One is tempted to cheer any progress on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) since the obscene policy has destroyed nearly 14,000 military careers over the last 17 years. Watching Defense Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen (pictured) personally come out for allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military was moving and amazing. In fact, if you listen to their softly purred words of support and the resultant press, you would think DADT would be over any day now. Over and over again in a direct, concise manner they proclaimed their opposition to the policy. The press captured each sentence and repeated it like a song to all who would listen.
The problem is that DADT isn’t going to end in the near future – not even this year. These new converts are asking for a year long study and then maybe at least another year before implementation. After all is said and done, the implication is that once they ‘study’ us one more time, they might slowly integrate us into the Armed Forces over the next few years.
What do they mean they have to ‘study’ for a year our impact on the military if we are allowed to serve openly? How offensive is that?
Really, come on gang, we are Americans citizens who don’t have ‘cooties’ and don’t need to be ‘studied’ to see if we will overwhelm our nation’s military with some mysterious immorality. Maybe they want to be sure that the straights in the military aren’t so weak that they can’t resist us at one look at us naked? Or perhaps their own sexuality is so uncertain that they can’t resist a hot man (or woman) when they see one? My guess is that our straight soldiers are just fine and secure with their sexuality as we are with our own. They don’t need protection from us and gays and lesbians need not worry about sexual advances from straight soldiers who can not control their urges.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
What needs to be studied? That we are fit citizens? That we care for our country? That somehow our sexual orientation is so dangerous that it might undermine the military of our nation? Please give me a break. This is just offensive. We are honest, hardworking citizens who love our nation and have a right to serve without being offended, studied and questioned on our morality or patriotism. Remember, we had that comedy of a study in 1993 when Senator Nunn showed President Clinton how close men sleep to each other on the carrier USS Roosevelt. Are we going to be treated to such ignorance, such indignity again? Isn’t this study just going to allow the right wing nutjobs to gain steam in the year and deny us our freedom one more time? Remember, President Clinton also promised us after his six month review that he would sign the Executive Order and he lied to us.
Yes, I am glad that cowardly third party snitches and blackmailers might be removed from the policy even though there are still ways left to ‘set up’ homosexuals who currently serve in our nation’s military. Guess on a cloudy day any sunshine looks good but it in reality it just distracts from the truth that it is still cloudy and stormy.
Because the fact still remains on a daily basis we must lie who we are to our family, friends and those who lives depend on us. We must never acknowledge a loved one at home nor admit that we have a life like anyone else. We must continue to dehumanize ourselves for the comfort of others for an antiquated policy that should have never been implemented in the first place. Our soldiers who die in combat have to think of their partners who will be denied full rights in their heroic deaths. Who will not be even allowed to accept the flag as their loved one is buried. What kind of change is this? Not much of a one!
President Obama can issue a stop loss order today. Behind the scenes we have been promised an amendment to the next military approbations legislation. Our community national leaders told us that this would be the year for the repeal. They asked us to be patient, implying there was a grand plan for the repeal. Well, sorry, two more years of this policy stinks to high heaven. Congress should act immediately for the full repeal of DADT and we should refuse to support or give money to anyone who does not support such an effort. In less than a year, we will face a Congress that is less friendly than the one now. Do we really believe our chances will be much better next year than this year?
Repeal it now. Stop the crap and deal with us as full American citizens. The policy is offensive, obscene and immoral. There is no reason to study us; just embrace our talents, gifts and patriotism.
RS
It’s my understanding that most of the studies are not about the gay soldiers themselves. They’re around things like which elements of the Military Code of Conduct need to be revisited and potentially revised (codes against sodomy, which still exist, as well as fraternization, off duty activities, and the like). Also around sensitivity and diversity training, just like the military does with sexual harassment training.
We have to remember that when Truman signed an executive order in 1948 to desegregate the military, while there were hostile factions in Congress opposing it, there was no existing legislation against it. Even so, desegration had not been implemented by 1950 when the Korean War broke out, and the troops we sent to Korea were still segregated. In fact, the desegregation process wasn’t completed until 1954, six years after Truman signed his executive order.
Pete
The question ought to be, will open homosexuals serving in the armed forces be any worse than the open heterosexuals? The armed forces are full of all sorts of heterosexual misconduct: sexual harassment, rape, indecent exposure, etc. Gays and lesbians can’t be any worse.
RS
Yes, and misconduct like sexual harassment and rape should not be tolerated and should be punished — and in the same manner, regardless of the sex and sexual orientation of the perpetrator and his or her victim.
chuclav
I just wrote my senators, sorry they are Landrieu and Vitter, saying roughly the same thing. RS, I understand what you’re saying but this is a different kettle of fish. We are already there and integrated. All the DOD has to do is change a few pronouns in existing code. I find the whole ‘study’ aspect offensive. It is also equivocation and I think that needs to be addressed.
