Homosexuals who are outed by jilted lovers or jerks who have it out for them will no longer face dismissal from the armed forces. Uh, that’s the good news the Pentagon is going to tell the Senate today during the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell hearings?
In addition to announcing a fun new “investigative” panel to see how to best go about repealing — or changing — the policy, and how it could take years, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen will tell Sen. Carl Levin and his buddies about their awesome new proposal for getting gay activists off their backs.
When we heard about this back in July from Gates, we were agog; the Pentagon will immediately cease dismissals of any servicemember outed against his or her own will. That is, on its face, great news. No longer will personnel have to fear somebody else exposing the secret gay soldiers are forbidden to tell. That would help folks like Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who was forced to declare his sexuality to denounce rape allegations.
But what about all the other soldiers who, as they’ve been instructed, have kept their heads down and their sexuality out of the military? They are the ones who will remain punished until the Pentagon can finish its investigation? Bullocks.
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.
The only solution, then, is to fully exploit the Pentagon’s plan: Gay soldiers who want to serve openly without fear of dismissal should have a buddy write a letter to their commanding officers exposing them. And, presto: They will have been outed, against their will, by a third party, and immune from being kicked out. And after having their sexuality exposed publicly, they can henceforth be as gay as they want to be, shouting their sexuality from the rooftops. Because, after all, it’s not like they volunteered their sexuality.
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
Instead of picking up the soap in the showers, just slip on it!
Michael W.
“And after having their sexuality exposed publicly, they can henceforth be as gay as they want to be, shouting their sexuality from the rooftops.”
Assuming of course that most gay service members actually want their sexuality exposed and aren’t the closeted types online looking for “straight acting discreet white jocks.” In which case they might be fine with the policy, even supportive of it.
But we’ll see.
Tim W
Wow just like I predicted in the previous thread. Where is Reason when we need him. Once again Obama is selling us down the river allowing the Pentagon to study this instead of repealing this. This gives cover to Congress to punt this down the road. The we won’t kick out those who are exposed by 3rd parties is an extremely weak compromise. Again with Congress punting it down the road this means when Republicans pick up seats in the 2010 elections the votes won’t be there. Then Obama can say see we were working on it but the big bad Republicans blocked it.
romeo
@ Queerty: It’s “bollocks” not “bullocks” LOL
As for the military’s new approach, I think it will make serving openly pretty much a fait accompli. Queerty’s elaborate scheme notwithstanding, LOL, this will so water down the idea of secrets, etc., that a full repeal will be forthcoming just to cut down on paperwork.
Brady
“the Pentagon will immediately cease dismissals of any servicemember outed against his or her own will.”
Which is pretty much what DADT was supposed to do in the first place. The full title, “Don’t ask don’t tell, don’t pursue don’t harass” was supposed to be a compromise for gays in the military but somehow the “don’t pursue, don’t harass” part got thrown out and the compromise turned into anything but.
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
Life of G I Josephine Script
Stonings: How to Find that Perfect Rock
The sketch:
JOSEPHINE: Ohh, I hate wearing these beards.
BRIAN: Why aren’t Gays allowed go to stonings, Mum?
JOSEPHINE: It’s written. That’s why.
HARRY THE HAGGLER: Pssst! Beard, madam?
DONKEY OWNER: Oh, look. I haven’t got time to go to no stonings. He’s not well again.
hee-haw hee-haw
HARRY THE HAGGLER: Stones, sir?
JOSEPHINE: Naah. They’ve got a lot there, lying around on the ground.
HARRY THE HAGGLER: Oh, not like these, sir. Look at this. Feel the quality of that. That’s craftsmanship, sir.
JOSEPHINE: Hmmm. Aah, all right. We’ll have, uh, two with points and… a big flat one.
BRIAN: Could I have a flat one, Mum?
JOSEPHINE: Shh!
BRIAN: Sorry. Dad.
JOSEPHINE: Ehh, all right. Two points, ah, two flats, and a packet of gravel.
HARRY THE HAGGLER: Packet of gravel. Should be a good one this afternoon.
JOSEPHINE: Hehh?
HARRY THE HAGGLER: Local boy.
JOSEPHINE: Oh, good.
HARRY THE HAGGLER: Enjoy yourselves.
CROWD OF WOMEN: yelling
JEWISH OFFICIAL: Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath,…
MATTHIAS: Do I say ‘yes’?
STONE HELPER #1: Yes.
MATTHIAS: Yes.
OFFICIAL: …you have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,…
CROWD: Ooooh!
OFFICIAL: …you are to be stoned to death.
CROWD: Ahh!
MATTHIAS: Look. I– I’d had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, ‘That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.’
CROWD: Oooooh!
