USNA Mids describe smooth transition from 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

AJM,

I am not trying to antagonize you, but honestly I don't get the fervor of your position. This is a recruitment/retention tool just like flight pay, jump pay, and bonuses. Fliers don't resent those who got their 6 figure bonus. Enlisted don't resent their peers who got their re-up bonuses either. They are all mature enough to get this was business from the perspective of wooing them to stay.

SA members cannot be married, and to say they have had a smooth transition, thus all will be well IMPO is bunk. Picture of the couple is great, come back to me when the military because of the govt. does not recognize the marriage

Their ability to marry and have every right the heterosexual members enjoy will be the final test.

JMPO, but anyone who believes that a homosexual couple from a state like NJ (civil union), will not sue for the same privileges as a couple from MD is playing ostrich in the sand.

The smooth transition will be AD life.
 
Last edited:
Pima said:
AJM,

I am not trying to antagonize you, but honestly I don't get the fervor of your position. This is a recruitment/retention tool just like flight pay, jump pay, and bonuses. Fliers don't resent those who got their 6 figure bonus. Enlisted don't resent their peers who got their re-up bonuses either. They are all mature enough to get this was business from the perspective of wooing them to stay.

SA members cannot be married, and to say they have had a smooth transition, thus all will be well IMPO is bunk. Picture of the couple is great, come back to me when the military because of the govt. does not recognize the marriage

Their ability to marry and have every right the heterosexual members enjoy will be the final test.

JMPO, but anyone who believes that a homosexual couple from a state like NJ (civil union), will not sue for the same privileges as a couple from MD is playing ostrich in the sand.

The smooth transition will be AD life.
Click to expand...

Don't worry Pima, there are several lawsuits already going on.
 
These lawsuits, are they new since the repeal? Are they against the military or state, federal?

Honestly, if I was homosexual, in a committed relationship and had a short tour in front of me, I would bring this to court. It would be no harm, no foul since I planned to leave anyway, at least I could say I tried to change our federal position.
 
Pima said:
These lawsuits, are they new since the repeal? Are they against the military or state, federal?

Honestly, if I was homosexual, in a committed relationship and had a short tour in front of me, I would bring this to court. It would be no harm, no foul since I planned to leave anyway, at least I could say I tried to change our federal position.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/gays-in-military-doma-lawsuit_n_1034716.html
http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/10/sldn-files-doma-challenge-seek.html
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/...l-not-fight-same-sex-couples-lawsuit-022012w/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ing-marriage/2012/05/30/gJQAKLRd0U_story.html


Some repeats, but you get the picture. I know one of the couples in the first suit from Oct of last year. One of them recently got out of the Army and the other is still in.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Kind of cowardly to get out... and then go after them... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

LITS, that's a very judgmental thing to say, especially since you have no idea why said person got out (only in the last couple weeks). Even so, his husband is still in the Army, so this is even more important since the now separated one no longer has access on post.

He got out because his commitment was up and the Army still wasn't providing any help for him and his husband to be based together. He was able to get a full ride to law school making the decision to get out more amenable to their situation than staying in. Again, I wish you wouldn't take such snap criticisms here.
 
temp said:
LITS, that's a very judgmental thing to say, especially since you have no idea why said person got out (only in the last couple weeks). Even so, his husband is still in the Army, so this is even more important since the now separated one no longer has access on post.

He got out because his commitment was up and the Army still wasn't providing any help for him and his husband to be based together. He was able to get a full ride to law school making the decision to get out more amenable to their situation than staying in. Again, I wish you wouldn't take such snap criticisms here.
Click to expand...

Snap criticisms only exist because people tend to have the "moral highground" and intestinal fortitude to "stand up" when they no longer have to look their soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines or Coast Guardsmen in the face. I have no issue with "change". I do have issue when people want to bring about change that no longer affects them.

How did he get a full ride to law school? Sign me up.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Snap criticisms only exist because people tend to have the "moral highground" and intestinal fortitude to "stand up" when they no longer have to look their soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines or Coast Guardsmen in the face. I have no issue with "change". I do have issue when people want to bring about change that no longer affects them.

How did he get a full ride to law school? Sign me up.
Click to expand...

He and his partner were very open after repeal and a great role couple during the transition. His soldiers were well aware of he and his partner and enjoyed their company. He looked them in the face everyday with a ring on his finger and did his job exceptionally well. His decision to leave, after 11 years in the Army, was to take a wonderful civilian opportunity and to be closer to his husband. His husband is an equally great man who goes to work as an Army officer with a ring on his finger and the respect of his chain. The lawsuit means even more to them now as he cannot gain access to military facilities, unescorted, meaning he has lost the option to go to the PX, etc. for them both.

So again, your judgement is 180* off on the behaviors and motivation of these fine young men. It is disappointing you would judge his courage and character in the way you are.
 
temp said:
He and his partner were very open after repeal and a great role couple during the transition. His soldiers were well aware of he and his partner and enjoyed their company. He looked them in the face everyday with a ring on his finger and did his job exceptionally well. His decision to leave, after 11 years in the Army, was to take a wonderful civilian opportunity and to be closer to his husband. His husband is an equally great man who goes to work as an Army officer with a ring on his finger and the respect of his chain. The lawsuit means even more to them now as he cannot gain access to military facilities, unescorted, meaning he has lost the option to go to the PX, etc. for them both.

