it back to him when he was called up again?

I was wondering the same thing.
 
When his tour is over and the Navy is finished with his service, I hope, for his sake, that his CO won't give hm a rotten discharge VICE the nice one he got from his previous CO (notwithstanding sign up bonus grab).
 
SB..... uhh - what injustice are we criticizing?

-  They gave him a sign up bonus that they later asked be paid back to them - fine - but calling him back up should be justification to get the sign up bonus returned to the sailor.

-  They gave him an honourable discharge after he came clean about his personal inclination.  In spite of same said personal inclination, the navy called him back up - and bless his soul, he reported for service and has demonstrated he is a superior sailor - so he should be entitled to an honourable discharge once his service is complete.....

Not dissing the Navy or their policy - not me, no sir
 
I agree people should follow the rules, esp in the military of course, I just feel there should be equal rules not special rules. As it stands not there are special rules for straight members of the US military. I fail to see how this is any different than former racist and sexist policies which no one in their right mind would today support.
I would have nothing wrong with the dont ask dont tell policy if straight people were not allowed to mention their orientation or discuss their relationships.
I guess for me it is a thing of honor
I think this man has honor, he did not lie about who and what he is and he reported for duty when ordered. If the only way to serve in a US uniform is to lie about what you are then it is a question everyone who isnt straight needs to ask themselves and critizing people either way is a line I am not prepared to cross.
I am aware the US doesn't care what I think, I am just happy that the Canadian army has a different policy.
:cdn:
respectfully
FL
 
S_Baker said:
Trying to equate a life style choice with racism or sexism in my opinion is stretching it, just a bit.  I find it rather amusing that so much time is spent trying to change US military rules and regulations, empty moralizing at best. 

Have you made a 'lifestyle' choice to be heterosexual?

As a woman, I don't find it amusing at all that time is spent to change military rules and regulations so that they conform to fit modern society.  My mother was a PERI (Rec Spec, actually) in 1956.  It wasn't a very friendly place for a woman.  Things have changed.  Society has changed.  And the military has changed as well.  It's called progress... it certainly isn't 'empty moralizing'.

 
Olga Chekhova said:
Have you made a 'lifestyle' choice to be heterosexual?

As a woman, I don't find it amusing at all that time is spent to change military rules and regulations so that they conform to fit modern society.  My mother was a PERI (Rec Spec, actually) in 1956.  It wasn't a very friendly place for a woman.  Things have changed.  Society has changed.  And the military has changed as well.  It's called progress... it certainly isn't 'empty moralizing'.

There's a line between progress, empty moralizing, and just plain going too far. I think at least one of those lines has been crossed, and it was crossed a while back.

If someone decides to live a nudist life, should they be allowed to perform their military functions in the nude? After all, it's a lifestyle choice and everyone should be allowed to live as they want to live, even in the military, no?

I agree with some, if not most, of the changes that have been made over the years so the military is more women-friendly, but they shouldn't have any benefits that men don't have--the changes should be in practices and mentalities, not regulations and benefits.
 
Freddy G said:
There's a line between progress, empty moralizing, and just plain going too far. I think at least one of those lines has been crossed, and it was crossed a while back.

If someone decides to live a nudist life, should they be allowed to perform their military functions in the nude? After all, it's a lifestyle choice and everyone should be allowed to live as they want to live, even in the military, no?

I agree with some, if not most, of the changes that have been made over the years so the military is more women-friendly, but they shouldn't have any benefits that men don't have--the changes should be in practices and mentalities, not regulations and benefits.

Ref your bold Fred. Nice attempt to spin this another way from what Olga has put there. Drug use is also an optional lifestyle choice correct? One that is forbidden with the CF. That is applicable to every member of the CF.

The point is, the US does indeed use the "Don't ask, don't tell" rule. The problem with that rule, is that it's NOT applicable to all their personnel. A heterosexual female or male soldier could go into work down there tomorrow and mention his wife (or her, her husband) and no one would even suggest that discharge action be taken against either one of them for mentioning their heterosexual partner.

Yet, if the member next to that same heterosexual male, dares make mention of his own homosexual partner the "Don't ask, Don't Tell" rule all of a sudden becomes applicable.

You see, there are no special rules being set up for women, men etc. It's just that the heterosexual ones are being excluded from having the same policy apply to them. That is where it becomes discriminatory.

Yes, we all lose rights and freedoms when we join a military organization; but we should lose them equally. That's not the current situation in the US Military. I don't agree with the current US Policy that is only applicable to the select few they chose to apply it to. That being said, you're right, I'm Canadian so my vote doesn't count.

Like FL said below, I have no problem with the policy, as long as it's applied equally to everyone. You and I both know that's not the case in the US.
 
Nice strawman argument Frederik.  ::)

Try to keep it relevent next time, okay?
 
