Don't Ask - Don't Tell is Repealed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Label it what you will, it does not change the fact that it is an integral part of the subject. You can't just sweep it and hope it goes away. The subject of whether it is or is not a privilege to serve is not semantics. I agree that one ought to serve because there is a need. However, I still believe that for those who have served, they would consider it a privilege to be of service to their country in that way.

I'm sure. I feel privileged that when I graduate I'll (hopefully) have the ability to put my life in harms way so that others won't have to. But I do not think that in general it is a privilege to serve in the military.

How would that be insulting? So should we make our units more vulnerable in order to praise the ability of our military to adapt to changing situations? Forgive my royal butchering of the English language, but is it insulting to say that people will die, or be more vulnerable because we equip them, say with squirt guns. Is saying that insulting to their ability to adapt? "Oh, they can adapt," we say. So we are then justified to break down the chain of command, break up unit unity, etc. just because to refuse to do so would be "insulting to their ability to adapt?"
Except that allowing gays to serve openly is not comparable to equipping them with squirt guns or breaking down the chain of command or breaking up unit unity.

It is a minor change that, as far as the survey is concerned, won't even change much. The major change will be that gays won't be discharged if it is discovered that they are gay. It's not like all of sudden a bunch of gay guys will come out and become so much of a distraction that people will die.

My argument isn't that it wouldn't be difficult to implement, but that I find it hard to believe that people will be distracted to the point that lives will be lost. I've been in survival situations where it was a life or death situation and it's pretty damn hard to distract the survival instinct from doing it's job. I find it hard to believe that someone else's sexuality would be a factor at all.

If Gen. Amos had said it would be difficult, fine. If he'd said Marines wouldn't like it, fine. But I disbelieve Marines told him "Sir, I feel less safe with gays in the military" or "Sir, I don't think I could successfully defend our country if there was a gay guy in our unit. In fact, I think I'd be distracted and be seriously injured or die."
 
Amos

I want to be a Marine pilot so I have great respect for the Commandant. That being said I know he's an evangelical Christian and I think that has influenced his position on this issue.
 
I'm sure. I feel privileged that when I graduate I'll (hopefully) have the ability to put my life in harms way so that others won't have to. But I do not think that in general it is a privilege to serve in the military.


Except that allowing gays to serve openly is not comparable to equipping them with squirt guns or breaking down the chain of command or breaking up unit unity.

It is a minor change that, as far as the survey is concerned, won't even change much. The major change will be that gays won't be discharged if it is discovered that they are gay. It's not like all of sudden a bunch of gay guys will come out and become so much of a distraction that people will die.

My argument isn't that it wouldn't be difficult to implement, but that I find it hard to believe that people will be distracted to the point that lives will be lost. I've been in survival situations where it was a life or death situation and it's pretty **** hard to distract the survival instinct from doing it's job. I find it hard to believe that someone else's sexuality would be a factor at all.

If Gen. Amos had said it would be difficult, fine. If he'd said Marines wouldn't like it, fine. But I disbelieve Marines told him "Sir, I feel less safe with gays in the military" or "Sir, I don't think I could successfully defend our country if there was a gay guy in our unit. In fact, I think I'd be distracted and be seriously injured or die."

First, I would request that you refrain from foul language.
Second, if you would count it a privilege to serve in the military, how can you say that it is not a privilege for one to serve?
Third, I am in no way equating the implementation of gays to the equipment of servicemen with squirt guns. It was a hypothetical situation to show that it is not insulting to our military's capabilities simply to say that doing a certain thing will increase vulnerability.
Fourth, you are over-simplifying the argument. The argument is not that all of a sudden, a bunch of gays are going to come out and be a distraction.
 
Supporting ones troops is the easy part of leadership. Almost as easy as being a "yes man" to your boss. It is when these two conflict that true leaders will shine. And poor leaders will fall on their sword. General Amos has created a fork in the road making it almost impossible to take both paths. Time will tell.
His job is not to "not resist" but to actively support. If he can not do this, he should step down (or be removed).

