Congressional Democrats Push to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Fighting for Freedom

H. Homosexuality. 1. Basis. a. Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order. and morale: to foster mutual trust and confidence among servicemembers; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command: to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of servicemembers who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the Military Services; to maintain the public acceptability of military service: and to prevent breaches of security.

32 CFR Ch. I (7-l-93 Edition)

Interestingly enough I am doing a term paper on this subject. I am looking at the legality of the DADT policy; and how the military should face this issue. I have read many arguments for and against this. I have also been looking at case law and how both sides have tried to go about repealing, or keeping the policy. I can see how the homosexual would feel discriminated when they couldn’t bring their partner with them to functions, and how they couldn’t speak freely about their life. I can also see where the military can state that they are looking to keep good order and discipline. We don’t have to look too far into the past and see where there has been violence directed at a homosexual from a fellow military member. We are fighting for the freedom of individuals in the United States, but in this, there is a sacrifice that many have made. Some have sacrificed their lives, while others have sacrificed their own freedoms to do as they see fit, in order for many others to have that freedom. I know when military members go through the process of becoming a member they take an oath. The oath of enlistment, or of an officer, both of them make statements of following what is ordered of you and carrying those orders out. It is due to the laws that we have set for ourselves, and the idea that our military will be the best in the world, that we continue to strive to be above reproach. We continue to police ourselves and ensure that our military does not drink while deployed, and we do not allow for extramarital affairs, and many other things. Other countries do not have such stringent laws, yet they are not seen as the best military in the world. Before we hastily repeal laws or enact them, we need to step back and look at the whole picture, and see what’s best for everyone, not just what’s best for our point of view. We also have to be fair in our approach, not blindly swinging our sword at the enemy, and see why the other side may see things a certain way. Then we need to come together and discuss the issues and see if there is a compromise we can all come to, kind of like what they did in 1993.

Nikki of FL

Nikki of FL, very well said!!

No, David

David you are so funny. You describe in detail your own bigoted behavior then proceed to claim you're not a bigot. Huh?

A bigot is not some far-off ogre who does things you will never do. In this case, a bigot is you. You go on and on with talk of why gay and lesbian Americans should be treated differently than heterosexual Americans. Your reason boils down to: you don't like them on grounds of who they fall in love with. Newsflash David: that is precisely what bigotry is. Dictionary definition: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group and is intolerant of those who differ." Bingo, we have a winner.

No one cares what your personal opinion of homosexuality is. That's not the point. I have a massive dislike for religious nuts and uber-conservatives, but I would never expect they should get treated differently by any part of AMerican law including the military. That would be bigotry.

I'll say it again: the existing military rules of conduct are there to handle any situation that comes up. They apply equally to gay and straight people. If those rules are as ineffectual you say, that's not gay people's fault.

It's just a matter of time. You will lose this battle, and you will look to all America like the bigot you are. Sticking to your guns when you are wrong isn't a good plan in the long run. It makes you look kind of weak.

Freedom

A person's sexual preference should have no weight on whether they should be allowed to serve in the military. Anyone with the courage to want to fight for their country should be allowed. It is clear that there is a certain professionalism required to serve as a soldier and it's not like gays and lesbian are going to run around shouting that they are gay while on the job. It is who they are, and like straight people, they do not announce it every where they go. If someone finds out there gay so be it—who really cares? Isn't that the exact thing we are fighting for? True freedom; the freedom to be who we are and not be persecuted for it.

Bob of NV

Bob of NV wrote: "Existing rules of conduct will ensure that nothing inappropriate will happen, just as it doesn't now. Or that if it ever does it will be dealt with accordingly, just like it is now.

You really need to get over your irrational fear."

So I'm labeled as irrational and fearful simply because I have an opinion and believe that homosexuality is morally reprehensible. That makes sense, espeacially coming from a castigated group of people that continually beg for understanding and tolerance.

And before you and other's label me and people that share my believe as hate mongers, bigots, etc. Know that, I can love the person and despise the behavior, conduct, and practice. Much as I, as a parent, love my kids, but despise when they lie, steal, and cheat.

With my so called "irrational fear", I gave several compelling, rational reasons why allowing men and women to serve while openly gay is a not in the interest of the military. I think you, perhaps, have the irrational fear that I'm right and fearful that this fringe group's agenda fails to get foisted on America's military.

Also, you can't say that "nothing inapppropriate will happen" because of "existing rules of conduct". Obviously you've never served otherwise you'd know that the military today still deals with sexually charged issues which mostly occur in mixed (male and female) units.

The military's way of dealing with it is in a languishing, torpid policy that tends to be ineffectual.

David

David, it seems pretty obvious you have a fear that if this law is changed suddenly gays and lesbians will go flitting and frolicking around military bases, holding hands and kissing and whatever they can just to make you squirm.

You need to get over that.

Serving openly simply means they don't have to lie about it. It means they can tell the truth when fellow soldiers ask natural questions like, "So are you married?" It means gays and lesbians can act normally like straight people have always been able to.

Existing rules of conduct will ensure that nothing inappropriate will happen, just as it doesn't now. Or that if it ever does it will be dealt with accordingly, just like it is now.

You really need to get over your irrational fear.

Derrick of OH

Derrick, You mention a Zogby poll from 2006 shows "73% of servicemembers are comfortable with lesbians and gays." The 2004 poll date gave a very specific question about "openly" gay in the military.

