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

[Just_A_Mom]

Pima - look up Loving v Va.


Scoutpilot - Stop making up stuff about me. Of course, I don't have a beef with the military but apparently you do. You don't seem to like many military policies - especially as they pertain to females or people who are gay. As an officer is it not your job to take care of your troops? To support them and see they are being treated fairly? To embrace a culture that enables each soldier to perform his job to the best of his ability?
I fully support General Odierno. He supported the repeal of DADT. He is dedicated to eliminating the epidemic of soldier on soldier rape.
Are you saying - General Odierno is not supportive of the Army??? In fact, Gen Odierno (WEST POINT GRAD) thinks this is NO BIG DEAL. Perhaps you should follow his example.

As someone who is on this board representing himself as an OFFICER in the US Army you sure are critical of the organization. When you lead by example, your troops will follow your negative attitude as well as your positive attitude.
Go find someone else to bully.

 

[scoutpilot]

Pima - look up Loving v Va.


Scoutpilot - Stop making up stuff about me. Of course, I don't have a beef with the military but apparently you do. You don't seem to like many military policies - especially as they pertain to females or people who are gay. As an officer is it not your job to take care of your troops? To support them and see they are being treated fairly? To embrace a culture that enables each soldier to perform his job to the best of his ability?
I fully support General Odierno. He supported the repeal of DADT. He is dedicated to eliminating the epidemic of soldier on soldier rape.
Are you saying - General Odierno is not supportive of the Army??? In fact, Gen Odierno (WEST POINT GRAD) thinks this is NO BIG DEAL. Perhaps you should follow his example.

As someone who is on this board representing himself as an OFFICER in the US Army you sure are critical of the organization. When you lead by example, your troops will follow your negative attitude as well as your positive attitude.
Go find someone else to bully.

At this point, I doubt anyone is quite following your train of thought, either. I must have missed the part where I said I was opposed to the repeal of DADT. I must have missed where I typed that. Could you please show me?

I also missed the part where I was opposed to women serving in the military. I post a lot, so I must have just lost track. Could you please show me?

You can hide your head in the sand all you like about the realities of integrating folks of different sexual orientations in close quarters where privacy can be non-existent in a way that's fair to all parties and protects the dignity of all involved. You can hide your head in the sand about the difficulties of making sure gay servicemembers don't get the cold shoulder when it comes to family support, Tricare, the FRG, unit functions, pay, and benefits.

You can hide your head in the sand about all those things because to you, none of it is reality. Why? Because you don't actually have to deal with any of it. You get to rejoice over the repeal and then sharpshoot everyone who's actually dealing with the tough tasks at the Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine level, trying to ensure everyone feels valued and safe as they face tough challenges in their careers. So keep up the snarky comments about how those of us who've earned our stripes need to start acting like leaders. We'll be sure to turn to you for priceless advice about how to make sure our married lesbian soldiers get BAH at the "with dependents" rate or that our gay soldier's husband is properly integrated into the casualty notification process. The DoD doesn't recognize those unions yet, but he's gay NOW and he's deployed NOW and he may die NOW, so what then? I'm sure you have all the answers to those questions and more, though.

Did your DD commission? What's her answer to those problems?

 

[Pima]

JAM,

Let's not go down the road of couch potato lawyers that use CURRENT media news. I did look it up that case was racial from 1967. Seriously, 45 yrs ago. My case was 2012.

I have to side with Scout.

You are playing the "look over there game" to avoid defending your position. Notice you have yet to respond to the bennies issue.

Defend it right now regarding the issues that have been posed be it berthing or bennies. Do not state Odierno's position, this thread is not about his position. Defend why his position is correct.

Scout and I are not best buds, and he has chewed me out as much as you, because I am not, was not a military member, but in the end of the day, SCOUTPILOT is are future. He is willing to die for you or me so we can criticize the next Scoutpilot.

Sorry JAM, but IMPO you need to say thank you to Scout. Hate him, like him, I don't care, but tonight you are closing your eyes feeling safe. He is AD, give him that respect.

