Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I'm sure people would get married just for the benefits. What is your point? People do it with heterosexual marriage too. So (in the event that the federal government recognized gay unions) you would either take away all marriage benefits, or expand them with the continuing recognition that some percentage of couples are in it for the BAH benefits. As it is, I imagine that partnerships would be recognized roughly similar to how they are in federal service, for better or for worse.

Calm down Steve, my point was abundantly clear as you pointed out, now we'll get to pay for more.
 
I will hold my personal thoughts on the ban because it really has no effect on my service; however, a few thoughts:

1)Sitting in my CHU last night I was able to watch the Pentagon Chanel and watch the testimony by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen in regards to this policy (amongst a discussion of the budget.) Both of them came out expressing their personal opinions that DADT should be repealed. ADM Mullen made very interesting comments that he considered it to be an "Integrity" issue more than anything else. His thoughts were that we were asking people to lie throughout their career. Both of them took blastings from Senator McCain and a few others for their thought that DOD was forging ahead and it was "Congress's decision" to repeal the law, not DOD. Some noted that Secretary Gates commented "we have received our marching orders from the President [and are moving out]" in regards to how to approach DADT.

2)The military appears to be asking for at least a year after any repeal is passed prior to any real changes being made so they can accomodate the issues being brought up (BAH, medical, etc, etc).

3)The military appears to want to conduct some sort of survey throughout the different branches and ranks to get a very broad opinion on the topic. Of particular note they seemed to want to exclude deployed members from taking part in this survey as it would be a "distraction."

So, just some thoughts that I witnessed during the testimony that I thought some would like to hear.
 
The Man has spoken:
http://twitter.com/thejointstaff/status/8553057480

Stand by what I said: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is the right thing to do. Comes down to integrity.
Admiral Mike Mullen

Adm Mullen's blog:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=57839
By Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Special to American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3, 2010 – “Over these last two months, the Chiefs and I have reviewed the fundamental premises behind ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ as well as its application in practice over the last 16 years. We understand perfectly the President’s desire to see the law repealed and we owe him our best military advice about the impact this change in policy would have on the military.
“While the Chiefs and I have not developed our advice, we believe that any implementation plan for a policy permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces must be carefully derived, sufficiently thorough, and thoughtfully executed. The review group to be headed by Mr. Jeh Johnson and General Carter Ham will no doubt give us that time and an even deeper level of understanding.

“My personal belief is that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be the right thing to do. I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.

“I also believe the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change, but I do not know this for a fact. I will not deny that during a time of two wars, such a major policy change will cause some disruption in the force. It also seems plausible that there will be legal, social, and perhaps even infrastructure changes to be made. These are some of the issues our review will address.

“But we would do well to remember that this is not an issue for the military leadership to decide. The current law and policy came from the American people through their elected officials. We will continue to obey that law, and we will obey whatever legislative and executive decisions come out of this debate.

“With Afghanistan, Iraq, and significant security commitments around the globe, our plate is very full. While I believe this is an important issue, I also believe we need to be mindful as we move forward of other pressing needs in the military. What our young men and women and their families want, what they deserve, is that we listen to them and act in their best interests.

“Balance and thoughtfulness is required. It’s what the President has promised us, and it’s what we ask of Congress as this debate moves forward.”
 
What gives me the most hope is the last line that was stated about balance. Too many times the military does knee jerk reactions which causes more problems than the actual solution.

I hope that they do take time to do it correctly. My concern is where will the money come from to do studies regarding DADT. We all know RAND will be retained to do a study and they aren't cheap! Will Congress give more funding to study this issue or will they say take it from what you already have?

In honesty, I cannot see how they are going to repeal DADT without acknowledging homosexual unions. The federal govt might recognize married homosexual federal employees, but let's remember the federal employee works and lives in that state which acknowledge the union, the military member does not necessarily come from a state that does. This issue has many specific details that must be addressed, issues that the average American does not face regarding employee benefits.
 
Not sure what I think about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs making that kind of statement, while he, and every other uniformed member of the military, are still bound by law to enforce Don't Ask Don't Tell.
 
Not sure what I think about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs making that kind of statement, while he, and every other uniformed member of the military, are still bound by law to enforce Don't Ask Don't Tell.
He was asked the question by Congress and he gave his answer. The tweet and blog were just a follow up to that.
 
PIMA - you make some good points. Clearly those are some of the issues that will be addressed.
I wonder how it would work for civilians and those in other agencies such as the CIA and Foreign Service who also might be stationed abroad.
 
I watched it live, his comments were an aside, a "I want to say what I feel personally" kind of response, and the question was never "how do you personally feel about this." He wasn't responding to a direct question. I remember looking up at my computer when the word "personally" came up.
 
I wonder if they know something we don't, because they are stating they need a yr to put this in place...thus, the question begs to be asked...what will happen in the next yr that homosexual unions will be validated on a federal level?

Logistically from an A&F, MPC and Housing standpoint it would be nightmarish keeping track of which state acknowledges these unions and which don't...CA comes quickly to mind...homosexual unions acknowledged, then repealed.

We need a national law that acknowledges homosexual unions first, then we can implement/integrate in the military. This just seems like putting the cart before the horse. If they do not do this correctly, this will be closing GITMO or Health Care all over again. Easy to say it, hard to do it.

This might be a statement that flames me, but I think our President doesn't get the military system and he is using the repeal of DADT for political purposes within his base like he has done with many other hot topics. I would like him to just complete one thing before moving onto the next. It appears that nothing is actually getting done, except for rhetoric and spinning wheels. GITMO: Closed, but no decision on where the prisoners will go. KSM: NY trial is in doubt. HEALTHCARE: Do I need to expand upon that?
 
I guess you could argue that his "personal" opinions don't matter because he just needs to follow orders being a military man.
However, he is the top military officer in a quasi political position. He will be responsible for implementing any change that will be directed. IMO - by stating that he "personally" agrees with the proposed change sends the message that he will indeed be totally on board and won't attempt to sabatoge or derail the process.

I can't imagine a General saying to his troops - my professional opinion is that we take this hill, but personally I don't think we should do it.
However, I would think it would be reassurring to troops to hear from their commander - my professional opinion is that we take this hill, personally I think we should go for it.
 
Understand what you're saying, but I also think the same reason the joint chiefs and USCG commandant don't clap at the state of the union for political statements would be the same reason the Chairman shouldn't make his own personal statements while wearing the Chairman's suit.
 
I have been more comfortable not knowing the politics of my commanding officers....especially when I don't agree with their stance. If they "don't go there", then generally no one else will either. At least, that has been my experience in the wardroom.
 
I have been more comfortable not knowing the politics of my commanding officers....especially when I don't agree with their stance. If they "don't go there", then generally no one else will either. At least, that has been my experience in the wardroom.

I appreciate your honesty. I do think that DADT has transcended "politics". Possibly.
 
I think the most desturbing part of that story is that Adm Mullen has a twitter page, but really where were the PAO's.
The Army is all about social networking now, isnt' the Navy? If you can't beat them join 'em. Lots of Generals have a twitter and/or facebook.
Should Admiral Mullen funnel all his comments through a public affairs officer?
 
JAM I think Kero is talking about the video I posted with a nonrate and PO3 sailor talking about policy.

I had a meeting at the Pentagon today, apparently the NEX is off base, which could be part of it. In general, don't talk about policy unless you're cleared to. These sailors didn't butcher it, but I could see a headache or two.
 
Back
Top