Obama to End Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy

The law of unintended consequences would have a LARGE effect, that much I can virtually guarantee.

The UCMJ would need to be revised, housing issues resolved, beneifts, etc. etc.

My main concern is mission impact. As of now, I don't think there is solid evidence for banning homosexuals from the military.



I have rather mixed views. I do not like homosexuality because of my religious beliefs. However, I believe everyone should be treated equally under the law, and I am very uncomfortable giving ANYONE the right to create law based on their religion (including religious beliefs I agree with).
 
The point many of you are missing is that its not really about allowing gay and lesbian people to serve in the military because tens of thousands allready do, therefore there are thousands of heterosexual service members who are allready sharing thier rooms, showers, bunks etc with gay and lesbian colleagues, they just dont know it. The idea that just being able to serve openly is going to turn gay men into mad lechers suddenly jumping people in the showers is really an odd one.

This system is mad, it tells gay and lesbian people that they can serve as long as they hide who they are, as long as they are prepared to live every day in fear that this may be the day they are outed and loose thier job, that they can accept that if they are killed in action no one will officially tell or even acknowledge their partners (in the case of Major Alan Rogers even censor media to hide the fact he was gay after his death). Its mad.

And finally I cant help but wonder if this is really such a big deal, such a logistical nightmare how is that almost all of our coalition partners manage to have openly gay and lesbian service members seemingly without suffering major colapse (Canada, Australia, UK, Israel, Denmark, France, Spain etc...)
 
1st several of those countries have mandatory service...i.e. remove homosexuals I wonder how many people would say I am gay to not serve.

2nd, some of those countries allow gay unions...again as a nation we do not recognize civil unions. As married military members you receive many benefits for the family...housing, medical, moving allowance, survivor benefits, so on and so forth. Do we say well you were married in VT and recognized so you get it, but you were married in CA and Prop 8 failed so you are not recognized?

It is a logistical nightmare when the nation has not resolved the issue. This is not so much about how the military feels, but more about what is recognized as law in our nation. UNTIL civil unions are recognized to have the same rights as heterosexual marriages you cannot nor should not expect the military to pick up the banner and lead. The military's job is to follow orders...not create!

If you want the policy to change I suggest that everybody get the congress and senate to pass a law for civil unions for homosexuals, that is when the military will address gays and lesbians.
 
Pima said:
The case will be up there right away followed by transgender operations.
Click to expand...


Wow I am glad that I don't work at DODMERB..... :rofl: sorry.. I had to add that Mr. Mullen sure will be busy.
 
I still dont get it, this is a hugely principled decision about whether a substantial chunk of the American population should be allowed to serve thier country or not, its about equality and human rights, and we are boiling it down to a logistical problem. Im sure it would be a logistical problem, im equally sure that the combined great minds that must exist within the US military and civilian administrations could find thier way round such a problem if the political will existed.

I dont mean to disrespect you Pima because i read your posts a lot and have great respect for what you say but when you hear about a 22 year old marine who has served and been badly injured in Iraq coming back to the US and being dishonourably discharged from the military because he is attracted to men and not women I dont think that can ever be justified and definately not on the basis of a logistiacal headache.

The first three countries on my list the UK, Canada and Australia all have all volunteer armies and although the UK and Canada do recognise gay unions they both repealled thier bans on gays in the military some years before they legalised such unions so perhaps we need to be learning from them how they got around the logistical problems.

Finally what is the link between gay and lesbians people and transgender people? One is a sexual orientation and one is a gender identity. Trans people dont necessarily identify as gay (or are transitioning in order to stop being gay) and most gay people have no desire to change thier gender so where is the connection?
 
Emsa said:
I still dont get it, this is a hugely principled decision about whether a substantial chunk of the American population should be allowed to serve thier country or not, its about equality and human rights, and we are boiling it down to a logistical problem. Im sure it would be a logistical problem, im equally sure that the combined great minds that must exist within the US military and civilian administrations could find thier way round such a problem if the political will existed.

I dont mean to disrespect you Pima because i read your posts a lot and have great respect for what you say but when you hear about a 22 year old marine who has served and been badly injured in Iraq coming back to the US and being dishonourably discharged from the military because he is attracted to men and not women I dont think that can ever be justified and definately not on the basis of a logistiacal headache.

The first three countries on my list the UK, Canada and Australia all have all volunteer armies and although the UK and Canada do recognise gay unions they both repealled thier bans on gays in the military some years before they legalised such unions so perhaps we need to be learning from them how they got around the logistical problems.
Click to expand...

I tried to ignore this subject.... ughhh it didnt work..

This is such an unwinnable subject. Everyone has their own ideas and beliefs
and they wont be swayed.

I have some lesbian friends... they all retired USAF, yes they served our country for over 20 yrs each, one retiring as an E-7 and two E-8s. They didnt come "OUT" of the closet until they retired.... I knew before then but I was not AD so it didnt matter to me.