 

[usnabgo08]

We are all entitled to our opinions and scoutpilot is stating his. We definitely don't see eye-to-eye on all issues, but having some of these discussions (*sometimes*) leads to some sort of understanding and viewpoints from sides we normally wouldn't see.

As someone who is on this board representing himself as an OFFICER in the US Army you sure are critical of the organization.

Being critical is actually a good thing if not done contemptuously. In fact, ADM Mullen, at our graduation, said we owe it to our senior leaders to ensure they are getting the best input so they can make the most informed decision that they can. After a decision is made, we salute and follow as lawfully ordered -- which I am sure scoutpilot has done since the first day he arrived at USMA.

This issue is, obviously, very complicated with constraints placed on DOD -- half the issue deals directly with the military (DADT), the other half with the rest of the U.S. (DOMA), with the entire issue of marriage affecting homosexual servicemembers. As previously mentioned, it is not the place of DOD to solely be the dictator of the validity of DOMA. Also, as previously implied, it is unfair to grab each of a homosexual servicemember's arms and pull in different directions, which is the current state.

 

[scoutpilot]

We are all entitled to our opinions and scoutpilot is stating his. We definitely don't see eye-to-eye on all issues, but having some of these discussions (*sometimes*) leads to some sort of understanding and viewpoints from sides we normally wouldn't see.



Being critical is actually a good thing if not done contemptuously. In fact, ADM Mullen, at our graduation, said we owe it to our senior leaders to ensure they are getting the best input so they can make the most informed decision that they can. After a decision is made, we salute and follow as lawfully ordered -- which I am sure scoutpilot has done since the first day he arrived at USMA.

This issue is, obviously, very complicated with constraints placed on DOD -- half the issue deals directly with the military (DADT), the other half with the rest of the U.S. (DOMA), with the entire issue of marriage affecting homosexual servicemembers. As previously mentioned, it is not the place of DOD to solely be the dictator of the validity of DOMA. Also, as previously implied, it is unfair to grab each of a homosexual servicemember's arms and pull in different directions, which is the current state.

Oh you're just being a misogynistic homophobe. Why can't you just get behind General Odierno? JAM supports him. Why don't you? It's CLEAR from your blatant attempts to point out reality that you're just making excuses because you secretly hate gays and women. Jeez, try being a LEADER.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

What's the matter - too heady for you? I feel like an 8th grade math teacher who looks up and sees eyes glazed over and realizes she needs to go back to 5th grade.

For sure, change is difficult and fraught with consequences - some forseen and some unintended. I am sure there are questions, concerns and difficulties at times. However that is not a reason NOT to change.
SP comes on here as a leader and officer and makes snarky comments about allllll the problems and what a hardship they are; what I am reading is that he, personally, is against this change. Wait, not only opposed but determined to prove it was a bad idea that IT CANNOT POSSIBLY WORK. This train of thought has followed in his comments on ending DADT, females in combat and most recently the thread about the possibility of females being allowed to attend Ranger school.
I am not sure this is the place for SP to be venting his personal opinion in such a way that is inflammatory.

I am sure there are folks who enlist who are racist and sexist. They might not want to be around blacks or have a black roommate. They might not want a female in their unit. Are their needs met? Are their *feelings* tolerated? I hope not. Hopefully, leadership finds a way to end the conflict and move the mission forward.

Be a part of the changing culture. A culture that is not afraid of change and one that is respectful of people who are not straight males. So far SP you have shown that you are not/don't care/not your problem.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it embraces the idea that every female/gay etc failure is proof that the change should not have happened (See, I TOLD you it would not work) and that every female/gay/etc success is simply a result of 'social engineering' ( we had to LET them pass).
The military has seen lots of changes. Folks said females could not/would not succeed at the service academies. Some made it their personal mission to carry this out. Folks said females can't serve on ships. Folks said females can't serve on Subs. Yet it all happened.
Instead of *****ing about change why don't you take a few minutes to talk about how you and your units are handling the changes?

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Let's not go down the road of couch potato lawyers that use CURRENT media news. I did look it up that case was racial from 1967. Seriously, 45 yrs ago. My case was 2012.

