If you’re looking for something to do this weekend (and everyday for the next few years), the Pentagon just halted Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and says openly gay soldiers can now enlist. Lucky us. Now homos can travel the world, meet new and interesting people… and kill them.
So why are some military recruiters still turning homogays away?
AmericaBlog‘s Jim Pietrangelo contacted the Los Angeles Central Army Recruiting station and here’s what happened:
“they in no uncertain terms stated that they cannot enlist Gays and have received no change in policy from the Pentagon to do so. Indeed, the recruiter astonishingly told me I couldn’t even begin the application process because I am Gay, much less could I be actually accessed.”
So… is we is or is we ain’t your baby?
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.
Steve
Corporal Klinger was not gay. He was just bucking for a section-8 discharge.
Any editor (of a gay web site) who seriously believes that the Klinger character was supposed to be gay, should be sent to hospital for defective gaydar.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Steve:
Actually, when it was decided the character of Max Klinger would become the dress wearer, bucking for a Section 8, the director had Jamie Farr play the character as a swishy gay man. Larry Gelbart stated in no uncertain terms that the character wasn’t gay, but a straight man pretending to be crazy to get discharged, and ordered re-shoots.
B
QUEERTY: “The Pentagon Says Gay Soldiers Can Now Enlist. Military Recruiters, Not So Much”
Give them a week. Someone has to draft an order to send to the recruiters and someone else probably has to sign off on it. Also, someone needs to check if the court order is applicable only to those already in the military – it depends on how the court order was worded.
AnonAmn
Chances are the DoD doesn’t want to change the policy out to recruiters immediately because we saw the same shit happen back in October.
Its just better to wait and see if the court order is going to stick than to jerk recruiters around again.
Also, why should they bother? We’re at 100% recruiting and retention goals…
Cam
They are in violation of a Federal Court order. Time to get their shit together.
Steve
Cam, just an fyi. The judge has not yet declared that they are “in violation”. Most courts will tolerate a short delay between the court issuing and order and the subject implementing it. Judges just want to see movement, and recognize that communication and action do take time. Even something as small as sending a one-paragraph memo to every soldier, is a significant clerical effort. Depending on the court and the order, the time allowed is usually something like 30 days. They can be declared “in violation” by the court, if the judge decides that they are not making a serious attempt to obey the court order. But reaching that decision, also, takes time.
McGullen
@Mr. Enemabag Jones: Klinger was no Hamlet, that’s for sure.
Brian Miller
Judges just want to see movement, and recognize that communication and action do take time. Even something as small as sending a one-paragraph memo to every soldier, is a significant clerical effort.
This is one of the reasons why I laugh about government so much. Yes, it’s inefficient, but foot-dragging tactics and their justifications are accepted willy-nilly, without any real thought.
I mean, it takes “weeks or months” to let recruiters know that gay people can enlist — yet it took just 72 hours to wire trillions in TARP and Federal Reserve cash to various banks that wanted bailouts.
If government WANTS something to happen, it happens quickly and without delay. Let’s not legitimize this foot-dragging by military phobes by making an e-mail to “all” seem like some sort of impossible mission that will take months to communicate.
Zoe Brain
Note that while Gay is Okay, Trans and Intersex people are not. They’re still subject to discharge, can be asked, and must tell.
Klinger would not be given a section 8 discharge today, but an administrative one. That was the case before DADT became law, and will remain the case afterwards.