NationStates Jolt Archive

Federal court rules against military gays policy
by Gene Johnson, AP Writer

SEATTLE (AP) -- The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.

The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.

Wednesday's ruling led opponents of the policy to declare its days numbered. It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.

When gay service members have sued over their dismissals, courts historically have accepted the military's argument that having gays in the service is generally bad for morale and can lead to sexual tension.

But the Supreme Court's opinion in the Texas case changed the legal landscape, the judges said, and requires more scrutiny over whether "don't ask, don't tell" is constitutional as applied in individual cases.

Under Wednesday's ruling, military officials "need to prove that having this particular gay person in the unit really hurts morale, and the only way to improve morale is to discharge this person," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state who worked on the case.

Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years - two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.

She sued the Air Force in 2006, but U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed her claims, saying the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas did not change the legality of "don't ask, don't tell."

The appeals court judges disagreed.

"When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," wrote Judge Ronald M. Gould.

One of the judges, William C. Canby Jr., issued a partial dissent, saying that the ruling didn't go far enough. He argued that the Air Force should have to show that the policy itself "is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest and that it sweeps no more broadly than necessary."

Gay service members who are discharged can sue in federal court, and if the military doesn't prove it had a good reason for the dismissal, the cases will go forward, Caplan said.

Another attorney for Witt, James Lobsenz, hailed the ruling as the beginning of the end for "don't ask, don't tell."

"If the various branches of the Armed Forces have to start proving each application of the policy makes sense, then it's not going to be only Maj. Witt who's going to win," Lobsenz said. "Eventually, they're going to say, 'This is dumb. ... It's time to scrap the policy.'"

An Air Force spokeswoman said she had no comment on the decision and directed inquiries to the Defense Department.

Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense spokesman, said he did not know specifics of the case and could not comment beyond noting that "the DOD policy simply enacts the law as set forth by Congress."

Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions."

Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues - one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.

"I am thrilled by the court's recognition that I can't be discharged without proving that I was harmful to morale," Witt said in a statement. "I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MILITARY_GAYS?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The beginning of the end for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" Or simply a convoluted reprimand that leaves the policy intact?

I believe the don't ask don't tell policy is brilliant. One of the most intelligent things the military has come up with since the MRE.

In todays U.S. military it probably is devisive to certain units to have a homosexual person in it. However, the rules are clear and they apply to both persuasions. Relationships of any kind are discouraged and if it begins to creep into duty, then you can be discharged yo.

I think the name speaks volumes of why the policy should be kept, for once, the government is attempting to keep it's nose out of personal business and respectfully ask that your personal business stay out the governments view, where it shouldn't be in the first place. No matter who is trying to put it in view, whether the government is looking when it shouldn't in the first place or if you're being blatant about it when the government shouldn't be involved.

I bet there'd be a lot less rapes of schoolgirls in Japan and Okinawa if marines over there were gay. *nod*

I bet there'd be a lot less rapes of schoolgirls in Japan and Okinawa if marines over there were gay. *nod*

but think of the Japaneses schoolboys now targeted.


though to the OP. The military will ignore it or change one or two words of the policy.

but think of the Japaneses schoolboys now targeted.

I don't think so. Not with all those hot guys in uniform on base. Gay guys love men in uniform. :)

Gay people have exactly the same obligations towards society as everyone else. Therefore their sexuality should be no impediment in the event of general conscription.

So it's a silly rule.

I bet there'd be a lot less rapes of schoolgirls in Japan and Okinawa if marines over there were gay. *nod*



I'm gonna act calm and take a breath before I freakin smash something.


My brother-in-law is a marine and I really don't think he'd take kindly to that. Especially since he was stationed in Japan(Okinawa) for two years.

It was bad in the 80's, real bad. And things have gotten better since. I for one think the bases should be removed for costs and being really unnessecary(sp?) but I also know they were almost kicked off because of a really high profile case quite a long time ago. But since then, there hasn't been a proven case yet and so far, anyone involved in questionable situations are sent home and usually await hearings on their action. Not usually discharge but the possibility of losing a rank or two.

Also, Japanese courts handle the cases, not the military so you don't have to worry about any shielding.

LG, I've watched the forums for a long time, I'm surprised to see such an inflammatory comment from you.

Gay people have exactly the same obligations towards society as everyone else. Therefore their sexuality should be no impediment in the event of general conscription.

So it's a silly rule.

The same rule applies to the straight persuasion too. So it ensures against any type of bias. I don't see what's wrong with "keep it out of our business and we won't make it our business."

The same rule applies to the straight persuasion too. So it ensures against any type of bias. I don't see what's wrong with "keep it out of our business and we won't make it our business."

Well exactly. But if someone says that they are gay, that is no reason for them to get a free pass. They should jolly well have to put their service in like everyone else.

I'm fine with 17a rules: no sex amongst serving personnel. But to duck out on the basis of enjoying buggery strikes me as wrong.

I don't think so. Not with all those hot guys in uniform on base. Gay guys love men in uniform. :)

that only gets the gays who go for manly men.

the school boys in their school uniform get the gays that go for effeminate boys.

Well I wasn't saying that if someone says they are gay they get out of everything.

The rules come into play when the statement of such activity "causes problems with unit cohesion."

It just so happens that if right now, we were to have a draft, there would be a lot of gay guys and gals who could possibly get out of the service because of an uncomfortable situation with other unit members.

Give it time and it prolly won't be a problem.

Hold on a sec, what kind of a discharge? 'Cuz if there was a draft, I could totally be gay.

Y'know, until the end of the War.

Well the unit cohesion thing can be easily dealt with by having strict 17a laws. You simply do not try and have sex with anyone else in the service or else you get time in jail. (And not poncy US type jail, the old fashioned Provost type jail). Clears the whole thing up lickety split.

Also, commissioned personnel should be inculcated with a culture of never, ever, ever, touching non-commissioned personnel for any reason whatsoever at any time. Summary cashiering if they do.

If that were the case, then there is no problem.

I believe the don't ask don't tell policy is brilliant. One of the most intelligent things the military has come up with since the MRE.

In todays U.S. military it probably is devisive to certain units to have a homosexual person in it. However, the rules are clear and they apply to both persuasions. Relationships of any kind are discouraged and if it begins to creep into duty, then you can be discharged yo.

I think the name speaks volumes of why the policy should be kept, for once, the government is attempting to keep it's nose out of personal business and respectfully ask that your personal business stay out the governments view, where it shouldn't be in the first place. No matter who is trying to put it in view, whether the government is looking when it shouldn't in the first place or if you're being blatant about it when the government shouldn't be involved.

Is it divisive to have Blacks in the military?
Is it divisive to have Muslims in the military?
Is it divisive to have Women in the military?

Slippery slope.

Is it divisive to have Blacks in the military?
Is it divisive to have Muslims in the military?
Is it divisive to have Women in the military?

Slippery slope.

Slippery slope to where??

We've had problems with blacks in the military, they had segregated units in WWII. They don't anymore, problem solved.

Muslims, there have been problems, but when has someone ever mentioned, Hey, let's apply Don't Ask Don't Tell to religious faith also.

Women are in the military, when has this become a problem?

Just because it's applied to sexual persuasion doesn't mean it will always be applied. It is applied because at the moment, it's a hot topic. In time it will become irrelevant and be discarded. The three things you mentioned above will never be as big of an issue. They had their respective time in the limelight and didn't generate too much of a fuss.

Well the unit cohesion thing can be easily dealt with by having strict 17a laws. You simply do not try and have sex with anyone else in the service or else you get time in jail. (And not poncy US type jail, the old fashioned Provost type jail). Clears the whole thing up lickety split.

Also, commissioned personnel should be inculcated with a culture of never, ever, ever, touching non-commissioned personnel for any reason whatsoever at any time. Summary cashiering if they do.

If that were the case, then there is no problem.

they already have that.

in fact senior noncommissioned types cant be involved with younger types unless their relationship existed before the promotion.

Also, commissioned personnel should be inculcated with a culture of never, ever, ever, touching non-commissioned personnel for any reason whatsoever at any time. Summary cashiering if they do.

If that were the case, then there is no problem.


Wait, commissioned personnel as in officers? I don't quite follow you, cause there's no-commissioned officers and commissioned officers and non-commissioned troops. Did you mean non-commissioned as in civilian?