Gonna make an attempt here.

This indeed relevant. This was the first marriage law to be overturned by the US Constitution. Loving was a landmark decision that was unanimous but highly controversial. Supporters of Va made the claim that marriage was a State issue and that only States could make laws pertaining to marriage.
This is true and why one applies to the State for a marriage license and why a 13 year old can marry her first cousin in Kentucky but not Vermont.

In the case of Loving, the police actually went into their bedroom and found the marriage certificate on the wall - they had been married in DC and arrested them. Can you even imagine? They had criminal charges brought and it took years for their case to get to the SCOTUS.

In NC - they and a few other states had a state constitutional ban on miscegenation - interracial marriage - in NC's case it was an amendment. Even though marriage is not governed by Federal laws; this ruling struck down that amendment. Even though the Amendment was not enforceable in NC any longer it remained until a new constitution was drafted and approved in 1971. Ironically, when NC passed their recent amendment prohibiting gay marriage it was also named Amendment One.

Lovng v Va was struck down because it violated the Equal Protection Clause.
There is a great deal of speculation that if a gay marriage case made it to the SCOTUS it would suffer the same fate. If that would occur then all state laws and constitutional amendments (like NC) would be struck down.

 

[scoutpilot]

I feel like an 8th grade math teacher who looks up and sees eyes glazed over and realizes she needs to go back to 5th grade.

Great analogy. You're definitely trying to speak above your competency level here.

For sure, change is difficult and fraught with consequences - some forseen and some unintended.

See, you SAY you recognize that, but then as soon as someone says "the consequences in the immediate timeframe are X,Y, and Z" you start shrieking that they're a homophobic misogynist. So which is it? Either recognize reality, or don't. But don't claim you recognize it and then decry anyone who points it out.

I am sure there are questions, concerns and difficulties at times. However that is not a reason NOT to change.

Good point. Now I defy you to show me even one instance of anyone in this thread saying that change shouldn't have happened. What was said, by LITS, is that any problems resulting from the change were because the senior leadership handed down a change with almost no plan to implement it. Big difference there, toots.

SP comes on here as a leader and officer and makes snarky comments about allllll the problems and what a hardship they are; what I am reading is that he, personally, is against this change.

I'm starting to think that "reading" just may not be your thing. You obviously cannot tell the difference between someone saying that there are issues in integrating gay servicemembers openly and someone saying "I hate gays!" Perhaps I can put it in simpler terms: to quote my favorite poster, Just_A_Mom, "stop making stuff up about me."

Wait, not only opposed but determined to prove it was a bad idea that IT CANNOT POSSIBLY WORK.

Again, hasn't been said in this thread. By me. Or anyone else.

I am not sure this is the place for SP to be venting his personal opinion in such a way that is inflammatory.

Your definition of "inflammatory" is "anyone who doesn't agree with Just_A_Mom." My opinions are based in reality and experience and intelligent analysis. I can understand that that might seem foreign.

I am sure there are folks who enlist who are racist and sexist. They might not want to be around blacks or have a black roommate. They might not want a female in their unit. Are their needs met? Are their *feelings* tolerated? I hope not. Hopefully, leadership finds a way to end the conflict and move the mission forward.

Racists and sexists exist? In the real world? Huh.

Be a part of the changing culture.

Oh please, tell me more...

A culture that is not afraid of change and one that is respectful of people who are not straight males. So far SP you have shown that you are not/don't care/not your problem. The problem with this line of thinking is that it embraces the idea that every female/gay etc failure is proof that the change should not have happened (See, I TOLD you it would not work) and that every female/gay/etc success is simply a result of 'social engineering' ( we had to LET them pass).

The military has seen lots of changes. Folks said females could not/would not succeed at the service academies. Some made it their personal mission to carry this out. Folks said females can't serve on ships. Folks said females can't serve on Subs. Yet it all happened.
Instead of *****ing about change why don't you take a few minutes to talk about how you and your units are handling the changes?