OFFICIAL: Blasphemy! He’s said it again!
CROWD: Yes! Yes, he did! He did!…
OFFICIAL: Did you hear him?!
CROWD: Yes! Yes, we did! We did!…
WOMAN #1: Really!
silence
OFFICIAL: Are there any Gays here today?
CROWD: No. No. No. No…
OFFICIAL: Very well. By virtue of the authority vested in me–
CULPRIT WOMAN stones MATTHIAS
MATTHIAS: Oww! Lay off! We haven’t started yet!
OFFICIAL: Come on! Who threw that? Who threw that stone? Come on.
CROWD: She did! She did! He did! He! He. He. Him. Him. Him. Him. He did.
CULPRIT WOMAN: Sorry. I thought we’d started.
OFFICIAL: Go to the back.
CULPRIT WOMAN: Oh, dear.
OFFICIAL: Always one, isn’t there? Now, where were we?
MATTHIAS: Look. I don’t think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying ‘Jehovah’.
CROWD: Oooh! He said it again! Oooh!…
OFFICIAL: You’re only making it worse for yourself!
MATTHIAS: Making it worse?! How could it be worse?! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
CROWD: Oooooh!…
OFFICIAL: I’m warning you. If you say Jehovah once more…
MRS. A. stones OFFICIAL
Right. Who threw that?
MATTHIAS: laughing
silence
OFFICIAL: Come on. Who threw that?
CROWD: She did! It was her! He! He. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him.
OFFICIAL: Was it you?
MRS. A.: Yes.
OFFICIAL: Right!
MRS. A.: Well, you did say ‘Jehovah’.
CROWD: Ah! Ooooh!…
CROWD stones MRS. A.
OFFICIAL: Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say ‘Jehovah’.
CROWD: Ooooooh!…
CROWD stones OFFICIAL
WOMAN #1: Good shot!
clap clap clap
BRIAN: Have I got a big nose, Mum?
JOSEPHINE: Oh, stop thinking about sex.
BRIAN: I wasn’t.
JOSEPHINE: You’re always on about it… morning, noon, and night. ‘Will the boys like this?’ ‘Will the boys like that?’ ‘Is it too big?’ ‘Is it too small?’
BRIAN: I was… just wondering if you thought my nose was–
JOSEPHINE: Get your filthy little mind off it! You’re forty years old, now. You should have grown out of all that.
BRIAN: I’m only just getting interested in it, Mum.
JOSEPHINE: It’s time you got interested in a job, my lad.
LEPER #1: Spare a shekel.
LEPER #2: God bless you, sir.
LEPER #3: Alms for a leper.
LEPER #4: Alms for a leper.
EX-LEPER: Alms for an ex-leper. Bloody donkey owners. All the same, aren’t they? Never have any change. Oh, here’s a touch. Spare a talent for an old ex-leper.
JOSEPHINE: Buzz off!
EX-LEPER: Spare a talent for an old ex-leper.
JOSEPHINE: A talent? That’s more than he earns in a month.
EX-LEPER: Half a talent, then.
JOSEPHINE: No, go away!
EX-LEPER: Come on, Big Nose. Let’s haggle.
BRIAN: What?
EX-LEPER: All right. Cut the haggling. Say you open at one shekel. I start at two thousand. We close about eighteen hundred.
BRIAN: No.
EX-LEPER: Seventeen-fifty?
JOSEPHINE: Go away!
EX-LEPER: Seventeen-forty.
JOSEPHINE: Look. Will you leave him alone?
EX-LEPER: All right. Two shekels. Just two. Isn’t this fun, eh?
JOSEPHINE: Look. He’s not giving you any money, so piss off!
EX-LEPER: All right, sir. My final offer: half a shekel for an old ex-leper.
BRIAN: Did you say… ‘ex-leper’?
EX-LEPER: That’s right, sir. Sixteen years behind the bell, and proud of it, sir.
BRIAN: Well, what happened?
EX-LEPER: I was cured, sir.
BRIAN: Cured?
EX-LEPER: Yes, sir, a bloody miracle, sir. God bless you.
BRIAN: Who cured you?
EX-LEPER: Jesus did, sir. I was hopping along, minding my own business. All of a sudden, up he comes. Cures me. One minute I’m a leper with a trade, next minute my livelihood’s gone. Not so much as a by your leave. ‘You’re cured mate.’ Bloody do-gooder.
BRIAN: Well, why don’t you go and tell him you want to be a leper again?
EX-LEPER: Ah, yeah. I could do that, sir. Yeah. Yeah, I could do that, I suppose. What I was thinking was, I was going to ask him if he could make me a bit lame in one leg during the middle of the week. You know, something beggable, but not leprosy, which is a pain in the arse, to be blunt. Excuse my French, sir, but, uh–
JOSEPHINE: Brian! Come and clean your room out.