Btw, I like your idea of jail. :p

They should institute a Kiss and Tell policy.


Hmm, maybe they should make a separate division of gay men, like the ancient greeks had in Thebes. Wouldn't you worry if your position was stormed by a battalion of gay men? Irrational fear can be a powerful weapon in war; I propose they wear pink uniforms. ;)

they already have that.

in fact senior noncommissioned types cant be involved with younger types unless their relationship existed before the promotion.

Well see, under my system, I don't give a fuck if there was a 'prior' relationship. Both discharged!

Also, I'm quite aware that the system is already there, but it all got a bit 'don't ask don't tell' when women were admitted to the armed forces.

Get back to the basics is what I am saying.

Well see, under my system, I don't give a fuck if there was a 'prior' relationship. Both discharged!

Also, I'm quite aware that the system is already there, but it all got a bit 'don't ask don't tell' when women were admitted to the armed forces.

Get back to the basics is what I am saying.

So your saying that if I marry another solider. then I get promoted to a higher rank We both get discharged ???

They should institute a Kiss and Tell policy.


Hmm, maybe they should make a separate division of gay men, like the ancient greeks had in Thebes. Wouldn't you worry if your position was stormed by a battalion of gay men? Irrational fear can be a powerful weapon in war; I propose they wear pink uniforms. ;)



It'd scare the crap outta me. But it just might make me fight harder, to escape my irrational fear of "if I lose, all the gay guys will rape me" stereotype. :p

They should institute a Kiss and Tell policy.


Hmm, maybe they should make a separate division of gay men, like the ancient greeks had in Thebes. Wouldn't you worry if your position was stormed by a battalion of gay men? Irrational fear can be a powerful weapon in war; I propose they wear pink uniforms. ;)

HMMMM Use against the Muslims this may have.

All gay Men are to be drafted NOW!!!

HMMMM Use against the Muslims this may have.

All gay Men are to be drafted NOW!!!

That was offensive almost to the point of trolling. But also the funniest fuckin thing I've seen all night. My sides hurt.

So your saying that if I marry another solider. then I get promoted to a higher rank We both get discharged ???

No, you get discharged when you start trying to marry another soldier.

But say you marry a person out side the service and they join? It's not unheard of.

No, you get discharged when you start trying to marry another soldier.

they have tried that it just doesn't work.

But say you marry a person out side the service and they join? It's not unheard of.

Well then they get sent to another branch or whatever.

they have tried that it just doesn't work.

Because they didn't try it properly. Yah, it's impossible to stop rates buggering each other (it's only ghay in port!!!), but you can crack down on making it part of the culture. And if you do, all these things evaporate.

Well then they get sent to another branch or whatever.

so your saying the Straight male Lesbian Female branch and the Gay male Straight female branch ??

If it was only so simple. I wish, people are so damn persistent. If you apply to join say the Marines, and you get turned away because of your relationship status with a current member that's a lawsuit just waiting to happen.

so your saying the Straight male Lesbian Female branch and the Gay male Straight female branch ??

No, I'm saying I'm in Tyne Division, they can't serve there. They have to go to Weir Division, or another service.

I understand that, if, by some miracle, both of us achieve flag rank, then there could be a problem. But at that point, one of us will just have to sacrifice our career.

These are very interesting ideas, however, what you propose is actually being used to an extent in the military.

A different branch is totally different than a different division or such. That would prolly be ok.

However, if both acheived flag, I doubt anyone above would really have much to contest as long as it stayed out of the way of work.

Maybe this ruling will lead to changing the rules, but I really doubt it.

I've seen a few REALLY sharp troops removed from service over this silliness, often when their SO showed up on base making a big public scene about something stupid, forcing leadership to acknowledge what was already pretty well known about the troop.

The thing most civilians don't understand is that the problem does not rest with the troops that are gay. They do their jobs just as well if not better than their peers. The problem lies with the fact that the US military is a moderately conservative cross section of American Society. We have people from all across the country, from all walks of life. True we have many people nowadays that are much more open minded than in the past (personally, I don't care what troops do in the privacy of their own domiciles off duty, so long as they follow orders well while on duty); that said we have a dwindling majority who react negatively to openly homosexual troops.

Now in the civilian world, someone being affected negatively simply means they are grumbly and maybe file their TPS reports a bit slower. In the military world, negative impact on a number of their peers would result in reduced mission effectiveness. In combat units, this would mean more of our troops would DIE.

Sadly, the fact that their peers are bigoted idiots isn't fair. But the military will not be "fair" when it costs lives.

Andaras brought up the "slippery slope" mentioning Women, Blacks and Muslims. In the US, religion has never been a big issue. Historically though, we are already on that slope, having the military shift it's mind set about blacks and women shortly after society as a whole did...

Hopefully that means that sooner, rather than later, we'll stop losing good troops...

Meanwhile, on the topic of the Draft... we will NEVER go to a non-volunteer military again unless lil green men invade the planet.

We in the military learned our lesson from Vietnam and want nothing to do with a pile of whiny non-volunteers. So stop worrying about it. As stated above, about the only time it would happen, I really doubt if it will still be an issue if draftees are gay, but if it is, I'm sure they'll prevent Geniasis's idea by handing him a pair of knee-pads, pointing to Big Bob the hired civilian contractor, and saying "Prove It."

:sniper:

wow....I don't quite know what to make of this

However, the rules are clear and they apply to both persuasions.

No, they don't, unless by "both persuasions" you mean "gay and bisexual." Straight people aren't forced to closet themselves.

I think the name speaks volumes of why the policy should be kept, for once, the government is attempting to keep it's nose out of personal business and respectfully ask that your personal business stay out the governments view, where it shouldn't be in the first place.

If the government kept its nose out of people's personal business, it wouldn't care whether gays in the military were closeted or out. That is "personal business."

Guess what: freedom and equality don't suddenly lose their importance outside of the bedroom.

No, I'm saying I'm in Tyne Division, they can't serve there. They have to go to Weir Division, or another service.

I understand that, if, by some miracle, both of us achieve flag rank, then there could be a problem. But at that point, one of us will just have to sacrifice our career.

that makes more sense. Branch in the US is like Air force/Army/Navy


though officers are forbidden to be in a relationship with enlisted regardless of their branch of service.

Historically though, we are already on that slope, having the military shift it's mind set about blacks and women shortly after society as a whole did...

I don't recall the dates for women, but blacks were desegregated in the armed forces in 1948.

For comparison, Brown v. Board was decided in 1954... and the civil rights movement didn't really reach its zenith until the mid-1960s.

To be honest, if people in the military are so prejudiced that they can't function effectively with gays in their unit, I'm not sure we should be sending them to foreign countries in the first place.

Meanwhile, on the topic of the Draft... we will NEVER go to a non-volunteer military again unless lil green men invade the planet.

We in the military learned our lesson from Vietnam and want nothing to do with a pile of whiny non-volunteers. So stop worrying about it. As stated above, about the only time it would happen, I really doubt if it will still be an issue if draftees are gay, but if it is, I'm sure they'll prevent Geniasis's idea by handing him a pair of knee-pads, pointing to Big Bob the hired civilian contractor, and saying "Prove It."

:sniper:

Rubbish. The US has a long tradition of the draft. And indeed most of its great military successes were due to the forced mobilization of its manpower reserve.

Saying there will never be a draft again is just propaganda intended to make the regular army put up with shit pay.

No, they don't, unless by "both persuasions" you mean "gay and bisexual." Straight people aren't forced to closet themselves.

Yes, they are. If it were a problem, they would have to. Straight people are the reason why relationships aren't allowed in the military. Effectively "closeting" themselves. The problem exists because the straight people aren't comfortable with a homosexual person around them. So it's wrong for the government to attempt to avoid conflict and needless loss of life?

If the government kept its nose out of people's personal business, it wouldn't care whether gays in the military were closeted or out. That is "personal business."

Because if the knowledge were made business and it brings with it the possibility of causing extra lives to be lost you are faulting the government for asking people to keep their mouths shut because the mood of their immediate company at the moment dictates that it probably would not be a beneficial move for anyone involved.

So since I could go around and say "Hey I'm gay!" and with the possible reactions of someone else cause a disjunction within a group which in turn causes a serviceman or woman to needlessly lose their life it's not in the governments interest to protect these individuals. The government doesn't want the "personal information." What's wrong with that?