So again, your judgement is 180* off on the behaviors and motivation of these fine young men. It is disappointing you would judge his courage and character in the way you are.
Click to expand...


Don't feel too bad. I don't put much stock into anyone, gay or straight, who take legal action against an organization once they left that organization. I rarely classify legal action with the word courage, but I especially avoid it when it's done like this.
 
temp said:
He and his partner were very open after repeal and a great role couple during the transition. His soldiers were well aware of he and his partner and enjoyed their company. He looked them in the face everyday with a ring on his finger and did his job exceptionally well. His decision to leave, after 11 years in the Army, was to take a wonderful civilian opportunity and to be closer to his husband. His husband is an equally great man who goes to work as an Army officer with a ring on his finger and the respect of his chain. The lawsuit means even more to them now as he cannot gain access to military facilities, unescorted, meaning he has lost the option to go to the PX, etc. for them both.

So again, your judgement is 180* off on the behaviors and motivation of these fine young men. It is disappointing you would judge his courage and character in the way you are.
Click to expand...

I think it does take guts, and lots of 'em, to file a lawsuit like that, in or out of uniform, because it will result in a great deal of criticism for the plaintiff regardless of the outcome. Thanks for your posts, they've been measured and informative.
 
LineInTheSand said:
I have no issue with "change". I do have issue when people want to bring about change that no longer affects them.

.
Click to expand...

Im confused LineInTheSand-is your quote accurate? You have a problem with people who try to bring about a change (they feel is positive) when it doesn't effect them personally? Do you also have a problem with Mother Theresa (I dont think she was starving), Thomas Jefferson (he already had a lot of rights), St. Paul (I think he was already going to heaven).

People standing up for what they beleive is right/vs what they feel is wrong is the ultimate base of good character and leadership. This is not rooted in a potential benefit for the good-deed-doer.
 
Vista123 said:
Im confused LineInTheSand-is your quote accurate? You have a problem with people who try to bring about a change (they feel is positive) when it doesn't effect them personally? Do you also have a problem with Mother Theresa (I dont think she was starving), Thomas Jefferson (he already had a lot of rights), St. Paul (I think he was already going to heaven).

People standing up for what they beleive is right/vs what they feel is wrong is the ultimate base of good character and leadership. This is not rooted in a potential benefit for the good-deed-doer.
Click to expand...

None of your examples are anyone who attempted "change" from the safety of their own rooms. Mother Theresa wasn't buying "Save Dafur" shirts from the streets of DC to "make a difference", she was in the thick of it. Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves until his death, also wasn't engaged from the safety of 3000 miles between him and the people who didn't agree with him. And St. Paul, well, come on, very much in the thick of it.

When you run and say "NOW I will make a change.... it's not honorable. Sniping from afar and claiming the courage to be in the thick of it.... that's what I'm talking about. Monday morning QBing....

This person only stood up after they were no longer accountable for their actions. So, understand where you're trying to go, but I still stand by my initial statements.
 
LITS,
I have to say I disagree with you whole heartily regarding your stance on the ease of this person making a stand from a distance.

My son's godfather was my husbands college roommate. The godfather recently (as in weeks ago) "came out" to my husband and my son. This past wkend was the college reunion. Talk about a difficult time for the godfather, I cant imagine. Do you know another room mate refused to even go to the reunion over it?

Coming out, taking a stand, finding your voice, is on each person's time table. Not what is best for a casual judgmental observer.

However, to be specific LITS what you said is that you "have a problem with people who try to bring about a change when it doesn't effect them." This will affect them. Their peers (many as judgmental as you are being) will have push back. They are not taking the easy path and going meekly away. They are trying to make a difference for those who come after them, even if this causes problems.

I personally, have a problem with people who try to bring about a change only when it effects them.
 
What you just described is also not from afar.

The "change" you're talking about isn't disinterested third parties. We're not talking about straight guys and gals. So, so pretend like it's some "for the greater good" mentality is not quiet a reach, but I think the argument could be made that it is in, small part, self-interested. That said, self-interest without dealing with the consequences.

The thing is, I'm sure many people here know the very person I'm talking about.... taking shots form the safety of an unaffected vantage point. I don't tend to honor that. Sorry.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/07/us/army-same-sex-ceremony/index.html

Let the games begin!
A same-sex ceremony between an enlisted woman and a civilian woman on a U.S. Army post last month drew protests from lawmakers Thursday.
The "private religious ceremony" took place at Fort Polk in Louisiana in May, post spokesman Scott Stearns said, but he would confirm few other details.
Rep. John Fleming, a Louisiana Republican whose congressional district includes the Army post, said the military confirmed to him that the same-sex ceremony was performed by an Army chaplain in the chapel.
The incident was an inevitable consequence of the end of the don't ask, don't tell policy in September, which previously banned homosexuals from military service, Fleming said.
"It is very concerning that a same-sex ceremony would occur on a military base in a state where the definition of marriage has been clearly defined as between one man and one woman," Akin said.
Click to expand...

I think this is a great illustration of the concerns from posters regarding the military. It is not just about sexual orientation in the military, it is also about indirect issues that our nation has yet to resolve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top