is that rachel maddow with the flag?

3/20/2010 11:44:31 PM

^^^I think a part of it is trouble building up steam in the media and in the public eye.

Here are a few pics of the arrests resulting from a GetEqual sit-in that happened this weekend in Washington:


Their court date, like Choi's, is also next month.

All this weekends activities actions are happening around the time of the 2nd round of congressional hearings on DADT repeal. This national equality march, pictured below, happened during the first round of congressional hearings a few month ago, was larger than the national tea party march, and relatively got almost no coverage.





Marches are a dime a dozen, and if you wont spit on your congressman and yell racist slurs at them as the tea party has been doing today, it can be hard to get air time. Maybe an increase in peaceful civil disobedience and arrests will. Looks like its starting to work:



This stuff is nice, but doesn't get nearly as much coverage:

Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, the now outed 18-year combat aviator whose training cost 25 million, is pictured speaking here at an event for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network event this weekend. Congressman Murphy, first veteran of the Iraq War to serve in Congress, and a leader on DADT repeal is a part of the event.

^Lol, I see the resemblance, but I don't think so. Speaking of Maddow, she was at that same event with Fehrenbach & Congressman Murphy tonight.



Hopefully by having so much going on this weekend, while the 2nd round of hearings is going on, it'll help make sure this issue is a priority once the HCR stuff is out of the way.

[Edited on March 21, 2010 at 12:09 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2010 11:59:17 PM

The military survived integrating races.

It survived integrating genders in all roles (except, nominally, combat, although plenty of women have seen plenty of that, too).

It'll survive integrating gays, especially since gays have been there the whole fucking time, they've just had to be kinda-sorta sneaky about it.

There will be unpleasantness. They will get over it. I know more than a few redneck, hillbilly, backwards military guys with intense homophobia. But whatever angst they feel will be crushed under the iron tread of the leadership of the guys they're sworn to obey, because at the end of the day even a civilian softie like myself would rather wonder if someone was cocklooking me in the showers than go to fucking Leavenworth.

3/21/2010 12:26:45 AM

Quote :

"I think a part of it is trouble building up steam in the media and in the public eye."

The public doesn’t just give them a free pass on things.

I think a fair amount of the negative approval ratings for the admin are liberals who don’t think they are aggressive enough to fulfill the agenda on things that were campaigned on, because of this nebulous “troubling building up steam.” I think Stephen Colberts comments about if they push healthcare (or DADT reform in this case), people will get mad and vote them out of office, which is surely worse than doing nothing, and also getting voted out of office…?

The Bush years have shown that it doesn’t really matter what a policy is when you’re starting it, it matters how it ends up. Bush’s approval ratings didn’t plummet when he did things people didn’t like, they plummeted when those things turned out to be the wrong things.

Repealing DADT is not the wrong thing. Having the hemming and the hawing in the media for months and months and months (like with healthcare) is what wears on people, and sours their opinion. “Shit of get off the pot” as they say...

3/21/2010 12:57:44 AM

A little peaceful civil disobedience seems to be going a long way towards media coverage:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/235290

Quote :

"‘This Is My Mission’ Following his stint in jail for chaining himself to the White House gates, Lt. Dan Choi speaks about civil disobedience, gay rights, and how the Army made him a better activist."

3/22/2010 10:27:39 PM

Quote :

"Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, the now outed 18-year combat aviator whose training cost 25 million, is pictured speaking here at an event for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network event this weekend. Congressman Murphy, first veteran of the Iraq War to serve in Congress, and a leader on DADT repeal is a part of the event. "

Have I ever mentioned that I know Fehrenbach ("Stain")? I don't think I ever flew with him, but he was an instructor when I was a student in flight school (VT-86, advanced jet training squadron for navigators/WSOs/EWOs)

I never had any idea that he loved the cock. I think situations like his are fucked up and should be addressed...he held up his end of the deal by keeping his mouth shut about it and not prancing around like a fairy. He got outed by some pissed-off ex-boyfriend, I believe.

Quote :

"There will be unpleasantness. They will get over it. I know more than a few redneck, hillbilly, backwards military guys with intense homophobia. But whatever angst they feel will be crushed under the iron tread of the leadership of the guys they're sworn to obey"

From the people I've had conversations about it (and this is across ranks...junior enlisted to staff NCOs, as well as fellow officers), the general consensus that I've seen in the admittedly small sample I've discussed it with is pretty similar to my own opinion on the matter:

I'd prefer to keep DADT. It's a pretty decent, pragmatic compromise. A looser enforcement of it should probably be in order (for example, I don't think people like Stain should be seperated). Actually, "looser enforcement" isn't really what I want--I don't like to "fix" laws by not enforcing them...I should say that I'd like to see the policy itself relaxed, but not done away with entirely.