Straight people are the reason why relationships aren't allowed in the military. Effectively "closeting" themselves.

No, disallowing relationships doesn't closet anyone. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a specific measure directed at gays prohibiting them from disclosing their sexual orientation. It's not a matter of them being forbidden to enter relationships with other service members.

The problem exists because the straight people aren't comfortable with a homosexual person around them.

How awful for them. :rolleyes:

So it's wrong for the government to attempt to avoid conflict and needless loss of life?

No, it's wrong for the government to discriminate when it has no remotely compelling basis.

Let's face facts, plenty of people in this country are still racist and sexist, plenty of people have biases against other religions, or people with different political views... but we don't have policies that cater to such prejudices in the military. We recognize that ultimately people can function even with people they don't like, or people who might make them uncomfortable--and if they're going to be in an institution like the military, with members from across American life, it's reasonable to expect them to do so.

Furthermore, you fail to consider the effects of a policy like this on the gay members of the military. If merely being around gays diminishes the effectiveness of straight soldiers, wouldn't being a victim of what amounts to institutionalized homophobia be even worse for gay ones?

And let's not forget the simple empirical fact that other militaries have liberalized the rules, too, and haven't exactly suffered massively for it.

The government doesn't want the "personal information."

The government doesn't have to get it. It doesn't bother asking straight people their sexual orientation, either. But they're not preventing from telling people it.

My brother-in-law is a marine and I really don't think he'd take kindly to that.

Is he gay?

Is he gay?

SHHHH don't ask don't tell.

I'm not going to try an argument on descrimination with you and pretend I can win. I'm tired, I have a head-ache, and I really don't feel like looking things up.

I'm just trying to say that, at the moment, the policy is a good idea. It's a strange attempt at mediating discrimination by employing it in a more palatable method really. One which is accepted that will eventually become out-moded and probably be removed. I agree, the policy is somewhat discriminatory but it is employed in a way to protect those involved.(I know I gonna catch flak for that)

Before such a policy was employed incidences of beatings, hazing, and other hate crimes were much higher just because somebody was "gay."

Oh and this, why is it even here? You think the policy has a psuedo-reverse psychology effect or something.

Furthermore, you fail to consider the effects of a policy like this on the gay members of the military. If merely being around gays diminishes the effectiveness of straight soldiers, wouldn't being a victim of what amounts to institutionalized homophobia be even worse for gay ones?

Or do you actually think homosexuals suffer because of the policy?

SHHHH don't ask don't tell.

I didn't ask; Lee Majors did. *nod*

Is he gay?

Come on, LG, he's married to my sister for god's sake. :p


No, he's not gay, I just thought it was a little over the top, your comment.

Come on, LG, he's married to my sister for god's sake. :p


No, he's not gay, I just thought it was a little over the top, your comment.

Well if it'll make you feel better, I've known a lot of marines and none of them ever raped a japanese schoolgirl. :)

Well if it'll make you feel better, I've known a lot of marines and none of them ever raped a japanese schoolgirl. :)

There, now I feel all warm and fuzzy. :rolleyes:

It's been a long day. I consider these forums a place to temper my political ideas and responses. As such, this grasshopper still has much to learn.

Before such a policy was employed incidences of beatings, hazing, and other hate crimes were much higher just because somebody was "gay."

Before the policy was employed, gays were outright prohibited in the military... I'm not exactly looking for a regression.

Or do you actually think homosexuals suffer because of the policy?

:rolleyes:

Are you really so full of shit that you think they don't?

Are you really so full of shit that you think they don't?


No, I don't think that they are so adversely effected by this policy this it causes them not to be able to fully function as serviceman/woman. You are saying that this policy causes such massive psychological damage that incurs the inability to follow orders and serve a duty in which they willingly volunteered for.

I don't think it's harming them that much.

Find me a case and I'll listen. Until then, don't call me full of shit. Lashing out at me like that doesn't make me inclined to consider anything you say worth wasting a thought process on. I prefer to keep things friendly. If anything, not cursing at each other might be a step in the right direction.

Also, did you ignore the rest of my post?? Or am I just to assume that you agree with my opinions on why it's being used and that it will eventually become unessecary.

Rubbish. The US has a long tradition of the draft. And indeed most of its great military successes were due to the forced mobilization of its manpower reserve.

Saying there will never be a draft again is just propaganda intended to make the regular army put up with shit pay.

Not to get off on too big a de-rail, but gotta answer this one...

I'm basing my OPINION on the future use of the draft by the US military on my 19.5 years (and counting) of active duty service in the current all volunteer military.

I supplement this experience with the knowledge given me via several leadership development courses and schools I've attended over the course of my career; all of which built on and supported the post Vietnam mindset that the draft would never be used again except in a world wide level conflict (ala lil green men).

Our current military troops are far superior to the ones of just 20-30 years ago... Smarter, better educated (just had one of my troops finish her Master's degree) and better supported. Neither Command leadership, nor the troops in the field would want to screw things up by ever adding in a pile of miscreant draftees. Simply will not happen, no matter how many fear mongering tales are told in the media.

As for bad pay? You are probobly thinking back to those bad ol' draft days. To keep all these high speed, low drag troops, Uncle Sam has improved things for us... I'm a wee lil e-7... In the civilian world I'd be an upper/middle manager. I pull down about $69,000/year pre taxes, about a third of that isn't taxed, and I get piles of extra items like 100% tuition assistance and free medical care... Oh, and we are expecting a 3.9% pay raise next year, so I really need to look if $70k is going to push me into yet a higher tax bracket... Bad pay indeed...

What are you basing YOUR opinion on?

No, I don't think that they are so adversely effected by this policy this it causes them not to be able to fully function as serviceman/woman. You are saying that this policy causes such massive psychological damage that incurs the inability to follow orders and serve a duty in which they willingly volunteered for.

I was pointing out your double standard, and your own comment here just highlights it: discomfort for straight soldiers is such a problem, but forced closeting for gay soldiers is a triviality that can be dismissed.

Also, did you ignore the rest of my post?? Or am I just to assume that you agree with my opinions on why it's being used and that it will eventually become unessecary.

"I'm not going to try an argument on descrimination with you and pretend I can win. I'm tired, I have a head-ache, and I really don't feel like looking things up."

I took that as a cue to regard the ensuing statements as what they were--repetition. I had challenged them already, in my previous post, most of which you ignored.

Are you really so full of shit that you think they don't?


And who gives a shit if they do. That is not the point. Being in the military is all about suffering, then possibly dying; often for pointless reasons.

I think the policy is stupid because it is a draw down on the available manpower pool. Some people think that it is good because promotes unit cohesion. That should be the end of the discussion for practical purposes.

Nancy boy tears about feelings have nothing to do with it. The military is not a self empowerment vehicle. It exists only to promote the interests of the nation it serves.

Come on, LG, he's married to my sister for god's sake. :p


No, he's not gay, I just thought it was a little over the top, your comment.

Oh, he's merely bisexual, gotcha.

And who gives a shit if they do.

The problem is not suffering as such, it's suffering for an arbitrary and discriminatory rule.

In any case, again, the point was not the suffering, it was the double standard.

The only reason why I "ignored" most of it was because I agree with you for the most part.


I admit, there is a double standard here, however, I am trying to point out that this is just a middle ground until a more liberal policy will be accepted.

I also understand, that by constructing my earlier posts in such a way you might be able to extrapolate the reason for the double standard. It exists because in the time period in which we live in, it is socially unacceptable to be homosexual and in the armed forces.

This being said, I don't believe anyone is genuinely "scarred" by this. Not even heteros who serve with homosexuals.(I think that's the double standard you're referring to.) I do believe that pre-conceived notions cause certain people to act differently than they normally would and cause a break in unit cohesion.

So, no, I don't believe homosexuals are damaged by this policy, nor do I believe that heterosexuals are damaged by serving with homosexuals. I do believe that this policy was enacted to prevent the two groups from harming each other in whatever way.

So insecure heterosexuals don't beat the utter crap out of homosexuals and so the animosity between the two groups doesn't cause unit rifts.

So, is there anything else you want clarified about my position on this.

It is a policy meant to slowly devalue and out-mode itself over time and eventually be discarded when need be. It just so happens it doesn't quite seem like the time.

What are you basing YOUR opinion on?