Again, Maximus, as I have stated before, testifying in Congress is one thing, call a press conference is entirely different. And inappropriate. With that said, if one wants to keep their job, tempering their comments to Congress to accommodate all possible outcomes might be prudent.

Mongo, I've searched everywhere and can't find where Gen. Amos actually called a press conference, could you please direct me to a link that has that press conference? TYIA

BTW, here is Gen. Amos' statement after Barry signed into law, the repeal of DADT: Here is 4 Star General Amos’ full statement after:

"Fidelity is the essence of the United States Marine Corps. Above all else, we are loyal to the Constitution, our Commander in Chief, Congress, our Chain of Command, and the American people. The House of Representatives and the Senate have voted to repeal Title 10, US Code 654 "Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the United States Armed Forces." As stated during my testimony before Congress in September and again during hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, the Marine Corps will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new policy. I, and the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, will personally lead this effort, thus ensuring the respect and dignity due all Marines. On this matter, we look forward to further demonstrating to the American people the discipline and loyalty that have been the hallmark of the United States Marine Corps for over 235 years."

Now that is a stand up guy! No...I didn't know a slush fund existed, just total professionalism, accepting responsibility and leadership. No excuses or yes man here.
 
Last edited:
First, I would request that you refrain from foul language.

My apologies, unfortunately I'm unable to edit it out.

Second, if you would count it a privilege to serve in the military, how can you say that it is not a privilege for one to serve?
Because on a personal level it can be a privilege. However, in general it is not. It cannot be. Necessary things are generally not privileges. They are necessities. A military, as least for the US, is a necessity. Thus to serve in the military is not a privilege you get that can be arbitrarily taken away, but it is a choice made by selfless individuals to answer the call for people to defend our nation and our way of life.

Third, I am in no way equating the implementation of gays to the equipment of servicemen with squirt guns. It was a hypothetical situation to show that it is not insulting to our military's capabilities simply to say that doing a certain thing will increase vulnerability.
Except that you did equate the two and that they are two entirely different situations. In the one scenario, you are limiting our ability to fight entirely. In the other you aren't doing anything nearly as damaging to our ability to fight.

It isn't insulting to say something will increase vulnerability if it actually increases vulnerability.

Fourth, you are over-simplifying the argument. The argument is not that all of a sudden, a bunch of gays are going to come out and be a distraction.
Perhaps it isn't. But Gen. Amos seems to feel that repeal will distract Marines to the point that they will die.

What sort of undisciplined fighting force does he think the Marines are that something so simple as a gay person in a combat unit will distract them to the point that their instinct of survival is hindered, their training is forgotten, and they are so concerned that they lose limbs and die? What sort of poor leadership does he think there is in the Marine Corps such that the leaders will be too distracted with gay issues to sufficiently prepare units for combat?


All I'm saying is that Gen. Amos comments that marines will die or be decapitated as a result of the repeal is a bit superfluous.
 
Because on a personal level it can be a privilege. However, in general it is not. It cannot be. Necessary things are generally not privileges. They are necessities. A military, as least for the US, is a necessity. Thus to serve in the military is not a privilege you get that can be arbitrarily taken away, but it is a choice made by selfless individuals to answer the call for people to defend our nation and our way of life.

Except that you did equate the two and that they are two entirely different situations. In the one scenario, you are limiting our ability to fight entirely. In the other you aren't doing anything nearly as damaging to our ability to fight.

It isn't insulting to say something will increase vulnerability if it actually increases vulnerability.

Perhaps it isn't. But Gen. Amos seems to feel that repeal will distract Marines to the point that they will die.

What sort of undisciplined fighting force does he think the Marines are that something so simple as a gay person in a combat unit will distract them to the point that their instinct of survival is hindered, their training is forgotten, and they are so concerned that they lose limbs and die? What sort of poor leadership does he think there is in the Marine Corps such that the leaders will be too distracted with gay issues to sufficiently prepare units for combat?