Yes! The voice of experience returns! Tell us all about change in the military! Tell us all about how problems should be tackled! You have done so much for your country and been vetted so thoroughly as a leader, you surely can lead the criticisms of those in uniform.

Come on, Just_A_Mom, out with it. What's your beef with the military? I can't remember the last time I saw you say ANYTHING positive about the military in any aspect. You post derogatory articles. You call people homophobes when they dare to inform the world that the senior leadership drank the champagne of political victory when we rightfully repealed DADT, but handed down a doo-doo lollipop at the Company/Battalion/Ship level. Sorry the world isn't as rosy here in the military as your discussions at the strip mall Starbucks led you to believe. It turns out we're dealing with human beings, and saying "they do it at Nowhere State University" doesn't solve the berthing, benefits, or integration issues. Sexual orientation is an extremely personal and sensitive issue. Probably the most taboo and least-developed frontier of most peoples' self knowledge. The fact that you use the example that your kids are sleeping in hostels this summer only goes to show how pitifully far removed you are from reality on this.

What about your DD? Is she an officer or not? Do you have any skin in the game at all, or are you just someone who wanted to join but never quite found the heart to do it, and thus spend all your time pretending you're part of the military world?

 

[Bullet]

OK, everybody. Time to take some deep, cleansing breaths, light some aroma therapy candles, take it back a notch (or 4), and CALM DOWN. Lightening up on the personal back-and-forths might be in order as well. Passionate issue leads to passionate posting -- we get it. The anonymous, safe-behind-a-wall-and-not-face-to-face aspect of the internet contributes as well.

Some words that hopefully bring some civility back to the discussion.

JAM - I think you DO need to go back and review the posts here, and on other threads that discussed homosexuals serving our country in the military. You will in fact see that most, if not all, of the posters here fully support their right to serve. A camp I am strongly a part of, have been for years and years, and proud of it. I've even exploited my position to talk directly to the HIGHEST leadership in my service to express my opinion on the matter, letting them know in no uncertain terms how strongly I felt in support of their right to serve, openly; something few, if any (perhaps TPG), on here can claim.

What HAS been a concern of many, including myself, is that the decision, while right, needed to address many second and third order effects to proceed smoothly; something that seems was poorly done (based on recent law-suits brought for by current service members directly related to these second and third order effects). Questions on dependents' rights in particular, where State Law is in direct conflict with Federal law (which the US military follows in regards to dependent rights). Nothing insurmountable; they just need to be addressed in order to ensure all the rights and benefits entitled to every serviceman or woman is ensured, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

And just because people bring up these concerns doesn't mean their attitude is archaic on homosexuality, or they are homophobic, and they don't deserve to be labeled so. They seem rightfully concerned to me that the issues left to be addressed will impact our military's readiness and mission due to the distractions of getting this right after the fact.

Your passion is appreciated. Your labeling anyone who makes any suggestion that the policy needs work as homophobic is not.

Scout, I also understand your passionate response to being labelled, and your responses questioning JAM's validity to question military leadership. But to me, it smacks fully of the intellectually dishonest and immature debating strategy of "you aren't one of us, so you don't understand". You swore an oath to protect every citizen's right to espouse an opinion, and you shouldn't be denying JAM's. You especially shouldn't be questioning her right to even be on here, or her daughter's current situation. This is a place to come to LEARN, and questioning validity to participate is unwarranted, and, more importantly, completely out-of-synch with the purpose of these forums. Her opinion may be wrong (to you), but she has her right to it, just like you swore to defend.

As to the OP in question -- it seems to me totally logical the Mids seem fine with the repeal of DADT. So do the VAST majority of our younger troops. The come from our society, and our society, particularly our younger society, seems perfectly fine with homosexuality. In a few years, I expect the majority of ALL troops to feel the same, as today's younger generation and those behind become the majority.

I've said my piece. Time to light that "Fresh Cut Wood" Man-Candle Pima got me from Yankee Candle the other day....

 

[scoutpilot]

Scout, I also understand your passionate response to being labelled, and your responses questioning JAM's validity to question military leadership.

Yes. There is a difference between questioning national military policies and making remarks about people's qualifications as leaders because you don't think they agree with your politics.