Actually, that is sort of bad pay.

But tell me this, if the military pays so well, and is such a professional body, how comes I here all these stories about people on food stamps?

The problem is not suffering as such, it's suffering for an arbitrary and discriminatory rule.

In any case, again, the point was not the suffering, it was the double standard.


The thing is, it isn't discriminatory within the military sphere. Within our world, the protected things are a smaller list. Sex, race, religion... That's about it.

Handicaped, Old people, sexual orientation, a dozen other "protected" things in the civilian world... none of them apply within the military world.

Confusion of many people seems to stem from this.

Handicaped, Old people, sexual orientation, a dozen other "protected" things in the civilian world... none of them apply within the military world.

The existence of the distinction is not a justification. Any discrimination can be justified if it can be shown to have a legitimate purpose, and that's true everywhere.

Actually, that is sort of bad pay.

But tell me this, if the military pays so well, and is such a professional body, how comes I here all these stories about people on food stamps?

About the pay, it sort of depends on the job each person does. An equal to me in rank that runs the Chow Hall could look to run a small cafateria in the civ world and probobly pick up less cash. I personally look to convert my experience to a job withing the DoE and start making about double what I do now when I retire in a couple years.

As for food stamps? Last troop I've dealt with that had to go to that level was a new troop... had been in about 4 months, came in married, had 3 kids and wife was preggers with 4th... Needless to say, their family plan didn't merge well with his pay ratio. We can't tell the troops they can't have kids though, any more than we can tell them not to get married.

The few reports I've seen in the media about the topic usually concerned our Army bretheren (USAF myself), often along the same lines... poor financial planning on the troop's behalf.

It's not really the military's fault when lil E-1 to E-3's spend their pay on foolish things instead of taking care of their life's needs first. Every job on the planet has fools that will buy beer and music cd's, failing to plan for groceries. It's just that the cases that happen in the military make nice juicy sound bites for the media.

The existence of the distinction is not a justification. Any discrimination can be justified if it can be shown to have a legitimate purpose, and that's true everywhere.

Quite true... which is why, happily, many of them are being slowly overcome... Military returned to duty with the latest robotics replacing injuries (cyber-punk getting closer to true...), raised age limits, and with this decision, hopefully a stronger shift to stop worrying about private lives of the troops...

Actually, that is sort of bad pay.

But tell me this, if the military pays so well, and is such a professional body, how comes I here all these stories about people on food stamps?

the pay is good for just out of high school no job experience no degree.
A few years in even with promotions enlisted pay looks paltry compared to what you can make on the outside.

I believe the don't ask don't tell policy is brilliant. One of the most intelligent things the military has come up with since the MRE.

In todays U.S. military it probably is devisive to certain units to have a homosexual person in it. However, the rules are clear and they apply to both persuasions. Relationships of any kind are discouraged and if it begins to creep into duty, then you can be discharged yo.

I think the name speaks volumes of why the policy should be kept, for once, the government is attempting to keep it's nose out of personal business and respectfully ask that your personal business stay out the governments view, where it shouldn't be in the first place. No matter who is trying to put it in view, whether the government is looking when it shouldn't in the first place or if you're being blatant about it when the government shouldn't be involved.


I think it is a good compromise as well. Then again, they say there are no racists or atheists in a foxhole...I doubt there would be any homophobes either. The most hetero of soldiers would welcome a gay soldier to watch his back, so to speak.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MILITARY_GAYS?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The beginning of the end for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" Or simply a convoluted reprimand that leaves the policy intact?

Good for the 9th Circuit!

Is it the beginning of the end for that idiotic "neither fish nor fowl" policy? No, not while a general election looms. I expect to hear a lot of rightwing BS along the lines of "ebul liburels want to gay up our troops!" between now and November.

But in the meantime, that woman deserves to have her suit heard. It's as clear a case of wrongful treatment as one could ask for. I especially liked this detail:
Originally Posted by The Associated Press

Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years - two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.
How convenient that she got "outed" just when she did, because yeah, I'm sure after 18 years, it was a huge secret that she wasn't into guys. :rolleyes:

And then there's this:


A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions."
But none of that matters because she's gay, and obviously, her presence is bad for the military, because everybody knows straights can't sleep around gays -- for 18 years.

And this:
Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues - one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.
Naturally, using some bullshit excuse to get rid of personnel two years before you'd have to start paying them a pension is MUCH more vital to the welfare of the military than maintaining a sufficient number of troops with needed skills. And don't forget there's a war on. "Stop loss" my ass.

Here's what I never understood. One argument for the policy has always been "the military is a mean place and it doesn't care about your feelings so suck it up gays".

However the policy has been about "promoting unit cohesion".

So apparently the military is a bad evil place that doesn't care about your feelings, but is apparently sensitive enough to care about the feelings of the homophobes and make sure they're comfortable.

Right...

Hold on a sec, what kind of a discharge? 'Cuz if there was a draft, I could totally be gay.

Y'know, until the end of the War.

It rather depends upon the situation, but most likely either a medical or a General (OTH).

I don't recall the dates for women, but blacks were desegregated in the armed forces in 1948.

Fail

Desegregation timeline (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology)

January 12, 1949: The Fahy Committee holds its first meeting with President Truman and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Defense. "I want the job done," the President said, "and I want it done in a way so that everyone will be happy to cooperate to get it done."

January 13, 1949: The Fahy Committee holds its first hearings. Representatives of the Army defend segregation of African-Americans. The Marine Corps also defends its segregation policy and admits that only one of its 8,200 officers is African-American. The Navy and Air Force both indicate they will integrate their units. The Navy admits that only five of its 45,000 officers are African-American.

Ca. January 22, 1949: The Air Force tells the press it has completed plans for full integration of its units.

March 28, 1949: The three service secretaries testify before the Fahy Committee. Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington and Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan both testify that they are opposed to segregation and are pursuing policies to integrate their services. Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall argues in favor of maintaining segregation, saying that the Army "was not an instrument for social evolution."

April 1, 1949: Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson issues a directive to the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force which says it is the Department of Defense's policy that there should be equality of treatment and opportunity for all in the armed services, and that "qualified Negro personnel shall be assigned to fill any type of position...without regard to race."

May 11, 1949: Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson approves the integration plans of the Air Force, but rejects those of the Army and the Navy.

Following May 11, 1949: The Fahy Committee makes recommendations to the Army and Navy regarding changes in their integration plans. The committee recommended to the Army, among other things, that it desegregate its units and abolish its 10% enlistment quota for African-American recruits.

Ca. June 7, 1949: Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson accepts a revised Navy integration plan.

June 7, 1949: Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson rejects the Army's revised integration plan and formally asks the Army to consider the Fahy Committee\'s recommendations when drafting another revision of its plan.

July 5, 1949: Secretary of the Army Gordon Gray and Army Chief of Staff General Omar N. Bradley present a revised plan to the Fahy Committee which would maintain segregation in Army units and continue the 10% recruitment quota for African-Americans.

July 25 and 27, 1949: Charles Fahy advises President Truman, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson, and Secretary of the Army Gordon Gray that the proposed Army integration policy should not be accepted as fulfilling the provisions of Executive Order 9981.

August to September, 1949: Discussions between the Fahy Committee and the Army bring no resolution to their differences over the issues of segregation in Army units and the 10% recruitment quota for African-Americans.

September 27, 1949: The Army informs the Fahy Committee that it is sending its revised integration plan to the Secretary of Defense. A copy of the plan was not provided to the Fahy Committee.

September 30, 1949: Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson approves the Army's integration plan, which would maintain segregated units and the 10% enlistment quota for African-Americans.

October 6, 1949: President Truman, as a press conference, calls the Army's integration plan "a progress report" and says that his goal is the integration of the Army.

October 11, 1949: Charles Fahy writes President Truman that the Army's integration plan would in fact maintain segregation.

Ca. late November 1949: The Army completes another revision of its integration plan and submits it for approval. The plan still includes provisions that would maintain segregated units and the 10% recruitment quota for African Americans.

Ca. late November 1949: Charles Fahy warns the Army that the Fahy Committee will not approve the Army's revised integration plan and will release a statement to the press condemning it.

Ca. early December 1949: The White House asks the Fahy Committee not to issue its threatened statement condemning the Army's integration plan, and instead to make recommendations for modifications to the plan.