All I'm saying is that Gen. Amos comments that marines will die or be decapitated as a result of the repeal is a bit superfluous.

As for the privilege part, I agree basically with what you are saying. I would simply say, however, that if I would consider it a privilege to serve, if you would consider it likewise, and if every other serviceman would, then in general, it could be considered a privilege for one to be able to serve. I agree that to a nation, a military is not a privilege, but a necessity. But in general, to serve is a privilege.

I wasn't trying to equate the two, but simply insert one for the other to demonstrate that just because implementing a certain policy would be harmful, it would not be insulting to point that out.

As was pointed out in the washington post article, allowing gays to serve openly could drastically affect cohesion among the unit, their ability to work together to get the job done and keep each other safe.

This has been an entertaining discussion, and though I have argued against this repeal, I have no hatred toward gays, and I believe that they need salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ just as every single other person does.
 
First off when the WAPO, the 2nd most leaning left paper after NYT, questions this, I get rattled down to my core.


I agree that to a nation, a military is not a privilege, but a necessity. But in general, to serve is a privilege.

I agree it is a privilege and an honor. Not everyone who wants to serve can serve. Just because you wish to serve doesn't mean you can serve. I am not talking about being gay.

Look at the DodMerb threads and how many candidates are hit with DQs from a medical standpoint. They spend their life trying to open a door that may or may not remain shut.

I have had friends who were AD military members, but somewhere along the way they got asked to leave this life.

Some were due to medical issues.

Some were due to the fact that their timing was off (RIF/SERB)

Some because they were passed over for promotion.

Some because they washed out of a specialty school (UPT/UNT)

Every military member serves at the discretion of their branch, and when you see enough forced to leave, you do realize it is a privilege to serve.

This reminds me of a saying I have had on my fridge for yrs.

Freedom is a word
That those protected by
Never truly understand
the meaning of
the word.

It is easy to make it a clear cut argument in theory, but in reality, it is never clear cut.
 
As was pointed out in the washington post article, allowing gays to serve openly could drastically affect cohesion among the unit, their ability to work together to get the job done and keep each other safe.

I would be very interested to read this aforementioned article. I tried looking for it on the Washington Post website and I looked back at previous posts on this thread to see if was included but unless I missed it, I didn't see it.

I admit, I'm skeptical of this claim. Are you sure it wasn't merely an opinion written by a guest contributor or reader? I can't see Washington Post producing an article expressing this point of view.
 
Definitely CC. As far as Ms Faust goes....just another person trying to take advantage of the situation and provide more publicity/recruitment for Harvard. All of us on this site know that the majority of the Ivy League's have been opposed to the military for quite some time.

Being in the military isn't a job, it's a lifestyle. One that too many of my nonmilitary peers forgets and doesn't understand. We want people who will work their hardest. We want people who are good to others. We want people who are able to sacrifice. It's good that the military is able to dictate how all of this is going to end up though....I personally wouldn't want some judge deciding all of this.

What's your take on the commander situation, CC? I read something that the commanding officers at units will have dicretionary powers on how to handle things of this nature. For instance, berthing issues, etc. Must be a sticky time to be in command.....

I'm really interested on what the Corps take will be on all of this when I get back to CGA. I'll keep you guys posted.

Away from the DADT issue, do you really think Harvard needs publicity for recruitment? Harvard turns away more on a yearly basis than all the Service Academies combined. I believe I read that they had 35,000 people apply last year. I may be wrong with the numbers, but I can assure you that they are not doing this for publicity.
 
Devildog,

The problem for Harvard with the repeal of DADT is from what I have heard/read they will be forced to accept ROTC back on campus. If they don't they will be ineligible for Federal funding.

This will be interesting to see how it plays out...a liberal college with BILLIONS in endowment....will they sell out their liberal beliefs for a paycheck (Federal money) or will they cash in their endowments for their liberal beliefs?
 