BUt to me, it smacks fully of the intellectually dishonest and immature debating strategy of "you aren't one of us, so you don't understand".

With all due respect, that strategy is often a very valid one. It's easy to sit on the outside, with no knowledge of the intricacies of what happens on the soldier level, and sharpshoot about how everything should be done faster, better, and more smoothly. It's easy when the Army or Navy is a monilithic institution in the distance. She doesn't have to deal with the issues we mentioned, like tricky benefits issues or if a Soldier's gay fiancé gets the notification of his death correctly, especially if the parents of the Soldier refuse to acknowledge the upcoming marriage. It's easy to say that Loving v. Virginia will fix everything down the road. She has the luxury of time. A young 2LT or CPT who have gay soldiers in their formations doesn't have that luxury. They had to solve those problems yesterday, not in two years. That doesn't mean that no outside opinions are valid. Quite the contrary. But many of them can be due to that lack of real knowledge I've described, especially one's like JAM's that amount to "if you say there are problems with the repeal it's because you want it to fail." Uh, no. A lot of times saying that "you don't get it because you're not one of us" isn't true. Sometimes, it is.

You swore an oath to protect every citizen's right t espouse an opinion, and you shouldn't be denying JAM's. You especially shouldn't be questioning her right to even be on here, or her daughter's current situation. This is a place to come to LEARN, and questioning validity to participate is unwarranted, and, more importantly, completely out-of-synch with the purpose of these forums. Her opinion may be wrong (to you), but she has her right to it, just like you swore to defend.

She is more than entitled to her opinion. I certainly did swear to defend those rights. Those same rights also allow others, including me, to hold the opinion that she is grossly misinformed and that her opinions on the subject are pedantic and based on false assumptions. Respecting her right to an opinion does not require that I agree with her opinion, nor does it strip me of my freedom to say she's incorrect, especially when her immediate reaction to someone not agreeing with her on a fundamental, academic level is to start declaring who is and is not a good officer or leader. The knife cuts both ways.

As for asking about her DD's situation, that was an honest and fair question. Her DD should be an officer now. Does she decry her DD as a poor officer if they don't hold the same opinion on how difficult it is to deal with the repeal in a fair and unbiased manner, or does she only do that to me and Jadler?

 

[temp]

This thread is interesting with a lot of what-ifs, guesses, etc. Let me shine some light on the issues important to LGB members like me, what is going on, and the way forward, as we see it. I have been fortunate to be behind the scenes among those in our community working with leadership on these issues and around the loci where changes and opinions are being made.

Implementing DADT without addressing dependent and discrimination laws was done on purpose. Most on both sides felt these things were and are vital to the success of all members in providing a fair and safe environment for all members. At the same time, they knew repealing DOMA and adding anti-LGB discrimination clauses would prevent full implementation and most involved felt as though holding back on ending some discrimination by waiting to do everything at once was callous and defeating. If something (DADT) could be repealed, then it was foolish to wait, even if the rest of things like dependents and benefits were not. I will add, DoD leadership, particularly civilian leaders, were very supportive and many senior military officials who were able to get exposure to our community had some drastic changes of heart. It was right to end DADT even if there are still loose ends. Let me tell you, among our community across the services, our lives have changed dramatically for the better. Many have no idea just how much happier we are and the impact on our units. In my experience among my peers and their stories, over 90% of those who have come out (including me) among their career fields and branches have had overwhelming support and "unit cohesion" improved.

What we want now? Really, ending DOMA about covers it. The DoD wants and is trying to provide benefits. Where they can, they bypass DOMA if it doesn't address something (joint assignments being an example). Providing benefits has minimal budgetary impact and this argument quickly dies in any real debate. For those who like political conspiracy, I will admit we did use DADT as a spring board. We figured if DADT was repealed, arguments allowing DOMA to remain intact would fall quicker rather than the other way around. Get rid of DOMA and you pretty much eliminate all remaining discrimination against LGB servicemembers and, like the fall of DADT, it will likely be a non-event.