December 15, 1949: The Fahy Committee submits to the White House its recommendations for modifications to the Army's integration plan, including the elimination of segregated units and the 10% recruitment quota for African-Americans.

December 27, 1949: Secretary of the Army Gordon Gray meets with Charles Fahy to discuss changes in the Army's integration plan. Gray agrees to integrate the Army's units, but wants to do so gradually..

1950

January 14, 1950: The Fahy Committee approves the Army's integration plan, despite the issue of the 10% recruitment quota for African-Americans being still unresolved.

January 16, 1950: The Fahy Committee informs President Truman of its approval of the Army's integration plan, and the Army officially issues its new integration policy in Special Regulations No. 600-629-1.

Ca. February 1, 1950: President Truman decides the Fahy Committee should stay in existence until the Army's use of the 10% recruitment quota for African-Americans is ended.

March 1, 1950: Secretary of the Army Gordon Gray informs President Truman that, based on earlier conversations, he understands that if the Army abandons its 10% recruitment quota for African-Americans, and if a disproportional number of African-Americans enters the Army as a result, then the Army has the President's approval to reinstate the 10% quota.

Ca. March 13, 1950: The Army agrees to abolish its 10% recruitment quota for African-Americans, effective in April 1950.

March 27, 1950: President Truman tells Secretary of the Army Gordon Gray that he appreciates the Army's abolishing its 10% quota for African-Americans. "I am sure everything will work out as it should," Truman said.

May 22, 1950: The Fahy Committee submits its final report, "Freedom to Serve," to the President, who says in receiving it that he is confident the committee's recommendations will be carried out and that "within the reasonably near future, equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons within the armed services would be accomplished."

Ca. June 1950 and following: Commanders at Army training facilities find it impossible to predict how many African-American recruits they will receive, with the result that the Army decides unofficially to integrate basic training.

Ca. June 1950 and following: Segregation in Army units serving in Korea gradually breaks down as white combat units suffer combat casualties and as large numbers of African-American recruits cannot be absorbed into segregated black service units.

July 6, 1950: President Truman informs the Fahy Committee that, against the wishes of most of its members, it is being discontinued. "The necessary programs [to integrate the armed forces] having been adopted," Truman wrote the committee, "I feel that the Armed Services should now have an opportunity to work out in detail the procedures which will complete the steps so carefully initiated by the Committee."

President Truman shakes hands with Air Force Staff Sgt. Edward Williams, at a casual meeting in St. Louis during the President's morning walk, October 13, 1950. Acme photograph courtesy Harry S. Truman Library..

1951

Ca. January 1951: The Eighth Army in Korea adopts an unofficial policy of integrating African-American soldiers who cannot be effectively absorbed into segregated African-American units.

March 18, 1951: The Department of Defense announces that all basic training within the United States has been integrated.

April 1951: General Matthew B. Ridgway, head of the United Nations Command in Korea, requests that the Army allow him to integrate all African-Americans within his command.

July 26, 1951: The Army announces that the integration of all its units in Korea, Japan and Okinawa will be completed within six months..

1953

October 1953: The Army announces that 95% of African-American soldiers are serving in integrated units..

Fail

Executive Order 9981: Desegregation of the Armed Forces (1948) (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=84)

The pacing is irrelevant. If you recall, my point actually referenced the date in comparison to Brown v. Board... which took even longer to take effect.

So, do you have an actual point to make?

It rather depends upon the situation, but most likely either a medical or a General (OTH).

All homosexuality discharges where the army doesn't find out while some other crime is being committed (rape child molestation etc...) are medical/honorable.


However since don't ask don't tell you pretty much have to be caught in the act.
homosexual porn is not considered evidence and neither is going to a gay club.
Or the commander has to feel your in danger of being assaulted by other service members.

The pacing is relevant. Who cares if the government said it was going to integrate african americans into the military in 1948. It didn't happen until 5 years after that date. Does America leave Iraq when the government resolves it will do so, or when the soldiers actually leave Iraq?

Executive Order 9981: Desegregation of the Armed Forces (1948) (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=84)

The pacing is irrelevant. If you recall, my point actually referenced the date in comparison to Brown v. Board... which took even longer to take effect.

So, do you have an actual point to make?

The pacing is 100% relevant, the executive order did not end segregation in the military. Go through the time line, hell just read the last line and you'll see what my point was.
October 1953: The Army announces that 95% of African-American soldiers are serving in integrated units..
See in October of 1953 95% of blacks were serving in integrated units, that means that 5% were serving in segregated units.

In case you still aren't sure what my point is, I'll spell it out for you in big letters.
You were wrong, segregation did not end in the U.S. military in 1948.

*snip*

Are you always this much of a pedant? Seriously, do you actually have anything relevant to say about my point--namely, that as far as the treatment of blacks goes, the military was ahead of much of society, not behind?

Or are you just interested in quibbling with my phrasing?

The pacing is relevant. Who cares if the government said it was going to integrate african americans into the military in 1948. It didn't happen until 5 years after that date. Does America leave Iraq when the government resolves it will do so, or when the soldiers actually leave Iraq?

Yes, that's right, the pacing is very relevant to a discussion of how the desegregation of the military actually happened.

But it's completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Are you always this much of a pedant?

Wah, you were and I pointed it out. Don't like it? Too f-ing bad.

Don't like it? Too f-ing bad.

Your boldness and courage in unflinchingly confronting your opponents is as inspiring as ever.

Your boldness and courage in unflinchingly confronting your opponents is as inspiring as ever.

As I said ,

Soheran: "Wah, wah, wah, Dyakovo pointed out that I made a mistake. http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Cry.gif"

If you don't want people correcting you when you make mistakes, then you should try harder to avoid them.

Here's what I never understood. One argument for the policy has always been "the military is a mean place and it doesn't care about your feelings so suck it up gays".

However the policy has been about "promoting unit cohesion".

So apparently the military is a bad evil place that doesn't care about your feelings, but is apparently sensitive enough to care about the feelings of the homophobes and make sure they're comfortable.

Right...

And the cutest thing about that is it operates on the false premis that gays are wimps and not tough enough to handle a military lifestyle. To which I respond with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_band_of_thebes.


And anyone with any Ancient Greek History knowledge knows those guys werent wimps.

And the cutest thing about that is it operates on the false premis that gays are wimps and not tough enough to handle a military lifestyle. To which I respond with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_band_of_thebes.


And anyone with any Ancient Greek History knowledge knows those guys werent wimps.

That's not the premise, the premise is that it will cause sexual tension etc...

Just a thought here, but maybe the right thing for the military to do (at least from the point of view of the military) would be to create gay units. Then from there they could integrate them into "regular" units. It certainly wouldn't be a step ahead (more of a step backwards and to the side) but having segregated units did work out for the best in the end for blacks.

Is it divisive to have Blacks in the military?
Is it divisive to have Muslims in the military?
Is it divisive to have Women in the military?

Slippery slope.


I think what everyone needs to hear is a voice that is actually IN the military.

Yeah. Me.

The reason blatant homosexuality is against the rules in the military is that relationships in the military detract from the professional atmosphere that is in place. It's also why you aren't allowed to have hetero relationships either. It shows favoritism, it's unprofessional, and if you have sex with a coworker, and someone finds out, then you either get docked pay, go to jail, or get kicked out, or a combination of the three.

It's a business, people. You can't show special treatment to anyone, you have to be fair. You want to have sex with someone, do it with someone NOT in your department. Then it's okay :)

*edit* if you don't believe me, look up Fraternization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternization
*2nd edit* the slippery slope argument is total bollocks. You can't prove that telling people to keep their sex lives private or be removed from service has anything to with being black, a woman, or of a certain religious ascertation.

Now I know I'm going to get cries of "it's a different culture/society" etc... but I'll still make the point.

I remember how in about 1998-99 the head of the Royal Navy making an official statement about how allowing gays/lesbians to serve openly in the military would be unworkable, destroy morale etc, etc.

In 2000 all the armed services in the UK were forced to revise their policies to one of "we don't care and will not ask what your sexual orientation is but no fraternization" (paraphrased of course), which applies to all service personnel irrespective of their sexual orientation. More recently the Navy and the RAF have been named in the top 100 gay-friendly employers (the army is lagging somewhat but getting there). There have been little to no significant incidents reported and generally the biggest news about the change in policy is that there is no news. And our armed forces are still recognised as being some of the best trained and most skilled in the world.