My thoughts on Gays in the Military. I will first tell you about me. I served in the Marine Corps, most likely the most conservative branch of the service. I have worked as an engineer in the private sector since my discharge in 1983. I still do not understand how gays in the military can be an issue. We live in a country that claims to not discriminate. How can we as people discriminate against a whole segment of the population because of sexual orientation.
In all the years I have worked in the private sector, I have never once been approached by a gay person for sexual favors. I have never worked with a gay male or female that was not at least as proficient in their job as I was in mine. For the most part, the gay people I have worked with have been better at their jobs than the straight folk.
I would much rather work with a gay man or woman that knows what they are doing than some straight sh!tbird that is in it for a paycheck.
I just can't get the concept of discrimination. I have 4 sons and two daughters, none are gay, at least I don't think so. I would not love any of them any less if they were. Besides that, I want my children to have every door open to them that is open to everyone else. I do not want either of my daughters getting paid less because they are a woman. If I had a gay son, why should he be discriminated against?
Can someone please explain to this Old Jarhead, how letting Gay Americans serve their country weakens us?

Aren't there laws that protect us from Sexual Harrassment? I guess it is different if a male Major hits on a female subordinate, or a male major hits on a male subordinate. It is not, it is still sexual harrassment and there are laws against that.
 
Last edited:
As was pointed out in the washington post article, allowing gays to serve openly could drastically affect cohesion among the unit, their ability to work together to get the job done and keep each other safe.

I understand there are some who believe that gays in a unit will drastically affect cohesion to the point that people will die. I simply choose not to insult our nation's military with such ridiculous beliefs.

I agree it is a privilege and an honor. Not everyone who wants to serve can serve. Just because you wish to serve doesn't mean you can serve. I am not talking about being gay.
Even though not everyone gets to do it, I still don't believe it is a privilege. Just like I don't think it is a privileges to work in law enforcement, medicine, public transportation, etc. No, not everyone can do those things, but those that do are not necessarily privileged to do so.

I'll agree, it can be personally rewarding and it can be considered a privilege on the personal level.

But in a general sense I don't think it's correct or appropriate to say that service (in any of those ways to include military service) is a privilege. It's definitely something I'm grateful for, but I would never tell someone "You can't serve in X capacity because it is a privilege and not a right."

If someone can't serve in the military, it should only be because they don't meet the qualifications necessary to perform the job at the highest or at least an acceptable level of proficiency.
 
My thoughts on Gays in the Military. I will first tell you about me. I served in the Marine Corps, most likely the most conservative branch of the service. I have worked as an engineer in the private sector since my discharge in 1983. I still do not understand how gays in the military can be an issue. We live in a country that claims to not discriminate. How can we as people discriminate against a whole segment of the population because of sexual orientation.
In all the years I have worked in the private sector, I have never once been approached by a gay person for sexual favors. I have never worked with a gay male or female that was not at least as proficient in their job as I was in mine. For the most part, the gay people I have worked with have been better at their jobs than the straight folk.
I would much rather work with a gay man or woman that knows what they are doing than some straight sh!tbird that is in it for a paycheck.
I just can't get the concept of discrimination. I have 4 sons and two daughters, none are gay, at least I don't think so. I would not love any of them any less if they were. Besides that, I want my children to have every door open to them that is open to everyone else. I do not want either of my daughters getting paid less because they are a woman. If I had a gay son, why should he be discriminated against?
Can someone please explain to this Old Jarhead, how letting Gay Americans serve their country weakens us?

Aren't there laws that protect us from Sexual Harrassment? I guess it is different if a male Major hits on a female subordinate, or a male major hits on a male subordinate. It is not, it is still sexual harrassment and there are laws against that.

Looks like we were in the USMC at about the same time and we must be about the same age, around 50 :eek:

I don't think anyone is actually saying having gays in the military will kill people, and for most, the issue is not to bar Gays from the military, the issue (IMHO) is: 70% of active duty Marines answered the Pentagon survey stating that they did not want to repeal the DADT law. Now, did that mean they never want Gays in the Marine Corps? Or does that mean they don't want such sweeping changes during war time, I don't know. General Amos made his statements after reading that survey, and [I still believe] he stated that the issue was forcing Marines to change a policy, while they are fighting a shooting war. He didn't want to stress his subordinates more than they were already stressed.