S_Baker said:
I am in the Army not the navy, so I cannot speak of Naval personnel procedures.  But I am gonna guess that he was brought back on active duty due to a clerical error (whether this was setup by an opponent (navy insider) of the don't ask don't tell policy I couldn't tell you) and that he will be discharged if he hasn't already.   

I guess for me it is a thing of honor, you sign up knowing what the rules are and then you deicde not to follow the rules.  Wrong answer, follow through, commitment, and loyalty are number 1 for me.

From the article the individual was "straight" when he 1st uped into the navy... he was getting married when he arrived at the conclusion that he went "the other way" - he told her & he told the Navy.... nothing hidden here.

When he was called up, the also declares that he has never kept his inclinations a secret.  He has since been promoted for being good at what he does - in spite of his inclinations - which his bosses are quoted as saying that "it" isn't a problem.

This sailor has been committed, honourable, truthful and loyal - .... am I missing something here?
 
There are clear reasons why a nudist could not function in the military. Besides the fact that it is easy to choose if one wants to be a nudist or not and that the nudist population is nowhere near the LGBTQ population.
What reason is there that an LGBTQ individual could not serve their country just as well as a straight person?
The Sacred Band of thebes did pretty well..... until Alexander the Great killed them all......
but they shouldn't have any benefits that men don't have
I agree.
People should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
If a gay black women is a better soldier/leader/medic/wahtever than a straight white male I fail to see why the gay black women shouldnt be allowed to serve her country.
 
The Librarian said:
Ref your bold Fred. Nice attempt to spin this another way from what Olga has put there. Drug use is also an optional lifestyle choice correct? One that is forbidden with the CF. That is applicable to every member of the CF.

So are you saying that civilian medinical drug users shouldn't be allowed to use drugs because laws have to apply equally to everyone? Do you agree with paternity leave being given exactly like maternity leave? Do you think all child custody should be split 50/50? Do you believe men should always receive alimony if they make less than their ex wife? Do you think women sex offenders should be treated as harshly as men, and prevented from leading a normal life even after they have served their time, as men are? Would you agree to the men's fitness standards in the CF being lowered to women's standards, or women's standards being raised to men's standards?

I didn't think so.

Laws, like it or not, will not always--even not often--be applied equally across the board. Otherwise, rich white men would go to prison for fraud for as long as the random black man who passes a fake cheque at the grocery store. And women wouldn't get custody by default when there's a custody battle.

FascistLibertarian said:
If a gay black women is a better soldier/leader/medic/wahtever than a straight white male I fail to see why the gay black women shouldnt be allowed to serve her country.

The problem is that the gay black woman is being given opportunities and incentives not available to the straight white male, and has to achieve lower standards to get the same results. I don't care if whoever's in charge is a man, woman, gay, straight, first-generation immigrant or someone who's family has been here for 400 years; as long as they can do the job and didn't get there because they were a woman, gay, or a minority, which is exactly what affirmative action and other such politically correct programs are all about.
 
Another loop in the story - emphasis mine - shared with the usual disclaimer:

Navy disputes gay sailor’s claim of discharge, recall
Official says petty officer will be separated under ‘don’t ask’

Joseph Giordono, Stars and Stripes, 12 May 07
Article link

The Navy is disputing parts of a sailor’s claim that he was called back to active duty after being discharged a year earlier under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Late Friday, the Navy confirmed that it is again separating Petty Officer 2nd Class Jason Knight, this time with a DD-214 reflecting separation due to admissions of homosexual conduct.

In a story first reported by Stars and Stripes on May 6, Knight said he was drummed out of the Navy in 2005 after outing himself to superiors. Knight said an extension he signed had been canceled, a $13,000 signing bonus recouped and that his service was terminated at the end of his original four-year contract, despite his desire to stay in the Navy.

But, Davis said Thursday, “there is absolutely nothing in his service record or on his discharge papers that would indicate he was separated for violating the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. Nor was there anything in his record that would preclude him from re-entering the military.”

A copy of Knight’s original DD-214 discharge papers lists Knight’s discharge as honorable and recall status as RE-1, meaning he could be recalled to active duty.

According to a 2005 Government Accountability Office study, in around 75 percent of “don’t ask, don’t tell” cases, the discharge is honorable. The recall status should be listed as RE-4 — meaning a sailor would not be recalled to duty.

But according to gay advocacy groups, Navy personnel officials and other experts, many gay servicemembers are given honorable discharges under the policy. And not all list homosexual conduct on the discharge papers.

“The vast majority of [discharge papers] give the narrative reason as ‘homosexual conduct,’” said Kathi Westcott, deputy director for law at the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network in Washington, D.C.

But, “individual commanders sometimes think the servicemember is a good troop, and they don’t want them to begin their next life with a ‘black mark,’” she said.