BRIAN: There you are.
EX-LEPER: Thank you, sir. Thanks– Half a denary for me bloody life story?
BRIAN: There’s no pleasing some people.
EX-LEPER: That’s just what Jesus said, sir.
baaaa
reason
@Tim W:
I am here when you need me, all you have to do is watch the hearings, when the so called stone face admiral just made a plea of why it should be repealed. The study needs to be done to find out how this thing is going to be implemented, granted that is how things are done in the developed world. You wouldn’t just start drilling an oil well or flying to a destination with out first mapping out how its going to be done.
jason
Don’t fall for this Obama/Democrats trick. Obama and the Democrats know they are going to lose big in this year’s Congressional elections. They are desperate to hold onto their base including us gays. These DADT hearings are a stalling tactic designed to keep us on side.
As I said, don’t fall for it. Obama and his manipulative manager Rahm Emmanuel are giving us little pieces of carrot to keep us on their side of the cage. Don’t fall for it.
simon
This new proposal simply doesn’t change anything. It is a bit of window dressing by that mega-fraud Barack Obama and his mega-fraud party, the Democrats. If you’re a proud gay person who carries around a picture of your partner in your wallet, you will still be discharged.
Barack Obama and the Democrats are liars and frauds. Nothing more need be said.
reason
@simon:
This proposal is one of many steps along the way. If I recall correctly many in the gay community were crying for a stop loss well this policy would implore many of those tenants, but doing so in confines of the law. This is not an either or, the plan is still complete repeal of DADT. I was for no stop loss because I felt that it would be a distraction and give the enemy an argument that something has already been done and no further action is needed, but yall are getting what you asked for. I was for the Joint Chiefs following protocol in the State of the Union, but yall were crying for something else, now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has stated his personal feelings about the policy, now the enemy is trying to say that the whole process is tarnished because the Chairman has undue influence on his underlings. Think of how powerful of an ally Chairman could have been if no one knew where he stood and he could work under the radar, but nope the gay community needed to know now. This community is so cynical and hateful that its stabbing our cause in the back.
Steve
They have several whole shelves full of studies about why and how to repeal DADT, and what policies need to be in place afterward. Operations people have studied the practical matters. Psychologists have studied the effects on the personnel. Allied forces have documented their experience, and provided copies of their studies and surveys to our people. We know how to do it. All it really needs is the order to start.
General Mullen did indicate that they are going to make some policy changes, within the bounds of the existing law. That can be either a very little nothing, or a very big step in the right direction. Lots of rules get effectively repealed by not being enforced, then after a decade or two they get removed from the book without much notice.
I wonder if any officers are going to be reprimanded for overzealous enforcement of DADT during the coming year. That would be the signal that they actually want the enforcement efforts to wind down.
hooey
I’m wondering :
When did the military actually start discharging their gay soldiers? As far back as the revolutionary war, or the civil war? I wouldn’t think so.
What traditions, then, are the opposers maintaining?
hooey
Thinking about it I guess it all started to occur when our govt. implemented a standing peacetime army of massive proportions.
Steve
@hooey:
I’m not sure how authoritative it is, but here’s a history:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mili3.htm
reason
@Steve:
In actuality since the new administration took office discharges under DADT has dropped almost 33%. Ex post facto reprimands are highly unlikely and go against an Obama motto of looking forward not backward when it comes to holding people accountable for controversial defense actions.
hooey
@ steve
thank you.
jason
Reason,
We already got sucked in by Bill Clinton’s vow to allow gays to serve openly in the military. I’m not going to get sucked in this time.
Many gays are the useful idiots. You only need a Democrat to say something pro-gay and suddenly these useful idiots are voting for him.
I’ve learned to never trust a Democrat. They haven’t earned our trust.
Lukas P.
@reason: Nicely put!
I’d only add that several other countries have successfully integrated gay men and lesbians into their armed forces, including on the front line. They’ve *already* figured out how to deal with housing, showering, pooping and dating in an integrated military. Granted adjustments will need to be made based on the sheer size of the US military, and based on some unique aspects of our culture, but there’s no need to design a wholly original plan from the ground up.
I hope that we don’t have to forestall seeing real changes in policy until a thousand committees debate and argue about the finer points. All policies need to be adjusted to local or changing circumstances, so the US not having an air-tight or infallible plan is no reason to leave things at status quo.
Our military is stretched to the nth degree so excluding or ejecting personnel based only on sexual orientation is untenable, logically and ethically. I’ll leave the moral aspects of that to people more philosphical than I.