I'll go further and say it's a joke because the DADT policy has been largely successful, till now, with the exception of a very small percentage of Gay service people and Gay advocates pushing this issue before the lame duck congress closed. We could go back and forth about discriminating, privileges or rights to serve but, one thing is true, the policy of no actively gay Marines has been in effect for 235 years, and bringing up family issues was never an issue before, so this will cause a distraction to fighting Marines now. Since were on that topic, let the three branches of Government iron out the messy details instead of forcing the Military to clear a path for political expediency. That's my beef and again, I could care less if gays serve; if they serve as openly gay, I believe they should be housed separately just as the sexes are....IMHO.....which is a whole separate topic in itself! :shake::yllol:
 
Mongo, I've searched everywhere and can't find where Gen. Amos actually called a press conference, could you please direct me to a link that has that press conference? TYIA

http://www.stripes.com/news/marine-commandant-concluded-dadt-repeal-may-risk-lives-1.128737

On Tuesday, the commandant spoke at length about how he came to his decision in an intimate, hour-long session with a small group of reporters in his Pentagon dining room.

I really have trouble envisioning a group of reporters showing up uninvited and unannounced in the General's own private dining room. Don't you? And then spending an 'intimate' hour with them? Call it what you want. To me, it was a called press conference.
 
Last edited:
Devildog,

The problem for Harvard with the repeal of DADT is from what I have heard/read they will be forced to accept ROTC back on campus. If they don't they will be ineligible for Federal funding.

This will be interesting to see how it plays out...a liberal college with BILLIONS in endowment....will they sell out their liberal beliefs for a paycheck (Federal money) or will they cash in their endowments for their liberal beliefs?

Our country is stronger for the many diverse backgrounds from which our officer corps hail and are educated. The more diverse an officer corps in terms of geography, political view point, religious affiliation and socioeconomic status the better for our democracy. I look forward to many more ROTC battalions and Military Science courses on campuses to help students participate in ROTC. Go Crimson ROTC!
 
http://www.stripes.com/news/marine-commandant-concluded-dadt-repeal-may-risk-lives-1.128737



I really have trouble envisioning a group of reporters showing up uninvited and unannounced in the General's own private dining room. Don't you? And then spending an 'intimate' hour with them? Call it what you want. To me, it was a called press conference.

Nope, not a "called press conference" It was a few (probably one or two reporters) tailing the General to a Pentagon dining facility.

I'm more impressed with General Amos after reading this article, once again, he [Amos] is General Damon and the rest are General Massengale.
As everyone can clearly see, the General was tasked with preparing an informed opinion of his subordinates, after reading a study and poll, he did so; it wasn't the Rubber stamp they were looking for :rolleyes: and the dogs were called out...the so called "calls for his resignation" came from liberal civilian hacks like: CNBC and:

“General Amos needs to fall in line and salute or resign now,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which advocates for repeal, in a statement.

Thanks for the link Mongo :thumb:

Amos was the only service chief to recommend against the repeal outright in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee two weeks ago. Marine Corps leaders and survey responses have indicated the service is more reluctant to support repeal than other military branches. The Army and Air Force chiefs told Congress they preferred that repeal come later, taking a softer stance, while the Navy’s chief said his service was ready to implement repeal now.

Following that testimony, Republicans last week held their filibuster of the repeal for a second time, blocking a Democrat-led attempt to move the annual defense authorization bill closer to a final vote this year.

On Tuesday, the commandant spoke at length about how he came to his decision in an intimate, hour-long session with a small group of reporters in his Pentagon dining room.

“This was not a flippant, rush-right-in preparation,” he said. “This was a very, very deep, thoughtful — I read the report, the survey over and over again.”

When pressed to explain exactly what a breakdown of “unit cohesion” could look like and why it would endanger Marines in combat, or the larger war effort, Amos said he was unsure but that the significant concern of breakdown was good enough for him.