That said, if it gets rammed down our throats (so to speak), it isn't going to be a crippling, debilitating thing. We'll deal, even if we don't like it and even if it isn't necessarily a good idea.


My issue isn't really with gays in the military, per se. They're there, and have always been there, and it isn't a problem to speak of. It's more of an issue of maintaining good order and discipline, with a very secondary issue of the logistic concerns (forcing people to be roommates, share showers, etc...not to mention stuff like hot-bunking).

The guys I've talked to generally have the same concerns, and in that priority order, too. I've seen very little of the backwoods, redneck homophobia you're talking about. It's out there, for sure, but by and large you're selling those kids short. They mostly just don't want people effeminately prancing around, not carrying themselves with professional military bearing, and then crying discrimination when they get their tits hammered for it...and they especially don't want openly homosexual people becoming Marines due to political motivation or agendas--wanting to make a stand or prove a point or whatever.

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 11:37 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2010 11:29:23 PM

The problem with a looser enforcement of DADT was that was the way it was originally intended as not witch hunting, but it wasn't realized that way. Short of 3000 page bill getting very specific and leaving no ambiguity on every possible situation that could arise to weaken but keep the law, there is no practical way to loosen the bill, and even something that specific wouldn't do it. Has serving along side the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, or any our western allies that allow gay soldiers caused us problems because of gay soldiers? If not, I think our men and women are professional enough to handle it.

Quote :

"# 2 Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military * 2.1 Argentina * 2.2 Australia * 2.3 Austria * 2.4 Belgium * 2.5 Bermuda * 2.6 Brazil * 2.7 Canada * 2.8 Czech Republic * 2.9 Denmark * 2.10 Estonia * 2.11 Finland * 2.12 France * 2.13 Germany * 2.14 Ireland * 2.15 Israel * 2.16 Italy * 2.17 Lithuania * 2.18 Luxembourg * 2.19 Malta * 2.20 The Netherlands * 2.21 New Zealand * 2.22 Norway * 2.23 Peru * 2.24 Philippines * 2.25 Romania * 2.26 Russia * 2.27 Slovenia * 2.28 South Africa * 2.29 Spain * 2.30 Sweden * 2.31 Switzerland * 2.32 United Kingdom * 2.33 Uruguay "

Quote :

"# 1 Countries that disallow homosexuals from serving in the military * Cuba * China * Egypt * Greece[1] * Iran * Jamaica * North Korea * Pakistan * Saudi Arabia * Serbia * Singapore * South Korea[2] * Syria * Turkey[3] * Venezuela * Yemen "

Granted no army is parallel to ours exactly, but look at the company we are keeping, and look how many open gay soldiers we already have our troops serving along side every time we work with western allies.

3/22/2010 11:41:04 PM

I disagree that the law couldn't really practically be relaxed.

That said, I have very little problem with openly gay servicemen as long as they are professional and conduct themselves appropriately, and no doubt the vast majority would fall into that category.

I am pretty convinced, though, that there would be a contingent of gays who would be problematic without DADT. I think that it's not really fair to compare us to those other countries, either, because of some peculiarities with our culture relative to those European countries, for example (both regarding homosexuality, as well as our penchant for frivolous litigation and victim mentality/refusal to accept responsibility).

I think that we can tailor the DADT law to maintain good order and discipline within the military, yet have only the most minimal negative impact. I suspect that your issue with that is more of a principle issue--you view the existance of the law in any form as a slap in the face. I get it, and I'm sorry, but I take a pragmatic view of this.

3/22/2010 11:50:51 PM

Quote :

"The guys I've talked to generally have the same concerns, and in that priority order, too. I've seen very little of the backwoods, redneck homophobia you're talking about. It's out there, for sure, but by and large you're selling those kids short. They mostly just don't want people effeminately prancing around, not carrying themselves with professional military bearing, and then crying discrimination when they get their tits hammered for it...and they especially don't want openly homosexual people becoming Marines due to political motivation or agendas--wanting to make a stand or prove a point or whatever. "

Worst case scenario, this is only going to happen during the transitional period, when the gays are happy they got a civil rights victory.

I don't really see though massive amounts of gays signing up to join the military, of all things, just to make a point. That's not really something you joke around with. I also don't really see the media or society crucifying the military if it does turn out that a bunch of pansy gays sign up, don't cut it, then try and cry discrimination.