Do not underestimate your servicemen/women, they can get over it and adjust, I feel to assume otherwise is doing them a great disrespect.

This policy should be discarded. If there are major problems in a unit between a gay soldier and the homophobe, one (probably the homophobe) should be transferred to a separate unit.

Toxiarra, I was of the impression that the policy discharged soldiers who had relationships with civilians as well as other soldiers. I agree that there is no reason to make an exception with regards to fraternization.

I doubt there would be many problems. And at least some of those problems will end up similar to a story I heard from a Jewish ex-soldier. He had an incident at a bar with an anti-Semite.

Well, this Jewish soldier happened to be in the special forces. You get the idea.

I think what everyone needs to hear is a voice that is actually IN the military.

Yeah. Me.

The reason blatant homosexuality is against the rules in the military is that relationships in the military detract from the professional atmosphere that is in place. It's also why you aren't allowed to have hetero relationships either. It shows favoritism, it's unprofessional, and if you have sex with a coworker, and someone finds out, then you either get docked pay, go to jail, or get kicked out, or a combination of the three.

It's a business, people. You can't show special treatment to anyone, you have to be fair. You want to have sex with someone, do it with someone NOT in your department. Then it's okay :)

*edit* if you don't believe me, look up Fraternization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternization
*2nd edit* the slippery slope argument is total bollocks. You can't prove that telling people to keep their sex lives private or be removed from service has anything to with being black, a woman, or of a certain religious ascertation.

I think the issue of women is especially relevant. Why is having a homosexuals in a group somehow more likely to result in illegal relationships than having both men and women?

Nah, it's much more simple than that.

You can't make love AND war.

Or as a gay friend of mine put it: "guys are almost human when they've been de-spunked."

That's not the premise, the premise is that it will cause sexual tension etc...

Not always, the premise, especially in Neo Arts comment is taht gays are not tough enough.


There are various reasons for the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy. I am merely attacking one aspect.

The issue of "unit cohesion" and also the issue of the toughness of gays could be quite simply resolved.

Make a "gay corps" of the Marines, each and every member must sign on the line that they are gay, also suck some cock to show they aren't just faking it to discredit the corps. Then put the gay corps into active service ... and see how they do.
If they kick arse, you know they're not gay.
Oh, but no. What if they were better? That would be bad for morale of all the straight troops, right?

Oh, and the Lesbian Corps would have an even worse effect. Whenever they appeared on the field, all allied males would just drop their guns and drool. "It's the lezzos! They're gonna make out any minute now!"

However since don't ask don't tell you pretty much have to be caught in the act.
Opposite of the truth. BEFORE don't-ask-don't-tell this was the case; now, an accidentally indiscreet word is sufficient.
homosexual porn is not considered evidence and neither is going to a gay club.
Or the commander has to feel your in danger of being assaulted by other service members.
You are mistaken on both counts.

The armed forces are a profession.

If they're not, they should be. They risk their lives? Pay them for it.

Discrimination on the basis of gender, sexuality or race should be ILLEGAL, just as in any profession. It should be ruled out, until PROVEN to be a significant factor in the professional's effectiveness in the work.

Burden of proof is on the employer.

In a civil court.

The policy of 'dont ask dont tell' is just yet another very simple rule in many that the military holds in its book
If any member of the military cannot abide by any of those set simple rules then they should face the set punishment for violating that rule, no exceptions

With the US court system permitting the offender to follow legal action to counter the punishment, and win the case, just opens the door further to allow more and more personnel to commit whatever offence they wish because they know the courts are flexible enough to help them override the military rules

America is just setting toilet-quality poor examples of how to enact rules, and will just encourage the democratic nations who copy the US to also become ever mode sad and pathetically liberal too

At the end of the day, USA will collapse into a civil war between the liberals and the conservatives, with Russia sitting back laughing at them

The policy of 'dont ask dont tell' is just yet another very simple rule in many that the military holds in its book
If any member of the military cannot abide by any of those set simple rules then they should face the set punishment for violating that rule, no exceptions

Sexuality is not a question of will.

A person cannot "be straight" in obedience of an order.

End of.

No, wait. I mocked too soon!

I didn't even read to the bottom of Kirchensdosdfh's post.

I missed the GOOD bit!

At the end of the day, USA will collapse into a civil war between the liberals and the conservatives, with Russia sitting back laughing at them

The RUSSIANS?

So tell me, Kisshosvlcnosh, do these feersome Russians have gays in their military?

The armed forces are a profession.

If they're not, they should be. They risk their lives? Pay them for it.

Discrimination on the basis of gender, sexuality or race should be ILLEGAL, just as in any profession. It should be ruled out, until PROVEN to be a significant factor in the professional's effectiveness in the work.

Burden of proof is on the employer.

In a civil court.

They are a profession. We do get paid. Rather handsomely for our efforts, actually.

I agree the discrimination is illegal, and my point is any behavior which is detrimental to the working environment and efficiency of the company, in this case the military, is to be stamped out and destroyed, it's remains burnt and displayed in all their slaughtered glory as an example of what not to do. So openly gay people I think should be allowed to join, but if you think you should get special treatment just because you have a special preference of where you like placing your genitals, then go suck an egg. Sex in the workplace is unprofessional at any level, you should be concentrating on doing your job, not shagging someone.

I think it is a good compromise as well. Then again, they say there are no racists or atheists in a foxhole...I doubt there would be any homophobes either. The most hetero of soldiers would welcome a gay soldier to watch his back, so to speak.

Don't be dumb. There are atheists in foxholes.

I think what everyone needs to hear is a voice that is actually IN the military.

Yeah. Me.

The reason blatant homosexuality is against the rules in the military is that relationships in the military detract from the professional atmosphere that is in place. It's also why you aren't allowed to have hetero relationships either. It shows favoritism, it's unprofessional, and if you have sex with a coworker, and someone finds out, then you either get docked pay, go to jail, or get kicked out, or a combination of the three.

It's a business, people. You can't show special treatment to anyone, you have to be fair. You want to have sex with someone, do it with someone NOT in your department. Then it's okay :)

*edit* if you don't believe me, look up Fraternization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternization
*2nd edit* the slippery slope argument is total bollocks. You can't prove that telling people to keep their sex lives private or be removed from service has anything to with being black, a woman, or of a certain religious ascertation.

Don't be dumb. Allowing gays to serve openly wouldn't mean that they would not be subject to fraternization rules. You know that not all gays have to jump on every guy they see, right?

However, as it is now, you can get dismissed for being openly gay, whether or not you even have gay sex while serving.

QFT

Don't be dumb. Allowing gays to serve openly wouldn't mean that they would not be subject to fraternization rules. You know that not all gays have to jump on every guy they see, right?

However, as it is now, you can get dismissed for being openly gay, whether or not you even have gay sex while serving.


I'm not being dumb, that's exactly what I said.
QFT:
They are a profession. We do get paid. Rather handsomely for our efforts, actually.

I agree the discrimination is illegal, and my point is any behavior which is detrimental to the working environment and efficiency of the company, in this case the military, is to be stamped out and destroyed, it's remains burnt and displayed in all their slaughtered glory as an example of what not to do. So openly gay people I think should be allowed to join, but if you think you should get special treatment just because you have a special preference of where you like placing your genitals, then go suck an egg. Sex in the workplace is unprofessional at any level, you should be concentrating on doing your job, not shagging someone.

If you can't keep your sex life out of the workplace, then you deserve to be discharged.

If you don't want people correcting you when you make mistakes, then you should try harder to avoid them.

The fact that you corrected my mistake is not what bothers me.

But I suppose you knew that, because somehow I doubt that promoting the spirit of mutually beneficial discussion was your intention.

QFT



I'm not being dumb, that's exactly what I said.
QFT:


If you can't keep your sex life out of the workplace, then you deserve to be discharged.

You support "Don't ask, don't tell." That policy doesn't say you have to keep your sex life out of the work place; it says that you can't even admit to being gay and remain a soldier-- even if you don't break fraternization rules.