“I can’t explain what the expectations are. I can’t explain what they think might happen,” Amos said.

Repeatedly, Amos pointed to the survey results.

“We asked the questions, and the Marines answered them,” he added. “And I had to listen to that. That’s where I came down.”


Amos said that before early drafts hit his desk several weeks ago, he was unsure how Marines would answer the survey. He noted it found Marines in noncombat roles seemed more ready to accept repeal.

But with so many Marines engaged in Afghanistan, he thought about what could happen to small units like those in Sangin, where fighting is the heaviest by many accounts. When a firefight breaks out, he said, lives depend on “intuitive behavior” free from distraction.

“I don’t want to permit that opportunity [for distraction] to happen,” he said.

Critics pounced on Amos’ stance that “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal could lead to casualties.

“General Amos needs to fall in line and salute or resign now,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which advocates for repeal, in a statement. “He implied that repeal will lead to Marines losing their legs in combat. Those fear tactics are not in the interest of any servicemember.”

Amos said he felt good about his Senate testimony, especially that he was clearly allowed to deliver his “best military advice” without pressure or rebuke, and senators thanked him afterward, even though his advice was, he said, “counter to the way some folks wanted me to go.”

The commandant said he would silence his concerns should Congress vote to repeal the law.

And what if they do?

“That’s easy. I’m going to get in step and do it smartly,” he said, leading the effort with public messages, videos and personal visits with commanders.
 
I'll go further and say it's a joke because the DADT policy has been largely successful, till now,

Actually it hasn't. Part of the problem wasn't the law itself, but that it had been abused. People were investigated on mere suspicions. People were discharged after searches of their private lives resulted in discovery of their sexuality. Implied in the "Don't Ask" portion is that one will not actively search for it by reading private emails and listening to private phone calls.
 
Devildog,

The problem for Harvard with the repeal of DADT is from what I have heard/read they will be forced to accept ROTC back on campus. If they don't they will be ineligible for Federal funding.

This will be interesting to see how it plays out...a liberal college with BILLIONS in endowment....will they sell out their liberal beliefs for a paycheck (Federal money) or will they cash in their endowments for their liberal beliefs?

I may be wrong, but I understand that the federal law in question--the Solomon Amendment--is enforced on the issue of requiring colleges to give recruiters access to their students, but does not require any particular school to establish an ROTC program. If that's wrong or outdated, I'd be interested in seeing articles on that. There was a 2006 Supreme Court case on the Solomon Amendment, and the issue was access for recruiters. But, again, I could be wrong and clarification would be welcome.

As a policy issue, I very much believe Ivy League and other academically prestigious schools that moved away from ROTC were mistaken in doing so, and hope they will offer ROTC to their students. Will DoD want to expand ROTC to more schools, given fiscal issues, or just stay pat, does anyone know?

Lastly, I am not a Harvard alum but in fairness to that institution, their president, Drew Gilpin Faust, has spoken favorably about ROTC, and I've met
some Harvard ROTC students (MIT's detachment) who said Dr. Faust went out
of her way to reach out to them and celebrate their service.
 
Actually it hasn't. Part of the problem wasn't the law itself, but that it had been abused. People were investigated on mere suspicions. People were discharged after searches of their private lives resulted in discovery of their sexuality. Implied in the "Don't Ask" portion is that one will not actively search for it by reading private emails and listening to private phone calls.

And by that I believe you are referring to the often forgotten "Don't Pursue, Don't Harass" part of the policy.

The policy, in full, was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass"
 
I would be very interested to read this aforementioned article. I tried looking for it on the Washington Post website and I looked back at previous posts on this thread to see if was included but unless I missed it, I didn't see it.

I admit, I'm skeptical of this claim. Are you sure it wasn't merely an opinion written by a guest contributor or reader? I can't see Washington Post producing an article expressing this point of view.

See page 5 of this thread, 4th post down, by Maximus. It wasn't written by Washington Post journalist, but reporting on what Gen. Amos said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top