3/23/2010 12:03:34 AM

While I do find the law objection on the most obvious grounds, I also think it is a waste of resources to kick out linguists, and other well trained servicemen and women. This isn't just an equality issue. When I state that I believe Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach should not be out of a job it is just as much a national defense issue, and the proper use of public funds issue, and a pragmatic issue as anything else. If you really think there will be some gays who will be out of line (which could go for different genders or races or religions or anything), hold them to the rules just as strictly as you would anyone else.

And if your concern is frivolous lawsuits, then aim your efforts towards reform there, but don't support a system that kicks out an aviator we spent 25 million public dollars to train whose record shows he did a damn fine job for his nearly two decades in service.

General Colin Powell who served under Bush, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who served under President Bush and President Obama, Admiral Michael Mullen the highest ranking officer in the United States armed forces, and General David Petraeus who obviously knows a little something about the current conflicts, all agree that DADT needs to be repealed. And the Commander-in-Chief says he supports DADT repeal. I have no doubt that if the Commander-in-Chief signed legislation repealing the DADT law that the armed forces could handle it responsibly.

3/23/2010 12:13:44 AM

True, the transitional period would be the primary concern with that, but that's a legitimate concern, and one that I think can be avoided by just altering the current law.

Footnote: LtCol Fehrenback is the only person I can think of that I've seen get separated from the military for homosexual conduct in the ~6 years I've been in.


Also, I'm less concerned about people joining the military to make a point than I am about a small contingent of people who would've joined anyway acting out (by military standards) to make a point, then playing the discrimination card when they get smacked down. It just has the potential (and fairly likely, in my estimate) to be a real pain in the ass (so to speak).

If this was an either/or proposition, I'd be more sympathetic to repealing DADT, but the reality is that we're not limited to either doing that or strictly maintaining the status quo.

3/23/2010 12:14:03 AM

Quote :

"I also think it is a waste of resources to kick out linguists, and other well trained servicemen and women."

If someone is a problem, I don't give a fuck what language(s) he speaks. That should not enter into the equation.

Quote :

"If you really think there will be some gays who will be out of line (which could go for different genders or races or religions or anything), hold them to the rules just as strictly as you would anyone else."

but see, that's the thing...it doesn't really go for other races/religions/whatever.

(a) they have nothing to prove in the sense that gays do. Nobody in the military gives a shit what race or religion you are.

(b) my concern is what will happen when they are held to the rules as strictly as anyone else (a shitstorm), or worse yet, what will happen when they AREN'T held to the rules as strictly as anyone else (things I've seen on a couple of occasions with women).

Quote :

"General Colin Powell who served under Bush, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who served under President Bush and President Obama, Admiral Michael Mullen the highest ranking officer in the United States armed forces, and General David Petraeus who obviously knows a little something about the current conflicts, all agree that DADT needs to be repealed."

There are names I could drop who take the other side.

Quote :

"I have no doubt that if the Commander-in-Chief signed legislation repealing the DADT law that the armed forces could handle it responsibly."

Agreed, as previously stated.

3/23/2010 12:21:46 AM

Both the version of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act are aimed at a full repeal of DADT combined with a study on how to make it go smoothly. I don't know of any other fixes being seriously consider by the House or the Senate. And with Rep. Patrick Murphy, the first Iraq War veteran to service in congress, leading the way, if anything big happens in the next couple of years relating to DADT, it looks like it will be repeal.

Quote :

"(a) they have nothing to prove in the sense that gays do."

Care to elaborate on what you mean by this? But lets say you are right. Even if you get 1 uppity gay out of every thousand or so soldiers that would have been discharged, and I'm betting military culture will discourage even that from happening often, is that still a bad trade off?

If you want to name drop someone out ranking Admiral Mullen or the Commander-in-Chief, I'd like to hear it. If we want to go broader than individuals, some polls:

"* 73 percent of military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gays (Zogby International, 2006).
* One in four U.S. troops who served in Afghanistan or Iraq knows a member of their unit who is gay (Zogby, 2006).

* Majorities of weekly churchgoers (60 percent), conservatives (58 percent), and Republicans (58 percent) now favor repeal (Gallup, 2009).
* Seventy-five percent of Americans support gays serving openly - up from just 44 percent in 1993 (ABC News/Washington Post, 2008)."

A majority of North Carolinians support repealing DADT according to PPP last month

"Today, there are at least 65,000 gay Americans serving on active duty and one million gay veterans in the United States, according to the Urban Institute."

Better to kick out 500 to 1000+ qualified military personal every year while training thousands more to lie to their superior officers because the integration transition might be rough?

[Edited on March 23, 2010 at 12:41 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2010 12:40:15 AM

Quote :

" is that still a bad trade off?"