The policy of 'dont ask dont tell' is just yet another very simple rule in many that the military holds in its book
If any member of the military cannot abide by any of those set simple rules then they should face the set punishment for violating that rule, no exceptions

With the US court system permitting the offender to follow legal action to counter the punishment, and win the case, just opens the door further to allow more and more personnel to commit whatever offence they wish because they know the courts are flexible enough to help them override the military rules

America is just setting toilet-quality poor examples of how to enact rules, and will just encourage the democratic nations who copy the US to also become ever mode sad and pathetically liberal too

At the end of the day, USA will collapse into a civil war between the liberals and the conservatives, with Russia sitting back laughing at them

El. Oh. Fucking. El.

You support "Don't ask, don't tell." That policy doesn't say you have to keep your sex life out of the work place; it says that you can't even admit to being gay and remain a soldier-- even if you don't break fraternization rules.

You assume too much without paying attention to what I'm actually saying.

I support gays and lesbians being able to join the military without fear of reproach. I feel that if we can let convicted felons and murderers join, we should let people who want to fuck their same gender join too. All I'm saying is that if you can't keep your genitorial escapades where they belong, which is in your private life, and not at work, then you deserve to be discharged, whether you are gay or not.

And yes, I made up the word "genitorial." Means of or relating to things of the genital nature.

I do not really understand what this is about. There are gays in the military. And whether anybody knows about them or not does not change their presence. Why would it be harmful to morale if it is known who the homosexual is while it is not harmful if it could be just anybody?
And in the case of this woman: she had worked for the military for 18 years and in all that time she was homosexual. She did not change, only the military's information status about her has changed. So where exactly is the difference between her doing her job and her doing her job while her superiors know she is a dyke?

You assume too much without paying attention to what I'm actually saying.

I support gays and lesbians being able to join the military without fear of reproach. I feel that if we can let convicted felons and murderers join, we should let people who want to fuck their same gender join too. All I'm saying is that if you can't keep your genitorial escapades where they belong, which is in your private life, and not at work, then you deserve to be discharged, whether you are gay or not.

And yes, I made up the word "genitorial." Means of or relating to things of the genital nature.

Then you are against "don't ask, don't tell," which says that gay people cannot join the military, even if they can keep it in their pants. Did I perhaps confuse you with somebody else who said they supported it?

Then you are against "don't ask, don't tell," which says that gay people cannot join the military, even if they can keep it in their pants. Did I perhaps confuse you with somebody else who said they supported it?

Possibly me.

But I don't support it in full. I believe it has an interesting double standard present and that the policy Tox mentioned is definitely not our don't ask don't tell policy. If it was our policy then this wouldn't be such a heated debate.

Essentially, the military deems it needed for the time being. It will probably become a defunct policy in a few years. But now, it believes that it is in the best interest of the soldiers that they don't know.

The fact that you corrected my mistake is not what bothers me.

Then why is that what you are complaining about?

You'll note that I did not respond to the rest of your post, maybe that was because there was nothing wrong with it?

I do not really understand what this is about. There are gays in the military. And whether anybody knows about them or not does not change their presence. Why would it be harmful to morale if it is known who the homosexual is while it is not harmful if it could be just anybody?
And in the case of this woman: she had worked for the military for 18 years and in all that time she was homosexual. She did not change, only the military's information status about her has changed. So where exactly is the difference between her doing her job and her doing her job while her superiors know she is a dyke?


Aye, there's the rub.


The policy seems to be showing weakness in terms of bigotry.

Thank you for putting this in a way for everyone to understand instead of just saying TEH POLICY IZ EBILL!!!111!!1!!1!!!

Then why is that what you are complaining about?

You'll note that I did not respond to the rest of your post, maybe that was because there was nothing wrong with it?

It's ok, if you "ignore" part of his post because you don't seem to openly acknowledge that he's correct he gets all whiney.

Then you are against "don't ask, don't tell," which says that gay people cannot join the military, even if they can keep it in their pants. Did I perhaps confuse you with somebody else who said they supported it?

That might have been it. No worries :)

Possibly me.

But I don't support it in full. I believe it has an interesting double standard present and that the policy Tox mentioned is definitely not our don't ask don't tell policy. If it was our policy then this wouldn't be such a heated debate.

Essentially, the military deems it needed for the time being. It will probably become a defunct policy in a few years. But now, it believes that it is in the best interest of the soldiers that they don't know.

If they would dismiss anybody who admitted to being straight (or inadvertently showed signs of their straightness), then I might understand.

As it is, though, it's unacceptable, and no better than dismissing anybody found to be black, or of a certain religion.

Haha, banning gay people from the military. When one forgets how truly backwards the USA can be (and one doesn't actually), one can be easily reminded.

Anyway, I am reminded of this Daily Show segment called "God Save the Queens" (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=113775&title=headlines-god-save-the-queens) which aired after the ECHR struck down Britain's ban on gays in the military. Hilarious.

It's also hilarious that USA soldiers have been serving along openly gay soldiers from other countries for a long time and that doesn't seem to have damaged their "cohesion" or whatnot, but I guess it's only USA gaydiation that is their cryptonite...

Possibly. The U.S seems to be taking a more liberal approach at domestic politics.

Then again...Congress can be a bitch.

It's the Ninth Circuit, and from them, very predictable.

Once it gets to the Supreme Court, it will go the other way.

The Ninth has been beaten up pretty badly in recent days by the current Supreme Court (most recently on promotion of child porn).

That might have been it. No worries :)

I think I see what it was. You said, in brief, that the reason for the current rules was fraternization, from which I inferred that you meant that you support the current policy, which is that anybody who can be shown to be gay gets kicked out, even if they are not violated fraternization rules.

I think I see what it was. You said, in brief, that the reason for the current rules was fraternization, from which I inferred that you meant that you support the current policy, which is that anybody who can be shown to be gay gets kicked out, even if they are not violated fraternization rules.

Then my apologies for not being clear.

If they would dismiss anybody who admitted to being straight (or inadvertently showed signs of their straightness), then I might understand.

As it is, though, it's unacceptable, and no better than dismissing anybody found to be black, or of a certain religion.

Well then as it is needs to change. Prolly to something more like what Tox is talking about. However, this probably won't happen in the immediate future because the policy is still accepted as an acceptable means of moderation.

It's the Ninth Circuit, and from them, very predictable.

Once it gets to the Supreme Court, it will go the other way.

The Ninth has been beaten up pretty badly in recent days by the current Supreme Court (most recently on promotion of child porn).

Best bet for change is wait until a democrat is elected president so he can order the change. though like last time the military will likely wiggle around it.

Then why is that what you are complaining about?

You'll note that I did not respond to the rest of your post, maybe that was because there was nothing wrong with it?

He dislike the petty way you did it, along with this kind of childish crap:

As I said ,

Soheran: "Wah, wah, wah, Dyakovo pointed out that I made a mistake. http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Cry.gif"

Grow up.

I feel that if we can let convicted felons and murderers join, we should let people who want to fuck their same gender join too.


I'm not sure which over the top whacko website you are getting your info from, But we do not let "convicted felons and murderers join".

Beyond the whole, "Why the heck would we do that", common sense check, there is the whole thing about convicted felons not being allowed to own/handle weapons thing that the US enforces...

:sniper:

Okay.

Now that my access to the bloody forums has officially been restored, I can finally finish this.


Mister sniper, you should watch who you shoot at.

The wacko website that I seem to be getting all my information from, just so happens to be the official website of the US Department of Defense.

:sniper:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47748
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49656
http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/military_enlistment_of_felons_has_doubled
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=013269018370076798483:gg7jrrhpsy4&cof=FORID:1&q=felons+in+the+military&sa=Search

So before you be so rude as to shoot at me, you should do a little research of your own. I only posted a few links because that's all I felt I needed to. Check the google results for more if you need them :)

Okay.

Now that my access to the bloody forums has officially been restored, I can finally finish this.


Mister sniper, you should watch who you shoot at.

The wacko website that I seem to be getting all my information from, just so happens to be the official website of the US Department of Defense.

:sniper:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47748
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49656
http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/military_enlistment_of_felons_has_doubled
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=013269018370076798483:gg7jrrhpsy4&cof=FORID:1&q=felons+in+the+military&sa=Search

So before you be so rude as to shoot at me, you should do a little research of your own. I only posted a few links because that's all I felt I needed to. Check the google results for more if you need them :)

I think prison sentences should have the option to be cut in half if done via military service for no pay.

