Discharged DADT Cadet escorts Lady Gaga to VMA's in INDIA WHITES

[Christcorp]

Temp; 1st, welcome to the forum. Always glad to have new members. Next; while I appreciate everything you just posted, you've basically stated how the DADT policy affects you personally, and all the reasons it should be repealed. And believe it or not, I have yet to find one person on this forum topic who disagrees with it being repealed. Unfortunately however, that is not what this topic is about. If the topic was simply; "Do you think the DADT policy is wrong and should be repealed', you'd probably get almost every post saying YES, and the thread would be immediately over. There might be many opinions on HOW it should be repealed, and the logistics associated with it, but you'll find that the overwhelming majority agree that it should be repealed. So again, that is not what this thread is about. Even though there are some that will try and make others believe that this IS what it's about for some, and that those people are villains.

I guess the only analogy I can think of would be a policy on tattoos or ear rings. But, you could use almost any scenario. There is a current policy/rule in affect. It doesn't matter if we like it or agree with it. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is a policy/rule in affect, and until it's changed, it must be followed. If you choose to not follow it, then you move on with your life outside of the military. There are many gays who have gotten out of the military because of the DADT policy, and there are probably just as many or more who have stayed in and have learned to deal with it. This is totally about HOW this female cadet acted upon her choices. I find her actions to be disrespectful to other cadets and the military, and that's why I have no respect for her. After 21 years in the military, I know of many policies, rules, UCMJ articles, etc... that I did not agree with. I "Chose" to put up with them. It's like a game of soccer. You might think it's stupid that you can't use your hands in the game. That isn't important. What IS IMPORTANT, is that that IS A RULE. If you want to play that game, then you accept the rules. If you don't want to accept the rules, then you find a new game to play.

So again; while I respect you giving us your personal experience in the military, and how the DADT policy has affected you individually, that is NOT what this is about. If we can agree about that, then we can converse. If you honestly believe that I, being you mentioned me, and others are consumed in this matter because this ex-cadet is gay, then there is absolutely nothing we can discuss. It really is that simple.

The tattoo policy says that the tattoo can not be seen while in uniform. If a person decides they don't like that policy, and they insist on showing the tattoo, then that is a problem. If they say; well, I can't live with this policy. I want out. (Like this ex-cadet did). Then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Go on your way. However, if prior to getting out, you are calling the media, making statements, getting your position published or advertised, then that is wrong. And then, once out, to publicly display your tattoos while wearing a military uniform, is a slap to those in the military. There's nothing wrong with having a crusade to have the rules changed, but how you do it is just, if not more, important than the crusade itself.

So, you can read all the "Misstatements" that have been added to this thread. You can read the twisting of words. If you still believe, after my explanation here, that this thread and topic is about an individual who is gay; or even about the DADT policy itself; then you are mistaken and there isn't anything else I can say obviously to convince you differently. It doesn't matter WHAT policy we are talking about. It doesn't matter who the person is. The military has policy/rules. When you come in, you accept those policies or you don't come in. If you find a policy later, that you didn't know really applied to you, but now it does; and you have a problem with it; then you have to make a decision at that point on whether you can live with it in the military, or if you want to get out. That is a personal choice. And I have no problem with either choice. But HOW you handle that choice is just as important. This ex-cadet did not handle her choice with the respect and consideration that her fellow cadet and other military members are entitled to. She villainized the military and tried to make herself out to be a victim. And neither is true. Remember, it was President Clinton, not the air force or army, navy, etc... that made this policy/rule. If she wanted to argue and champion such a cause, the military in the press is NOT the place to do it.

Anyway, I hope you understand my and other's position on this topic. There are some here who will cry B.S. and say it's ALL about her being gay. Some of these people are ignorant and some are simply afraid to admit that they are wrong and have misjudged some of the posters. But this really isn't about gay and it's not about DADT. It could be about Marijuana, tattoos, adultery, under 21 yr old drinking alcohol, (That's a biggie considering you're old enough to die for your country, but not old enough to drink beer). But I feel the same way about a 19 year old and drinking. If they can't handle the policy, (Even though it isn't just in the military), then either live with it, or get out. And if you choose to get out, don't make it sound like the military forced you out. Doesn't matter if you like the policies or not. That isn't important. What's important is IF you choose to stay in, then you CHOOSE to follow the policy. (Like you have). If you can't follow the policy, then leave. That's what this is all about.