It wouldn't be:

Quote :

"If this was an either/or proposition, I'd be more sympathetic to repealing DADT, but the reality is that we're not limited to either doing that or strictly maintaining the status quo."

Quote :

" "* 73 percent of military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gays (Zogby International, 2006). * One in four U.S. troops who served in Afghanistan or Iraq knows a member of their unit who is gay (Zogby, 2006). "

In-line with my aforementioned informal observations.

Quote :

"Better to kick out 500 to 1000+ qualified military personal every year while training thousands more to lie to their superior officers because the integration transition might be rough?"

1. 500-1000 is a very small number.

2. Of those, I'll bet money that a significant number wanted out, and "getting caught being gay" was an easy way to do it (I've only known of one person to get kicked out, but I've heard numerous accounts of "Whatever, shut the fuck up and get back to work...we aren't going to process you for seperation. You aren't getting out of here that easily.")

3. I've already made it clear that I fully support reducing the numbers of people separated for homosexual conduct. I just want to leave the law intact enough to be used in cases where it needs to be brought to bear.

4. I'm not asking that anyone lie to their superiors. Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, remember? There won't be any lying because there won't be any questions, as long as the individual in question holds up his end of the deal.

5. Again, if there wasn't a better alternative, repealing DADT would make sense.

3/23/2010 12:54:02 AM

I guess it comes down to

1) We disagree on whether or not Don't Ask Don't Tell lite would work. I think no, because it was originally intended to be lite and didn't work that way.

2) The Congress isn't considering Don't Ask Don't Tell lite. And the Commander-in-Chief isn't calling for Don't Ask Don't Tell lite. So in a practical sense, I think our only options are full repeal w/ the study on how to ease integration/implementation that is in the MREA, or status quo.

3) We both seem to agree that if the Commander-in-Chief and top military brass ordered a DADT repeal, at the end of the day the military servicemen and women would handle it responsibly and professionally.

I think that ground of sort of agreeing in some areas, and agreeing to disagree in other areas is as close to common ground as we're going to come to, with point 3 probably being the most important.

Not that we have a lot of say about it. I'll probably end up casting my vote for Cunningham, Captain in the United States Army Reserve, or Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, who have both called for an end to DADT, against Burr this fall. And that'll be that.

3/23/2010 1:03:49 AM

Quote :

" I think no, because it was originally intended to be lite and didn't work that way. "

It was lite compared to the days before DADT.

I don't see why we can't tweak it.

Quote :

"The Congress isn't considering Don't Ask Don't Tell lite. And the Commander-in-Chief isn't calling for Don't Ask Don't Tell lite."

That's obvious. Simple politics.

They may not be considering it, at least openly, but it certainly has gotten some consideration at the SECDEF level, for example. If Gates and the Chiefs pushed this, the Congress would be stupid not to make it so.

Actually, I guess I should say that some of what has been proposed is half-assed enforcement of the current law. That's an inferior and subtly different approach than what I'm suggesting.

[Edited on March 23, 2010 at 1:19 AM. Reason : This isn't really a hot button issue for me, though.]

3/23/2010 1:17:47 AM

i'm sorry theduke. but this just sounds bigoted. and you sound like you're ceding to bigoted people. and that's pretty sad because i usually respect your opinion, especially on matters like this.

[Edited on March 23, 2010 at 8:07 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2010 8:06:57 AM

How about Don't Hate, Participate?

3/23/2010 8:31:18 AM

glad to see that he is doing something intelligent for once. Gates is saying that enforcements will pretty much stop

3/26/2010 7:24:54 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36118600/ns/us_news-military/

Quote :

"Hot-bottom issue Obama called for the repeal in his State of the Union speech in January, putting a spotlight on the hot-button issue before congressional elections in November. While the top U.S. military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, has supported repeal, several prominent offices and lawmakers have questioned lifting the ban at a time when the U.S. military is stretched by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Gates, Mullen and other Pentagon chiefs have also roundly opposed congressional calls for a broader moratorium on the 'don't ask, don't tell' law."

Still not corrected as of right now.

Freudian slip?

3/31/2010 3:34:51 PM

^lol

Apparently Senator Hagan discussed publicly today her support for repealing DADT. Not huge news, but she does sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, so its something.

4/14/2010 1:34:37 PM

I saw today that Stain's email is still listed...I wonder if he managed to avoid getting kicked out?

4/14/2010 1:39:47 PM

Senator Hagan today took a step farther than repeating her support for DADT repeal by committing to support the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (MREA).

Right now there are 13 likely Democratic supporters of MREA on the Military Armed Services Committee and 1 likely Republican from Maine which brings us to 14 possible supporters so far. Which means if 1 more of the 12 Republicans on that committee can sign on to this bill, bringing us to the magic number of 15, then it will likely become a provision of the Defense Appropriations bill and DADT will be repealed.