You may see a push to include LGB status into the equal opportunity offices of the services where it isn't included now. There will probably be a push to do so, but at that point the real discrimination is already gone without DOMA.

The next push has to do with the T in LGBT. That's a tricky, tricky one as very few people in the population have any interaction or experience with those types of people. It will be awhile before that comes into play.

As far as my experiences....again, as an active duty member, I've had no problems. I commissioned an openly gay service member last week at their academy who has been treated no differently since coming out. My peers and I have been receiving plenty of support, but still have to inform many who don't understand the implications of DOMA for us. I fear for my partner and I, as access to each other in the event of injury or death during deployment is a tough situation.

I hope this has helped provide some perspective for those of us living the experience and help answer some misconceptions and clarify others.

 

[SamAca10]

You may see a push to include LGB status into the equal opportunity offices of the services where it isn't included now. There will probably be a push to do so, but at that point the real discrimination is already gone without DOMA.

The next push has to do with the T in LGBT. That's a tricky, tricky one as very few people in the population have any interaction or experience with those types of people. It will be awhile before that comes into play.

We speculated that there might be a push with admissions to recruit LGB applicants at our Academy, but it seems like they're not going that route.

Do you see the integration of the T even happening? I just see a lot of medical problems (as well as logistical nightmares such as berthing/heads, etc.) happening there...

 

[SamAca10]

Thanks for your service btw!

 

[temp]

We speculated that there might be a push with admissions to recruit LGB applicants at our Academy, but it seems like they're not going that route.

Do you see the integration of the T even happening? I just see a lot of medical problems (as well as logistical nightmares such as berthing/heads, etc.) happening there...

I can see the integration of T happening, but I have serious doubts if I would see it in my career time period. It is an issue almost everyone is ignorant of (not in a negative way) simply because most don't have interaction with a transexual individual or realized they have had such an interaction. I do know several of these individuals and they are just like anyone else. This is classic "icky" syndrome as far as integration. Having said that, mental illness is very high among transexuals, not because wanting to be the other sex is a mental illness, but the stigma for them is far higher than for LGB individuals. Medically, I think it is a tough issue and would require some pretty strict standards. Those taking hormones though would most certainly be unable to serve.

I don't know, this is a tough one as it involves medical issues not relevant for LGB integration.

 

[usnabgo08]

temp,

Thanks for sharing your perspective/knowledge....it is always nice to have someone chime in with some real added value!

 

[Just_A_Mom]

temp - thanks for your service and your frank remarks!!

Scoutpilot - You seem to be so wrapped up in denigrating my remarks because of your own personal vendetta??? that you are not reading my posts clearly.

Here is an example from the other day:

Bill: How can you guarantee combat success if you are going to take it easy on female Ranger candidates? I don't understand.
Scoutpilot: Welcome to the military, son. Think politics and social engineering are bad in the real world? Wait 'til you see the #$@% we pull...

These are your words not mine. What do they mean? Like some of your other comments above they give me the impression that you are not big on opening opportunities in the military to those people who have not been able to avail themselves solely because of their sex (in this case, and sexual orientation in this thread)

So, I don't know - are you open to change? Are you an advocate for change and increasing opportunities for those who have been denied?

If you think my posts are not supportive of the military then you have not been reading enough of them and you are slacking off in stalking me.
My child is off limits. Not to be discussed by YOU. If I wish to discuss my kids then I will, unless you want me to discuss your wife. Perhaps she was the one with the Jagermeister shot machine? jk.
Thanks Bullet!!

temp - questions about benefits.
I would think that with DOMA there would not be any benefits for gay partners .... but the State department under Hilary Clinton has extended benefits to gay partners at least in matters of moving, diplomatic passports etc. Does this have any bearing on the military?

 

[scoutpilot]

temp - thanks for your service and your frank remarks!!

Scoutpilot - You seem to be so wrapped up in denigrating my remarks because of your own personal vendetta??? that you are not reading my posts clearly.