 

[temp]

So again; while I respect you giving us your personal experience in the military, and how the DADT policy has affected you individually, that is NOT what this is about. If we can agree about that, then we can converse.

First, I'll caveat, if anyone wants to move this to a new thread, a PM conversation, or remove it from this altogether, so be it, I'll go along with it. I'm here to inform on some conceptions (from my POV) regarding DADT and its affect on a homosexual service member.

I made this post as an addition to the thread understanding the thread is looking at her wearing the uniform, not her orientation.

then you have to make a decision at that point on whether you can live with it in the military, or if you want to get out.

Not necessarily true.

The military has policy/rules. When you come in, you accept those policies or you don't come in. If you find a policy later, that you didn't know really applied to you, but now it does; and you have a problem with it...

Hair standards and PT standards are vastly different than orientation. A point we will not agree upon.

you can read all the "Misstatements" that have been added to this thread.

All I want to address, primarily, with my post.

She villainized the military and tried to make herself out to be a victim.

I disagree that she took this stance in the sense or villainizing the military. Again, I doubt we'll find agreement on that point.

 

[Christcorp]

Temp; I understand you are commenting primarily on her wearing the uniform portion of the thread, but you did specifically mention my responses, and I haven't really commented much on the uniform portion, other than I thought she was disrespecting military members and cadets.

And I guess we won't agree on the differences in Policies. To me, rules are rules. Policies are policies. It doesn't matter to me if it's hair, PT, tattoos, sexual orientation, marijuana, alcohol, etc... The principle and concept of a rule/policy/law/etc... is the same, no matter the subject matter. You follow the rules or you don't. Which goes along with the part I said about if you don't think you can live by such rules/policies/etc... then you might need to leave. I would honestly believe that this is something we would all in fact agree to. I don't believe in the concept of "If you don't like the rules, you should be allowed to break them and not be held accountable". There are plenty of ways to get such rules/policies changed. But UNTIL IT IS CHANGED, it is a policy/rule, and it must be followed. That's the basic foundation of our military. Following orders. You can't just decide because you don't like the rule that you're not going to follow it. So yes, you do indeed need to decide whether you can follow the rules/policies in the military, or whether you need to separate because you feel you can't follow such rules/policies.

Maybe villainizing is too strong of a word. But I really am at a loss for a more appropriate word. She has basically said that the DADT policy, forced her out of the military, because she can't live by that policy. She feels she can't keep her personal sexual life personal, and she can't continue living with the DADT policy. That's fine, I can respect that. But the manner in which she went to the media, portraying herself as a victim, "In a policy written by the president of the united states and adopted by our lawmakers and then implemented by the military", she has made the academies and the military to appear to be at fault for having such a policy. Again, maybe Villainizing isn't the best choice of words, but I can't think of another. Again, she is simply taking the wrong venue to her cause, and she has caused the media to look negatively at the military and it's members.

But yes, I believe that there is no difference in any military rule/policy/law/article/etc... Not in the concept of accepting and following them. That is the basic premise behind the oath we all took. Whether it be the oath of office or oath of enlistment. Our entire military success and structure is based on following the rules/laws/policies/etc... of those appointed over us. And that includes policies implemented or originated by the president of the united states. Until changed/rescinded, you follow the rules or you get out of the military. Then, you can champion the cause all you want.

 

[Mongo]

To me, rules are rules. Policies are policies. It doesn't matter to me if it's hair, PT, tattoos, sexual orientation, marijuana, alcohol, etc... The principle and concept of a rule/policy/law/etc... is the same, no matter the subject matter.

In none of these is following the rules and being honest about it cause for dismissal.

 

[America's Finest]

To me, rules are rules. Policies are policies. It doesn't matter to me if it's hair, PT, tattoos, sexual orientation, marijuana, alcohol, etc... The principle and concept of a rule/policy/law/etc... is the same, no matter the subject matter. You follow the rules or you don't. Which goes along with the part I said about if you don't think you can live by such rules/policies/etc... then you might need to leave. I would honestly believe that this is something we would all in fact agree to. I don't believe in the concept of "If you don't like the rules, you should be allowed to break them and not be held accountable". There are plenty of ways to get such rules/policies changed. But UNTIL IT IS CHANGED, it is a policy/rule, and it must be followed. That's the basic foundation of our military. Following orders. You can't just decide because you don't like the rule that you're not going to follow it. So yes, you do indeed need to decide whether you can follow the rules/policies in the military, or whether you need to separate because you feel you can't follow such rules/policies.