I don't know your Zogby poll and I don't dispute that 73% of service members may feel comfortable with lesbians and gays. Comfort level is different than "openly gay".

I have some (not many) gay/lesbian friends. I'm not uncomfortable being around them (contrary to what some may think) but I don't believe the military should allow gay's to serve "openly."

Secondly, just out of curiosity, how do you, Cadet Derrick of OH, deal with the scenario. You're a 1st Lt. in a hostile environment and you have to take decisive action and move quickly. You don't have time to get fire support. There's no time for you to call your chain-of-command to get advice and input. You don't have time to take a vote amoung your men. You have a bunker that must be destroyed because it's destroying your flank element. You assign the mission to 2nd Squad led by

SSG Mike who is "openly gay" and, as you know, has an "openly" amorous interest in Cpl. Joe.

Is he going to send Cpl. Joe when everyone knows that he's next guy for the duty? Or does he send PFC Frank who is not gay? PFC Frank complains, as most privates do, that it's Cpl. Joe's turn and that SSG Mike is only protecting his amorous interest. Your SSG. Mike's commanding officer. How do you deal with the situation?

Tell us, Cadet, what is your decision is going to be. American lives hang in the balance. You have a dilema, to be sure. Whose side do you land on? SSG Mike's and send PFC Frank . . . This will lead your men to question you because they see blatant favoritism with Cpl. Joe. Do you undermine SSG Mike authorist and send Cpl Joe? Now the men don't see your SSG as a leader. Keep in mind, Ceteris Paribus . . . Cpl Joe and PFC Frank all possess similar ability to complete the mission.

What's your solution for the readers? Help us better understand the Dilema you face as the leader and why or why not being "openly" gay is ok in the military since you are tomorrow's leader. What is tomorrow's leader going to do? Someone's son or daughter may depend on your answer.

The Way I See It

As a Cadet, I interact with the future leaders of the military. If current service men and women are anything like the Cadets I know, they will not have a problem serving with openly gay people. Saying that the members of the military are not professional enough to serve together despite different orientations is an insulting srgument. The military was integrated 6 years before schools were. Men and women who join the Armed Forces are professionals who are there to do a job. They won't let something as stupid as sexual orientation stand in their way.

As far as current opinion in the military goes, David of ID, the numbers have changes since 2004. A Zogby poll from 2006 shows "73% of servicemembers are comfortable with lesbians and gays." In the three years since this poll I suspect numbers have shifted even more.

And as far as the "Openly" argument goes, "Openly" sexual behavior of any kind is not tolerated, homo- or hetero-. Again, the military is comprised of professionals who will act as such.

"I understand MISSION first and PEOPLE always."

-US Army Cadet Creed

Re: David, If the shoe fits . . .

Wendy, you wrote, "We are a representaive democracy with a little thing called the Constitution that guarantees ALL Americans equal liberty and protection, including protection of the minorities from the tyranny of the majorities."

This all true, well and good. Except, the military is not a democracy. They don't take a vote to see who will be on the front line. They don't vote to see who is going to be the one to face certain death while taking out a bunker.

But again, we are talking "openly gay" not gay. If someone is gay and wants in the military fine, "Don't ask, Don't tell" Nobody says, lie or live a lie. If someone is gay that's fine and they can be that way on their own time. But openly gay is another matter.

Here is a dilema to illustrate the point: Sgt. Mike has an "openly" amorous interest in Cpl. Sue. Sgt. Mike has to send someone on a perilous mission. Is he going to send Cpl. Sue when everyone knows that she should go? No. This has been one of the major dilemas concerning women in combat and the integration of women in the military.

Let's change the equation a bit. Sgt. Mike has an "openly" amorous interst in Cpl. Joe. Is he going to send Cpl. Joe when everyone knows that he's next for the duty? No. This is a harder dilema because men typically aren't supposed to be segregated from other men. So tell me. Your Sgt. Mike's commanding officer. How do you deal with the situation? How is that fair to the other men in the Platoon?!

Let's take it a step further. Let's say Sgt. Mike has no specific amorous interest, but because Sgt. Mike is "openly" gay he's faced with the same situation. What would be your thought if he chose you? I think your thought would be? Why me? Who's Sgt. Mike protecting? Is this happening because I'm straight and not gay? I'm sure there would be other thoughts as well. But the point is this: "Openly" gay will adversely effect morale and you can't honestly say it wouldn't.

The problem is people don't understand the military. Everything you say is true...in a garrison world. But the military specifically trains to operate in war where combat scenarios are the norm and where there is no time to get "buy-in" and "let's talk to the Captain" scenarios.

Again, it's not a question of being fearful, uncomfortable, or bigoted. The current policy is supposed to be a pragmatic policy designed to fit combat situations. But even the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is weak because it is a milquetoast attempt to placate fringe interests through a "social experiment" that doesn't work. Otherwise, why wouldn't be having this discussion?

Ah Hah!

Then you're saying you're gay huh? No wonder you seem so offended and irrational in your statement. No need to lose your temper so quickly, just because someone is speaking their opinion. In such a mild way. It's their right, check the Bill of Rights. I've sure had to listen to gay citizens speaking their minds through the years. And you know, not one time did I lose my temper or get offended.