I think prison sentences should have the option to be cut in half if done via military service for no pay.

Yeah, that's a great idea. :rolleyes:

I think prison sentences should have the option to be cut in half if done via military service for no pay.

Yeah, um, I think that possibly would be one of the worst ideas ever, for a few reasons. Also, I think it may have been tried once, somewhere. I'd have to read up on some history, though...

Yeah, that's a great idea. :rolleyes:

then they commit a war crime we just lengthen their sentence, and tell the Iraqis they have been punished by a stiff military sentence.

then they commit a war crime we just lengthen their sentence, and tell the Iraqis they have been punished by a stiff military sentence.
Uh-huh... Well, thanks for your unusual and refreshing input. 'Bye.

then they commit a war crime we just lengthen their sentence, and tell the Iraqis they have been punished by a stiff military sentence.

Yeah, they'll never find out! It's not like there are people out there dedicated to finding out what's happening in the world, especially the doings of national governments, and broadcasting them on television and/or writing about them in daily publications.

Okay.

Now that my access to the bloody forums has officially been restored, I can finally finish this.


Mister sniper, you should watch who you shoot at.

The wacko website that I seem to be getting all my information from, just so happens to be the official website of the US Department of Defense.

:sniper:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47748
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49656
http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/military_enlistment_of_felons_has_doubled
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=013269018370076798483:gg7jrrhpsy4&cof=FORID:1&q=felons+in+the+military&sa=Search

So before you be so rude as to shoot at me, you should do a little research of your own. I only posted a few links because that's all I felt I needed to. Check the google results for more if you need them :)


First off... the rifleman symbol was just a play on my duties.. not a comment to you :)

Let's see... I actually read the links you attached...

Link One: “So we're not bringing in murderers, criminals, drug dealers, felons. Those people are not coming into the United States Army,” Bostick said.

Link Two: "Contrary to what media reports imply, the waivers weren’t granted to hardened criminals fresh out of prison, Carr said. Mostly they’re granted to people who made mistakes when they were younger, but then straightened up to become responsible citizens, he said. " Now that is news to me, didn't know the Army and Marines had stooped to letting even that level in... Of course in the USAF, we still require a diploma too... :rolleyes:

Link Three: "In the Army, allowable offenses include making terrorist threats, murder, and kidnapping" Note that it doesn't say they've let them in, only that it is allowed. That said, I agree that it brings a "What the heck?" to mind... also this one isn't a DoD link, but an opinion site, though it did present factual, though spun, info...

All in all, an interesting post... you were right that I hadn't kept up with how low the Army and Marines had stooped for recruits... but that said, your original post made it seem as if you believed the military was knowingly recruiting murderers... Thanks for the info!

That all said, I wonder exactly what duties the felons let in on the "moral waviers" are being allowed to do? Are they being given waviers around the national policy of no weapons for felons? Hmmm... time to go look...

:sniper:

I think prison sentences should have the option to be cut in half if done via military service for no pay.

No thanks... Just like draftees, we wouldn't want those folks around us or working for us...

:headbang:

:sniper:

Yeah, they'll never find out! It's not like there are people out there dedicated to finding out what's happening in the world, especially the doings of national governments, and broadcasting them on television and/or writing about them in daily publications.

It is just technically true. just instead of 20 years in prison for shooting that Iraqi they get 10 more years in the army.

Win Win really. More soldiers we don't have to pay. Only allow these Criminal soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan though I don't want to deal with them over here.

It is just technically true. just instead of 20 years in prison for shooting that Iraqi they get 10 more years in the army.

Win Win really. More soldiers we don't have to pay. Only allow these Criminal soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan though I don't want to deal with them over here.

Yeah, that's brilliant. They use the power they have as armed soldiers over there to commit war crimes, to rape, murder, whatever, and as punishment, you give them longer to do it. Why didn't I see it that way before?

:mad: I still don't agree with the idea of any felons being allowed entry to the armed forces, but at least this article straight from the Army explains the facts about it better and more logically than the anti-military spin of the previous articles:

http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/05/05/8983-army-has-not-lowered-soldier-recruiting-standards/

snip

Upon further review, about half the results I've found state that they do in fact let murderers and felons in, at an increasing rate.

On the other hand, the other half of the results say they let no people in of the sort.

So idk wtf to think now. I think the department of defense needs to get it's damn facts straight, precisely for the reason that it makes me look stupid when they don't.

Quote:

Under pressure to meet combat needs, the Army and Marine Corps brought in significantly more recruits with felony convictions last year, including some with manslaughter and sex crime convictions.

Data released by a congressional committee show the number of soldiers admitted to the Army with felony records jumped from 249 in 2006 to 511 in 2007. And the number of Marines brought in with felonies rose from 208 to 350.

Those numbers represent a tiny fraction of the 180,000 recruits brought in by the active duty Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines during the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2007. But they highlight a trend that has raised concerns within the military and on Capitol Hill.

The bulk of the felonies listed for last year's recruits were burglaries, other thefts and drug offenses, but nine involved sex crimes and six involved manslaughter or vehicular homicide convictions. Several dozen Army and Marine recruits had aggravated assault or robbery convictions, including crimes involving weapons.

There were no Air Force recruits with waivers for felony convictions in 2007.
endquote


So you make up your own mind on what to think. But people who gives speeches need to get their facts straight. If you admit felons and people on manslaughter charges, you can't say "Hey, um . . . yeah. We don't allow those guys in. Those nine guys six months ago we let don't count."

http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2008/04/a_growing_number_of_felons_joi.html

http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2008/04/a_growing_number_of_felons_joi.html

You are right... a lot of the sources of info out there seems to speak out of both sides of their mouths... the article in the link you posted for example, said a lil further down:

For example, in several of the Marine sex crime cases, the offenders were teenagers involved in consensual sex with other underage teens. In one Army case, a 13-year-old who threw a match into his school locker was charged with arson and had to receive a felony waiver six years later.

"Waivers are used judiciously and granted only after a thorough review," said a Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington.

They shouldn't let any of them into the military in my opinion. Meanwhile (segue back to original topic of thread), we keep losing solid troops simply because of bad policy about adult's bedrooms habits.

Very silly.

:sniper:

Yeah, that's brilliant. They use the power they have as armed soldiers over there to commit war crimes, to rape, murder, whatever, and as punishment, you give them longer to do it. Why didn't I see it that way before?

maybe the country would straighten itself out so they don't have to deal with us anymore. the nice approach doesn't seem to be working.

maybe the country would straighten itself out so they don't have to deal with us anymore. the nice approach doesn't seem to be working.

Yeah, that's brilliant. We invade a country, create instability, and when foreign fighters come in and make things even worse for the locals, we make it worse still by letting our soldiers rape and murder the local civilian populace-- and when they do so, we give them even longer to do it so they can get more people!

I'm sure that won't get even more of the world angry enough at us. And anyway, history shows that occupiers who treat the locals poorly always scare them into submission instead of causing further revolt, right?

Yeah, that's brilliant. We invade a country, create instability, and when foreign fighters come in and make things even worse for the locals, we make it worse still by letting our soldiers rape and murder the local civilian populace-- and when they do so, we give them even longer to do it so they can get more people!

I'm sure that won't get even more of the world angry enough at us. And anyway, history shows that occupiers who treat the locals poorly always scare them into submission instead of causing further revolt, right?

Solves our over crowding prisons, and the only Americans killed would be convicts and that would raise very little /care in the US. and who really cares if the convicts succeed.
just so long as we keep them out of the US.

Why does it matter what race creed or orientation you have if it truly is a cohesive machine then all are the same, it has to be a brotherhood (or sisterhood sorry) but it must be made up from individuals, so why cant it just be left alone. Any discrimination is wrong and should be corrected

:sniper:

You are right... a lot of the sources of info out there seems to speak out of both sides of their mouths...

<snip>
I don't have any experience with military bureaucracy, but I do have experience with civilian bureaucracies, and it is my experience, both personal and from studying history, that when a bureaucracy or organization puts out such contradictory statements about itself, the bad version is usually the more true one.

I'm not saying that it is so in this case, but if I had to bet, that's how I would go.

Solves our over crowding prisons, and the only Americans killed would be convicts and that would raise very little /care in the US. and who really cares if the convicts succeed.
just so long as we keep them out of the US.

My sole concern is not for Americans; I am concerned about people.