The world is not black and white. There is a large shade of gray where you may find yourself one day. Yes, you should follow orders 99.99% of the time but from what I have been taught at USMA, you are not a robot. You do not simply follow without question or doubt. That is the recipe for another Nazi regime. There may be a time where following an order just isn't the right thing to do. You must use your judgement and hope that if you ever have to encounter an unethical order, you will have the courage to do what is right. (BTW I do agree with you on what she did, this is just a general comment on anything else.)

Just me 2 cents, sorry for being off topic.

 

[Christcorp]

Finest, you are correct. There are certain "Orders" when given that could be immoral, unsafe, illegal, etc... And for those, you must indeed use your judgment. But we are talking about rules/policies/laws. These have been vetted prior to becoming official. These aren't orders that were spontaneously given. In these cases, they are policies/rules that are followed if you want to be in the military. If you don't feel you can follow them, then don't stay in the military.

Mongo, you are incorrect. If a policy like not drinking underage, or refusing to keep your hair in standards, etc... is not followed, they most definitely can determine that you are incompatible with current military service and indeed dismiss you. Are you saying that if a person says they don't agree with the hair standards, and lets the hair grow and refuses to cut it or get it into regulations, that there won't be repercussions?

There is a policy that she couldn't live by. The policy is: Keep your personal sexual life private. For whatever reason, she felt she could no longer live by this policy. No problem, get out.

 

[BR2011]

Imagine that being said in situations in the past...


"Our kids aren't allowed in this whites only school? ok, we'll get out."

"We can't vote? oh well, we'll stay away from politics then"


you think those policies weren't "vetted prior to becoming official?"

 

[scoutpilot]

In none of these is following the rules and being honest about it cause for dismissal.

Following the rules of DADT is not cause for dismissal, either.

 

[Mongo]

Mongo, you are incorrect. If a policy like not drinking underage, or refusing to keep your hair in standards, etc... is not followed, they most definitely can determine that you are incompatible with current military service and indeed dismiss you. Are you saying that if a person says they don't agree with the hair standards, and lets the hair grow and refuses to cut it or get it into regulations, that there won't be repercussions?

Following the rules of DADT is not cause for dismissal, either.

Please read my post:

In none of these is following the rules AND being honest about it cause for dismissal.

CC. The first part of my statement stated to FOLLOW the rules. Absolutley, if one does not follow the rules, they are subject to reprimend.

Scout, read the second part of my statement concerning BEING HONEST in conforming to the rules. temp has given us several examples where honesty is not possible.

DADT is the sole regulation that, in order to confrom to acceptable behavior, one is expected to be dishonest. Maybe not in theory, but obviously in practice. Not a well-thought out regulation.

 

[America's Finest]

Finest, you are correct. There are certain "Orders" when given that could be immoral, unsafe, illegal, etc... And for those, you must indeed use your judgment. But we are talking about rules/policies/laws. These have been vetted prior to becoming official. These aren't orders that were spontaneously given. In these cases, they are policies/rules that are followed if you want to be in the military. If you don't feel you can follow them, then don't stay in the military.

Yes, I agree. It just seemed with the wording that what you said wasn't specific to this case, which I wanted to clarify, it was.

Mongo,

We have all already clarified that what we see as wrong was her decision to wear her uniform to advocate repeal of DADT, not DADT's remove itself. If she truly wishes it to be repealed, there are many political ways to get it done that do not involve wearing a military uniform to a political event. If DADT was truly what we cared about then there would be many topics about other people who are advocating its removal but if you search I am sure you will find almost none.

DADT isn't perfect. No policy ever is. It encourages people to ignore something instead of dealing it head on. Obviously a policy of this nature is only a temporary patch and will have to change in order to maintain stability in the long term. DADT is only one of many steps towards gay rights as I am sure everyone realizes even after DADT is repealed/changed, there will be some friction in the form of discrimination towards open homosexuals in the military.

 

[Mongo]

We have all already clarified that what we see as wrong was her decision to wear her uniform to advocate repeal of DADT, not DADT's remove itself. If she truly wishes it to be repealed, there are many political ways to get it done that do not involve wearing a military uniform to a political event.