Cam
No. 1 · RS said..
It’s my understanding that most of the studies are not about the gay soldiers themselves. They’re around things like which elements of the Military Code of Conduct need to be revisited and potentially revised (codes against sodomy, which still exist, as well as fraternization, off duty activities, and the like). Also around sensitivity and diversity training, just like the military does with sexual harassment training.
________________________
Those rules go for straights as well. Officers can’t sleep with enlisted, adultry is forbidden etc… none of those need to be changed.
The Pentagon and DOD already did a study on these, but when the study came back recomending that gays be allowed into the military they ignored it. Here is a NYTimes article on that studey from 1989.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/22/us/report-urging-end-of-homosexual-ban-rejected-by-military.html?pagewanted=1
Rob Moore
My thought exactly. It seems like a delaying tactic to me, which is what I have come to expect from Obama. This way if Congress refuses to repeal, he hopes to reap the benefits from us of appearing to do something while doing exactly nothing. Just take real action to stop it. Make us subject to the same rules as the straight soldiers. Female soldiers aren’t supposed to be fucking their fellow soldiers either, but they seem to be having a problem with them getting knocked up while deployed to war zones. At least gay and lesbian soldiers won’t bring that risk with them.
When the senile McCain asked if they had studied the opinions of straight soldiers, I almost threw my remote at the screen. His statement “DADT might be perfect, it has been effective.” Even though I was at home alone, I blurted out “Effective at what!?”
If Obama had any political courage he would take unilateral action just as Truman did with racial integration. Truman did not seek the opinions of the Joint Chiefs, the white soldiers, or Congress, and he did not wait on a study of the Military Code of Justice or whatever it was called then. He just said do it. There was of course screaming from the southern, segregationist senators and representatives, but he essentially told them to kiss his midwestern ass.
Obama loves to appear brave without any risk.
X
The headline is EXACTLY what I’ve been thinking every time I hear all that BS ho-humming about discrimination. This isn’t rocket science, people! End the friggin ban!
B
No. 5 · Cam wrote: “Those rules go for straights as well. Officers can’t sleep with enlisted, adultry is forbidden etc… none of those need to be changed. The Pentagon and DOD already did a study on these, but when the study came back recomending that gays be allowed into the military they ignored it. Here is a NYTimes article on that studey from 1989.”
(The URL is http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/22/us/report-urging-end-of-homosexual-ban-rejected-by-military.html?pagewanted=1 ).
From the article Cam quoted: “The report’s primary recommendation was that the Pentagon develop research programs ”to test the hypothesis that men and women of atypical sexual orientation can function appropriately in military units” in the same way that blacks were integrated into the military 40 years ago.”
So the report Cam cited claims a need for some research. They now want to study how it will be implemented, which is in fact progress, but that doesn’t stop people from complaining.
Just out of curiosity, do people actually read the articles they cite or do they just look at the headlines?
L.Single
Perhaps if Clinton had opted to “study” the issue in 1993 instead of just issuing an executive order we wouldn’t have had Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the first place.
dan j
The Army provided waivers to a whopping 18 percent of active-duty recruits in the last four months of 2008, allowing them to enlist despite criminal records, medical conditions and obesity. So an overweight convicted thief with ADD is deemed eligible to serve his country, while a fit, law abiding, highly educated West Point graduate, trained Arabic linguist with two tours of duty in Iraq, and an 18 year combat veteran decorated pilot among over 13,500 others are kicked out for being gay.
Even non-U.S. citizens are being welcomed and granted rights that are unavailable to natural-born, combat experienced and decorated, highly educated and highly skilled U.S. citizens who happen to be gay.
The true purpose of DADT is to perpetuate the prejudice it was designed to indulge. End the charade now.
Jaroslaw
Yes indeed. Why the study? The government doesn’t give us full rights but we pay full taxes. I wish my taxes could be abated all these years they’ve “studied.”
B
No. 6 · Rob Moore wrote, “If Obama had any political courage he would take unilateral action just as Truman did with racial integration.”
Facts: Harry Truman didn’t have a law passed by Congress banning racial integration to deal with – there probably would have been one if people thought it could actually happen. So, Truman could issue an executive order while Obama has to get congress to repeal a law. Lining up the Joint Chiefs of Staff to testify in favor of a repeal, plus support from people like Powell, is going to help get the law repealed.
And the military does need some time for planning – there are rules and procedures that have to be reviewed – just to make sure (for example) that rules about sexual harassment weren’t written to apply only to men harassing women and vice versa, and some training material will probably have to be updated as well.
wondermann
You are great, B! Thank you for your fact finding. We need more folks like in our community.