But I would have to say the AF is different then the USMC, USN or even the USA... marines still live in open squad bays, sailors share bunks, and soldiers share tents in the field... I would be afraid as a gay man in any of those situations and would probably sleep lightly at night... I could be way off, but I dont think so. What is that soap in a sock?? of course that doesnt happen anymore though right!!?

Dont ask Dont Tell protects everyone.... maybe not the best program but it is protection....The one thing that has always bugge me about gay rights is it about their sexual preference.. I dont share what goes on behind my doors why do they??? ohh and I do beleive sodomy is still on the books as illegal!??!

Gays are allowed to join the military now, they just cant advertise their sexual preference...

Emsa said:
Finally what is the link between gay and lesbians people and transgender people? One is a sexual orientation and one is a gender identity. Trans people dont necessarily identify as gay (or are transitioning in order to stop being gay) and most gay people have no desire to change thier gender so where is the connection?
Click to expand...

?? I dont get it... lesbian is a term for gay women, no different then a gay man... transgender... ohh my goodness...I am not even going to go there.....I would think that THAT would have to be an automatic DQ from DODMERB.. seriously.. if my daughter got DQ'ed for allergy shots and a someone that has this kind of surgery didnt .. I would be on the DODMERB protesting... as I am sure others would be too..


PS please remember in Europe most all beaches are attended by women topless...... and the guys dont drool over them.... Europe is a different society and we can not compare ourselves to them......

But again this is such an unwinnable topic... it will only anger some and then the others....
 
Last edited:
Zaphod said:
I'm waiting for the lawsuit demanding that they be allowed to cross-dress in uniform. :rolleyes:

Go ahead. Laugh now. But when it happens I'll be the one laughing.... or maybe crying. Not sure which.
Click to expand...

Maybe then San Fransisco will allow USMC Recruiting stations and JROTC units in their schools lol
 
Poor attempt at a joke...trust me I also believe that they would never be med q.

Emsa,

In the end of the day whatever Obama says will go. Just as when women were allowed into the fighter community there was a lot of squawking, mainly about the squadrons having to be reconfigured to put ladies baths in the building. It will take time and it will not be an easy feat.

You are seeing this from a personal view, people are trying to explain from a military view and sometimes the two will not meet. This is truly about logistics, esp. the financial aspects. Again, housing, med., survivor ben, education, job placement, TLA, DLA, PCS, etc all add up into the millions. The military is already operating on a shoe string, (yes, alot has to do with buying new equipment and a war), so where will the military find the money for them. Let's even say they say allow gays, but no benefits...like Zaph said earlier that lawsuit will be filed in the 1st few minutes. Then it all goes back to the orig. pt, how do you give military benefits to the person who was married in a state that recognizes it, but not to the other. You would also be placing burdens on the military Personnel Center keeping those records...trust me A & F is always overburdened.

I don't think anyone here could care less if homosexuals are allowed, it is all about the logistics on how to do it efficiently. Military members will follow whatever order is given, but you can't expect them to make policy, that comes from the Pres who directs the SOD who then directs the branches. It doesn't go the opposite way.
 
Last edited:
Pima said:
Then it all goes back to the orig. pt, how do you give military benefits to the person who was married in a state that recognizes it, but not to the other.
Click to expand...

Article IV, Section 1, of the United States Constitution covers that:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

As does 28 USC 1738:

"Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and it Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken."

:cool:
 
Luigi, I knew that, what my point was how is it fair? Does every homosexual military member change their home of record to VT? How about those who got married in CA before it was repealled....Cali is allowing those married already the rights, but not anymore, so now A & F and personnel will have more paperwork.

When you look at the UK it wasn't as if Oxfordshire said civil unions and Northhamptonshire said no, which is what our nation is doing. It was an all or nothing scenario for them which is why logistically that was even easier than our scenario right now.

I believe currently we have 11 states that have banned same sex marriages, some of them constitutionally.
 
Emsa, it is not a dishonorable discharge.
Click to expand...

My bad, it isnt, but it isnt an honourable discharge either and that still has implications.


Pima
I don't think anyone here could care less if homosexuals are allowed
Click to expand...

I dearly wish that was true but I think you know as well as I do that its not, I imagine as with our society as a whole many people here do care if homosexuals are allowed and for reasons unrellated to logistics. I hold on to the hope that society will evolve as it always does and that in a few generations people will be as appauled by the thought of gay people being barred from serving thier county as we are by the thought of women beng denied the right to vote, or black people being refused the right to own land.
 
Actually it is an honorable discharge. There is a code associated with it, but more for possible reenlistments than to follow them around.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Actually it is an honorable discharge. There is a code associated with it, but more for possible reenlistments than to follow them around.
Click to expand...

Correct.

They receive an Honorable Discharge but their "re-enlistment code" is set to disallow re-enlistment.
 
Thus keeping people from crying "homosexual" to get out of duty and then reenlisting when that duty or conflict is over.
 
Maximus said:
What joke?
Click to expand...

I believe that was towards me and my Laughing about DODMERB disqualification.... I didnt mean it as a joke... just that the thought of it made me laugh...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top