AF, progress on these forums is slow. It has to be linear. Sound bites. Baby steps. Many have not yet agreed that DADT and honor are incompatable. Once this is established, we can go on to step 2 which is that on the surface, for a candiate who has not yet lived it, DADT appears to be an acceptable way of getting through the Academy. Step 3 is, once a cadet, the realization that honor and DADT is indeed incompatable. Step 4 is anger and betrayal. Step 5 is realizing that she owes it to fellow gays to present the real picture to prevent them from making the same mistake as she. Step 6 is advocacy. She is as defined by federal law a war veteran and is allowed to wear the uniform as a civilian. She is not active duty so UCMJ and DoD regulations concerning uniform during political activities does not apply. And if it did, political activities is pretty much defined as political elections. Bottom line-very little social change has ever been accomplished without advocacy of one form or another. It's entire goal is attention getting through the media. She did what she felt she had to do. Not for herself, but to prevent others from making the same mistake. I applaud her.


I don't know if you have noticed but the same people who are appalled that she wore a uniform and disgraced the entire military had absolutely no problem with the Stolen Valor Act being found unconstitutional and that anyone who wants can wear a MOH anytime they see fit. That to me is appalling.

 

[America's Finest]

She is not active duty so UCMJ and DoD regulations concerning uniform during political activities does not apply. And if it did, political activities is pretty much defined as political elections.

I had always been taught that the "political function" rule of uniform wear covered any event that would give civilians the impression that the military in any way, shape, or form endorsed, opposed, or in any way had a stance on the issue. Please, correct me if I am wrong as this is what I have always believed the rule was.

 

[bruno]

No AF you have it pretty much dead on- to argue otherwise is pretty much sophistry of the first order.
For those who disagree with your understanding though- I suspect they are Pretty selective in when they would see a problem with blatant politicizing of the uniform as a tool of advocacy. Stand by to see if Mongo would be as articulate if some discharged Midshipman is filmed at a NAMBLA convention in full uniform demonstrating for the right to consider those folks as a legitimate organization. My bet- His support for activism while wearing the full uniform and giving the appearance of an active duty member- would dry up pretty fast then. Can't have it both ways though- if you have no problem with every discharged short timer using their uniform to express support for their cause (assuming of course that they have personally journeyed thru the 6 steps of activism as relayed by Mongo in the post below), then be prepared for an ugly path indeed. Rather inconsistent though- in favor in the stolen valor act yet has no problem with someone portraying a serving military member in order to make a political point. Freedom of speech when he likes the cause I guess- but perhaps not when he doesn't.
To coin a phrase: "Bottom line"- this kid was as wrong as she can be regardless of how strongly she felt about what she was advocating. I don't applaud her - I am appalled by her. IF she wanted to stand out there in her civilian clothes, tell her story and advocate her political point of view- go for it. She used her military uniform in EXACTLY the way you articulated below that it is not to be used. Wrong answer regardless of how some would like to spin it.

I had always been taught that the "political function" rule of uniform wear covered any event that would give civilians the impression that the military in any way, shape, or form endorsed, opposed, or in any way had a stance on the issue. Please, correct me if I am wrong as this is what I have always believed the rule was.

 

[scoutpilot]

No AF you have it pretty much dead on- to argue otherwise is pretty much sophistry of the first order.
For those who disagree with your understanding though- I suspect they are Pretty selective in when they would see a problem with blatant politicizing of the uniform as a tool of advocacy. Stand by to see if Mongo would be as articulate if some discharged Midshipman is filmed at a NAMBLA convention in full uniform demonstrating for the right to consider those folks as a legitimate organization. My bet- His support for activism while wearing the full uniform and giving the appearance of an active duty member- would dry up pretty fast then. Can't have it both ways though- if you have no problem with every discharged short timer using their uniform to express support for their cause (assuming of course that they have personally journeyed thru the 6 steps of activism as relayed by Mongo in the post below), then be prepared for an ugly path indeed. Rather inconsistent though- in favor in the stolen valor act yet has no problem with someone portraying a serving military member in order to make a political point. Freedom of speech when he likes the cause I guess- but perhaps not when he doesn't.
To coin a phrase: "Bottom line"- this kid was as wrong as she can be regardless of how strongly she felt about what she was advocating. I don't applaud her - I am appalled by her. IF she wanted to stand out there in her civilian clothes, tell her story and advocate her political point of view- go for it. She used her military uniform in EXACTLY the way you articulated below that it is not to be used. Wrong answer regardless of how some would like to spin it.

Bruno, don't you know that's simply because you're a bigot? Tsk, Tsk.

 

[Christcorp]

Bruno, don't you know that's simply because you're a bigot? Tsk, Tsk.

Damn, I thought that was my job.