If by "remarks" you mean the "personal attacks you've thrown around since the first page of this thread in an attempt to marginalize the experientially-based viewpoints of officers who you think don't agree with you fully or aren't meeting your personally conceived standards of the implementation of the DADT repeal," then yes, I suppose you could I've been denigrating your "remarks."

Here is an example from the other day:


These are your words not mine. What do they mean? Like some of your other comments above they give me the impression that you are not big on opening opportunities in the military to those people who have not been able to avail themselves solely because of their sex (in this case, and sexual orientation in this thread)

So, I don't know - are you open to change? Are you an advocate for change and increasing opportunities for those who have been denied?

If you think my posts are not supportive of the military then you have not been reading enough of them and you are slacking off in stalking me.
My child is off limits. Not to be discussed by YOU. If I wish to discuss my kids then I will, unless you want me to discuss your wife. Perhaps she was the one with the Jagermeister shot machine? jk.
Thanks Bullet!!

You cleverly failed to address the fact that you have, throughout this thread and others, spoken ill of the leadership of not only me and Jadler03 , but numerous other servicemembers throughout your time on SAF. Why are you willing to make those remarks, but refuse to acknowledge them when both Bullet and I have called you out for them?

As for my remark about social engineering and Politics, I stand by it. Again, READ first, please. What was Bill's question? It was about taking it easy on female Ranger candidates in order to get some through the school. That is 100% social engineering. If you're going to let women attend Ranger (which is fine, they've attended Sapper for years and in fact they have many opportunities in the military that I'm certain you, and most civilians, have never even heard of or likely even imagined), then make them attend Ranger School. Don't put them through some watered-down parallel version where they're given a pass or they're not pushed as hard. That proves nothing. In fact it cheapens the results for the women who go and it cheapens the results the Army receives. Social engineering.

You don't want anyone to mention your daughter's role as an officer in the US army? Fine. Then you don't get to run your mouth about how other officers--ones you've never seen or met--do their jobs. Because if you get to give your opinions on how people like me, Jadler03, LITS, or any other officer does/did his or her job as an officer, then your child as an officer is fair game too. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

 

[scoutpilot]

Temp-

Great post. Love to hear from other officers on this subject.

I'm glad your experiences have been smooth. A question: do you think that LGB officers have it easier, given that their peers are largely more educated and more liberal, as a group, than the enlisted ranks?

 

[LineInTheSand]

Berthing? Seriously? Pretty sure that falls into the "we made up a problem to fit our own prejudices" category.

Benefits - do straight couples who are not married receive benefits? didn't think so.

Serve a day in your life, figure out what I'm talking about, then come back and talk about it.

 

[sprog]

Lovng v Va was struck down because it violated the Equal Protection Clause.
There is a great deal of speculation that if a gay marriage case made it to the SCOTUS it would suffer the same fate. If that would occur then all state laws and constitutional amendments (like NC) would be struck down.

The thing with Loving, is that race is a "suspect class" under the 14th Amendment EP Clause. In order for a government action which deliniates a distinction based on race to survive, the statute is put to a test under "strict scrutiny." This is the highest level of scrutiny, and the state must present a "compelling governmental interest" in order for it to be constitutional.

Sexual orientation is not a suspect class under the 14th Amendment. Sex is, and the precedent you are looking for there is US v. Virginia (aka the VMI case). Sex-based classifications are tested under "intermediate scrutiny."

For laws which make distinctions on groups that are not members of a suspect class, the test under the EP clause is "is there a rational basis for the distinction in the law?" It is the lowest standard for the government. There may very well be no rational basis for state restrictions on same-sex marriage (at least in my view). We'll have to wait on what the Supreme Court says. The current make-up of the Court isn't like the Warren Court, so it might not be so cut and dry. Justice Kennedy is going to be the crucial vote.

I honestly think the better argument is the Due Process Clause. If marriage is a "fundamental right" under it, then cases like Griswold, Roe, and Lawrence v. Texas are in favor of same-sex marriage. Again, this hasn't been addressed by the Supreme Court, it's just my personal view on it.

So Loving itself isn't directly on point; however, it was a monumental case in EP Clause jurisprudence. We'll have to see how things turn out.