Knight says that’s exactly what happened to him. In essence, he said, a shortcut made by the Navy allowed him to return to service. The Navy could not address the issue of Knight’s $13,000 extension bonus, which he says shows a desire to stay on beyond his original four-year contract. Knight said he was granted the bonus, then had to pay it back after his discharge, including having his wages garnished at his next civilian job.

Knight’s unit during his recall, a Navy customs battalion that served in Kuwait, has since been deactivated and has returned to the States. Knight is on “terminal leave” until the end of the month and still technically on active duty, Navy officials said Thursday.

And though he repeatedly told fellow customs sailors — including his direct supervisor — of his sexual orientation during the deployment to Kuwait, the Navy said Thursday that his commander was unaware of the comments.

“Navy Expeditionary Logistics Support Group and Navy Customs Battalion Romeo leadership were unaware of any homosexual conduct by Petty Officer Knight during his tour of duty in Kuwait,” Davis said. “Had the leadership been presented with credible information about homosexual conduct, they would have processed Petty Officer Knight out of the military. The first his leadership heard of Petty Officer Knight’s homosexuality was through press reports.”

Knight came to Stars and Stripes with his story after being angered by comments about gays in the military made by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Pace called homosexuality “immoral” and said he supported the current Pentagon policy.

The Navy also took issue with Knight’s description of his recall to active duty. Knight characterized it as “the ultimate kick in the ass.”

But, Davis said in an e-mail, Knight’s “recall to active duty in July 2006 was voluntary. The Navy periodically contacts Sailors in the Individual Ready Reserve to verify contact information and solicit volunteers for GWOT (Global War on Terror) manning assignments.”

“Petty Officer Knight was contacted during a routine muster and volunteered to be recalled. To date the Navy has not involuntarily mobilized Navy Reservists from the Individual Ready Reserve for Operation Iraqi Freedom assignments,” Davis said.

Knight does not dispute that, explaining that his comments reflect his never wanting to leave the Navy in the first place. When he was recalled to duty he said nothing of the circumstances of his sexual orientation or earlier discharge because he wanted to go back on active duty.

His recall orders read, “UNDER PARTIAL MOBILIZATION AUTHORITY OF REFERENCE (A), YOU ARE HEREBY INVOLUNTARILY ORDERED TO REPORT FOR ACTIVE DUTY … FOR A PERIOD OF 365 DAYS, UNLESS RELEASED SOONER BY THE ORDER ISSUING AUTHORITY.”

Davis said all Navy recall orders are worded the same, in part to help Reserve sailors with potential employment issues.



 
Freddy G said:
So are you saying that civilian medinical drug users shouldn't be allowed to use drugs because laws have to apply equally to everyone? Do you agree with paternity leave being given exactly like maternity leave? Do you think all child custody should be split 50/50? Do you believe men should always receive alimony if they make less than their ex wife? Do you think women sex offenders should be treated as harshly as men, and prevented from leading a normal life even after they have served their time, as men are? Would you agree to the men's fitness standards in the CF being lowered to women's standards, or women's standards being raised to men's standards?
I didn't think so.
No Fred, what I said was one can be a nudist or a recreational drug user if one wishs on civvy street, but that when they join a military organization they give up certain rights. But they ALL give up those rights, not just a select few such as is the situation with the US "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy."


1) I'm quite sure that you are referring to PARENTAL Leave. Parental leave of ten weeks can be taken by either/or/both of the parents of a child up to 10 weeks in duration. At the parents discretion as to how they chose to divide it up amongst themselves or not. Nothing wrong with this. It's fair. They can both take 5 weeks, or her none and him 10. That's their choice how to use it. Nothing discriminatory there.

2) Maternity Leave: Is taken by the mother, and yes this is somewhat discriminatory as it is based upon the fact that the mother is the one going through the physical process of birthing. Tell you what, the day you pass a tennis ball through your urinary tract (and I'm giving you a distinct advantage here because it's certainly more likened to a football); come talk to me and I will fight tooth and nail to then get you that much deserved Maternity Leave.

Laws, like it or not, will not always--even not often--be applied equally across the board. Otherwise, rich white men would go to prison for fraud for as long as the random black man who passes a fake cheque at the grocery store. And women wouldn't get custody by default when there's a custody battle.

The problem is that the gay black woman is being given opportunities and incentives not available to the straight white male, and has to achieve lower standards to get the same results. I don't care if whoever's in charge is a man, woman, gay, straight, first-generation immigrant or someone who's family has been here for 400 years; as long as they can do the job and didn't get there because they were a woman, gay, or a minority, which is exactly what affirmative action and other such politically correct programs are all about.

And I don't care if the soldier next to me is white, black, male or female either, as long as they are the best ones for the job and neither Olga, FL or myself has said anything different. Only you have actually. Funny you kind of missed the "regardless of age, sex, religion, race, or sexual orientation." You are trying to use another argument of a whole different discrimation to justify another type of it. Glad I'm in the CF.
 
Back
Top