 

[MakeItHappen]

No AF you have it pretty much dead on- to argue otherwise is pretty much sophistry of the first order.
For those who disagree with your understanding though- I suspect they are Pretty selective in when they would see a problem with blatant politicizing of the uniform as a tool of advocacy. Stand by to see if Mongo would be as articulate if some discharged Midshipman is filmed at a NAMBLA convention in full uniform demonstrating for the right to consider those folks as a legitimate organization. My bet- His support for activism while wearing the full uniform and giving the appearance of an active duty member- would dry up pretty fast then. Can't have it both ways though- if you have no problem with every discharged short timer using their uniform to express support for their cause (assuming of course that they have personally journeyed thru the 6 steps of activism as relayed by Mongo in the post below), then be prepared for an ugly path indeed. Rather inconsistent though- in favor in the stolen valor act yet has no problem with someone portraying a serving military member in order to make a political point. Freedom of speech when he likes the cause I guess- but perhaps not when he doesn't.
To coin a phrase: "Bottom line"- this kid was as wrong as she can be regardless of how strongly she felt about what she was advocating. I don't applaud her - I am appalled by her. IF she wanted to stand out there in her civilian clothes, tell her story and advocate her political point of view- go for it. She used her military uniform in EXACTLY the way you articulated below that it is not to be used. Wrong answer regardless of how some would like to spin it.

America's Finest:
I had always been taught that the "political function" rule of uniform wear covered any event that would give civilians the impression that the military in any way, shape, or form endorsed, opposed, or in any way had a stance on the issue. Please, correct me if I am wrong as this is what I have always believed the rule was.

If AF's position on the rule is correct, then there are solid valid arguments that could be made on both sides of the issue, and it would not surprise me if in fact nothing was violated. If anyone has any precedents on this issue it sure would be helpful. My background isn't in military law, But the bolded would give me pause.

 

[BeatNavy]

Can't believe that some people are actually making her sound like she's some kind of hero. She is simply a person who could not live by military standards. She didn't even make it to commitment at the 3 year point. No problem, move on. Whether she can legally wear a military/cadet uniform or not, she cheapens and disgraces the service and commitment that active/graduated cadets and military members have given. She holds the military in contempt and I have no respect for her whatsoever.

There are plenty of ex-cadets who don't make it to commitment. They have decided that military life just isn't for them. I can respect that. I appreciate that they tried. No matter how much we try and prepare new applicants/cadets for military life, there's no way for them to know exactly what they are getting into, until they are there. There's no disgrace in realizing it isn't for you. But when you apply, accept, and enter the academy under full understanding what the rules are; decide you don't like the rules; stay in until the very last possible minute to obtain as much benefit as you can receive; and then turn your departure into a media dog and pony show; that shows that that person has no respect for the academy, the military, or the other men/women who are/were serving.

well said

 

[Mongo]

Rather inconsistent though- in favor in the stolen valor act yet has no problem with someone portraying a serving military member in order to make a political point. Freedom of speech when he likes the cause I guess- but perhaps not when he doesn't.

Huh?? I am in favor of the proper wearing of the uniform, the proper display of medals, and proper treatment of our veterans. Federal law permits wartime veterans to wear the uniform on certain occassions. An awards ceremony appears to be one of those occassions. We will have to agree to disagree on this. Her goal is to return to WP. I guess we will have to wait and see if this episode becomes a factor in her readmission, won't we?

However, speaking of inconsistence:

To coin a phrase: "Bottom line"- this kid was as wrong as she can be regardless of how strongly she felt about what she was advocating. I don't applaud her - I am appalled by her. IF she wanted to stand out there in her civilian clothes, tell her story and advocate her political point of view- go for it. She used her military uniform in EXACTLY the way you articulated below that it is not to be used. Wrong answer regardless of how some would like to spin it.

Your response is typical of all the other 138 on this thread. Not one mention of 'they'. Perhaps you can explain why this is about 'she' and 'her' when there were three other individuals in uniform on the stage including a field grade AF officer and a senior non-commissioned Army officer. Kinda gives one pause as to whether this is really about uniforms, doesn't it. If my concern was uniforms, i would be 'appalled' at senior leadership.

 

[scoutpilot]

I am so amused at the failure of some to grasp why the attention has been focused on her in this thread. Some folks will do anything to avoid admitting what the facts clearly show.

 

[Mongo]

I am so amused at the failure of some to grasp why the attention has been focused on her in this thread. Some folks will do anything to avoid admitting what the facts clearly show.

Pray, do tell. Seriously, I am in the dark.