RS
@Rob Moore: If Obama had any political courage he would take unilateral action just as Truman did with racial integration. Truman did not seek the opinions of the Joint Chiefs, the white soldiers, or Congress, and he did not wait on a study of the Military Code of Justice or whatever it was called then. He just said do it.
Well, not exactly. The Truman Library has a chronology of events around the desegregation order showing three years of hearings and studies before the executive order was issued.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology
I do believe that allowing LGB soldiers to serve openly and honestly could probably happen a lot faster than it will, I do believe that the progress is genuine. I believe a methodical approach will help shore up support among both Congress and all levels of the military. My two cents…
Sigh
Your complete ignorance of the real world of Congress is highlighted by your reference to the “approbations” process.
But this goes in line with Queerty’s recent political trope: “If you don’t give me what I want, right now, you are an evil homophobe coward.”
Cam
No. 8 · B said….
From the article Cam quoted: “The report’s primary recommendation was that the Pentagon develop research programs “to test the hypothesis that men and women of atypical sexual orientation can function appropriately in military units” in the same way that blacks were integrated into the military 40 years ago.”
So the report Cam cited claims a need for some research. They now want to study how it will be implemented, which is in fact progress, but that doesn’t stop people from complaining.
Just out of curiosity, do people actually read the articles they cite or do they just look at the headlines?
_________________________________
Hmmm, lets see, the report recomended examining it….and compared it to something that the Pentagon had ALREADY DONE…i.e. integrating the military 40 years earlier. AND the report was written in 1989. So they have had 21 years since the report to consider this. They’ve known it is an issue, they already integrated the military and have those records, so please don’t try to pretend that nobody in the military has not studied this. There are already gays serving openly in the military. What they want is a delay tactic.
McShane
The impression that the U.S fights legitimate wars in which citizen soliers would want to fight needs to be maintained. A systematically excluded group might take the time to ask: “what are we fighteng al these wars for?”
Now that corporations, foriegn and domestic, will be deciding what who we will be attacking, it will soon become clear that we at just fighting corporate wars for resources , labor etc.
B
No. 15 · Cam wrote, “Hmmm, lets see, the report recomended examining it….and compared it to something that the Pentagon had ALREADY DONE…i.e. integrating the military 40 years earlier. AND the report was written in 1989. So they have had 21 years since the report to consider this.”
Your “21 years” ignores what went on in 1993, and once DADT passed, any planning would be pointless. It also ignores the fact that Bill Clinton wanted a repeal while Bush was touting “family values”, a code word for pandering the right-wing conservatives. See http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/famval.htm for some of the details. Surely you wouldn’t expect someone trying to get re-elected by appealing to “social conservatives” to push for gay rights. So there really was a very narrow window and once Bill Clinton was elected, there was immediate opposition.
Read http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/military_history.html which includes the following:
[start of quote]
By the end of the 1980s, reversing the military’s policy was emerging as a priority for advocates of gay and lesbian civil rights. Several lesbian and gay male members of the armed services came out publicly and vigorously challenged their discharges through the legal system. In 1992, legislation to overturn the ban was introduced in the U.S. Congress. By that time, grassroots civilian opposition to the DOD’s policy appeared to be increasing. Many national organizations had officially condemned the policy and many colleges and universities had banned military recruiters and Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) programs from their campuses in protest of the policy.
By the beginning of 1993, it appeared that the military’s ban on gay personnel would soon be overturned. Shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to prepare a draft policy to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he proposed to use the interim period to resolve “the real, practical problems that would be involved” in implementing a new policy. Clinton’s proposal, however, was greeted with intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, the political opposition, and a considerable segment of the U.S. public.
After lengthy public debate and congressional hearings, the President and Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reached a compromise which they labeled Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue. Under its terms, military personnel would not be asked about their sexual orientation and would not be discharged simply for being gay. Engaging in sexual conduct with a member of the same sex, however, would still constitute grounds for discharge. In the fall of 1993, the congress voted to codify most aspects of the ban. Meanwhile, the civilian courts issued contradictory opinions, with some upholding the policy’s constitutionality and others ordering the reinstatement of openly gay military personnel who were involuntarily discharged. Higher courts, however, consistently upheld the policy, making review of the policy by the U.S. Supreme Court unlikely.
The policy has remained in effect since 1993,
[end of quote]
THomasn
America will legalise everything. There will come a time soon, when the word, illegal might not exist in US. Going to church might end up being the only thing illegal.
Human Race has developed!!!!!
jason
Don’t fall for this “study” notion. It’s simply designed to buy time and stir up opposition to us serving openly. It’s a ploy, pure and simple. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama is behind this.