Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Remove all ads!

I've been reading a lot about this and am still confused. The latest article was Early 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Gay-Ban Vote Draws Critics -- talk about confusing. First of all, the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (DADT)policy wasn't a "congressional slap at the Clinton Administration" but was a compromise to allow gays to serve in the military; a huge step from the automatic other-than-honorable discharge we were required by law to give.

The real confusion I have here is the repeal of DADT will just put things back the way they were. The laws are still on the books which prevent gays from serving in the military (10 U.S.C. § 654). If DADT is repealed the federal law again comes in force -- don't they need to change the law first?

I guess I'm just missing something here.

 

I agree - while the repeal of DADT is the first step (supposedly) to let gays serve openly in the military, it would appear that your analysis is correct.

 

DADT is still a ban of sorts -- if a person engages in homosexual activity (and can be proven) or chooses to 'come out' and be openly gay, the military can enforce the laws already in place. In those cases the member is discharged (usually other-that-honorable) and may even serve prison time. DADT simply prevented the military from investigating the sexual orientation of the individual without cause.

I foresee a witch hunt in the military from the moment the DADT is repealed until the law is changed. I don't think the UCMJ has been altered at all with regards to homosexuality (that would also take congressional action). I really don't understand why the gay community is backing the repeal of DADT without a law change first.

 

My position on homosexuality is well known. However, having given this much thoguht and pondering, I have come to the conclusion that if I were a soldier, I truly wouldn't give a flying <snip> at a rolling doughnut which way the guy beside me swung, as long as he did his frigging job and shot the enemy soldier before that enemy soldier could shoot me -- just as I'd shoot another enemy soldier before he shot my ally. It's all about coming home to your family and friends, and whoever could best help me achieve that goal would be welcome to fight beside me. We'd have a mutual agreement -- I wouldn't try to force my religious beliefs on him in the barracks (or anywhere else), and he wouldn't try to touch me in the barracks (or anywhere else).

Orientation should not be a question on the application form any more than religion should be.

 

One would hope the rules would change as well but this seems like a backward way of doing this.

How is the attitude in the armed forces T2? I have gotten the impression that the rampant homophobia is mostly a thing of the past even there. That the new generation growing up is quite accepting but I could be wrong.

 

It's not the new recruits I'd be concerned about -- it's the guys who are now the leadership who have reluctantly accepted the executive order. I've been out for a few years now, but there was still open hostility against gays (just as there is in many communities in the US).

 

HOLY CRAP! Really? Wow! What does Mrs. Bruno have to say about that? Or are you only "out" in terms of being on the "downlow"?

OK, that was a really bad attempt at humor (I've been around Splunge too long!)

 

I think it was Barry Goldwater who commented that, "You don't have to be straight to fight for your country, just be able to shoot straight."

 

Yeah, I always felt that if someone wanted to volunteer to take a bullet instead of me I really didn't care about their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation -- I wasn't going to be discriminatory about it.

 

The way I see it, as long as men and women aren't allowed to serve together, there's a reasonable (if not necessarily wise) reason to ban gays (worrys over sexual tension). If men and women are allowed to serve together, then there's no justifiable reason to ban gays.

 

One reason to be for a repeal of DADT is security clearances: DADT is a problem because it creates a need for personal secrecy that opens the door to blackmail and worse. A secret life is a security risk - a human nature problem beyond gay or straight.

Gays who are 100% "out" are generally not a problem for security clearances, because there's no potential for exploiting that need for secrecy, simply because there's no secrets to leverage. I remember at least one definitely gay guy working in secure army function, who did as good a job as his straight colleagues.

In that respect, as the oft touted reports about gay suggest, gays do as well and honourable a job as any other soldier.

 

Of course, another factor is not the official position but that actions of the soldiers. Many (but certainly not all, no sweeping generalizations here!) of them are macho <snips>, and you cannot control them every minute. There is the possibility of unsanctioned assaults against gays. It's not fair but it is a fact of life.

 

That is, of course, a possibility. But I think that possibility exists even now, even if they just suspect you are gay. I do not believe that the repeal of DADT is going to make gay soldiers want to come out of the closet, and go into battle dressed in drag. They won't be discharged just for being gay, but I don't see them openly publicizing their sexuality.

A religioius rightwing talking head the other day said repealing DADT is a terrible idea because it will lead to (seriously, you cannot make this stuff up) gay soldiers having nonconsensual oral sex with straight soldiers while the staight soldiers were sleeping...

There's so many ways to go with that one, that I'll let you provide your own punchline. I'll just say that it probably is a bad idea to perform a homosexual act on an unsuspecting straight soldier who will likely not take too kindly to such, especially when that same soldier has ready access to assault rifles.

 

I don't know, a blow job is a blow job innit? Especially if you are asleep and dream that it is done by some hot female.

 

I disagree. The main reason for not allowing men and women to serve together has been a ban on women entering hot (meaning active -- bullets moving rapidly, etc.) combat zones.

Women have been forward deployed with troops for over 60 years -- women have been on ships nearly as long (just not combatant ships until relatively recently).

I've often heard this as an excuse to exclude entire groups of people (securtiy risk) yet I've never heard of a person compromising secrets because of this kind of blackmail. Most people who disclosed secrets did it for the money.

 

I don't think it would be possible to sleep through it.

 

Aldeth, that comment made my day hahaha

 

A hot chick with...facial hair?