This is one of the reasons why I'd like to see Elaine Marshall, Cal Cunningham, or Ken Lewis who all support DADT repeal as our next Senator from NC instead of Burr who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and opposes DADT repeal because it would make the difference in this kind of situation.

4/16/2010 5:20:56 PM

4/18/2010 6:46:55 PM

In DC today, more servicemen & women chaining themselves to the White House gate (I believe they're being arrested right now):


In CA yesterday:

4/20/2010 1:29:10 PM

More arrests this week because of a sit-in to speak with Senator McCain about DADT repeal.




[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 6:12 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2010 6:09:04 PM

Pelosi announced today that she will move ahead with a DADT repeal vote this year. Obviously not as big of a platform as the President saying repeal it this year at the State of the Union, but its nice to hear it out of a congressional leader since they're the branch that will be voting on it.

4/27/2010 1:23:02 AM

for what it's worth, the air force sent out a base-wide message last week (i'm a contractor at a base) about an anonymous messageboard about the repeal of DADT that all military, gov't and contractor employees of the the AF can respond to. it seems like it's part of their deliberate process of slowly getting people accustomed to the changes that the repeal of DADT will bring and opening up a dialogue without fear of being judged by peers and subordinates or superiors.

[Edited on April 27, 2010 at 1:29 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2010 1:27:39 AM

^I'm glad to hear that. In some ways knowing stuff like that is going on makes me believe that the repeal of this particular regulation is more likely than anything elected officials could say.

The pressure is still being kept up on elected officials though, not only with public arrests of servicemen and women or other DADT repeal supporters every week or so, but also by more direct attempts at lobbying the representatives:





There are other groups delivering tons of toy soldiers to elected officials offices as visual reminders while holding press conferences outside their offices to draw attention to the issue, there are are some organizing a letters to the president series from discharged servicemen and women. Even the American Bar Association has issued a press release yesterday calling for the repeal of DADT.

All these groups are pushing for DADT repeal to be a part of the Defense Authorization Bill, because 1) that is the only place it will pass, and 2) that is the same bill that created DADT

I'm stealing this time line from dailykos on the Defense Authorization Bill:

Quote :

"WHY THE NEXT 30 DAYS IS A CRITICAL: • Servicemember's Legal Defense Network and other coalition voices are urging the President to include repeal in the Administration's defense budget recommendations, but also to voice his support as we work to muster the 15 critical votes needed on the Senate Armed Services Committee to include repeal. • The House and Senate Armed Services Committees will markup the Defense Authorization bill in a few short weeks. • The Defense Authorization bill represents our best legislative vehicle to bringing repeal to the president's desk. It also was the same vehicle used to pass DADT in 1993. LAYOUT FOR REPEAL / HOUSE AND SENATE TRACKS: • Sen. Mark Udall told the Denver Post the committee was "within a vote or two" of including repeal in the Defense Authorization bill. Udall is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. • Rep. Jared Polis, who holds a key position on the House Rules Committee, told the Denver Post he is willing to help insert a similar provision in the House version of the Defense Authorization bill with the help of Rep. Patrick Murphy, who is the lead sponsor of the House repeal bill. EXPECTED CALENDAR DATES: • The House Armed Services Committee markup of the Defense Authorization bill is expected May 19. • The Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the Defense Authorization bill is expected the week of May 26."

4/27/2010 1:07:54 PM

Quote :

""We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted.""

Pelosi has decided to go a step further than saying vote on repeal this year by calling on the President to end DADT dismissals until the repeal is official. She put this statement on her website on the eve of the next big protest at the White House. Some of the speakers for tomorrows protest will include Capt. Jim Pietrangelo II, Lt. Robin Chaurasiya, Cpl. Evelyn Thomas, Spc. Jarrod Chlapowski, Lt. Dan Choi, Maj. Mike Almy, Capt. Tanya Domi, Cpl. Brett Edward Stout, Sgt. Brian Fricke, and Sgt. Justin Elzie.

If the President followed Pelosi's advice it would effectively end DADT immediately. And then congress could follow up legislatively so that it couldn't be easily reinstated by the next president.

5/1/2010 7:09:49 PM

More people chaining themselves the to white house fence to keep the arrests every week thing going.

Howard Dean joins in:

5/2/2010 6:14:24 PM

I hope the fence chaining incidents don't backfire. I'm personally very uncomfortable with this method to get attention.

5/2/2010 7:39:29 PM

Any event that hasn't included fence chaining hasn't really broken into the MSM. The events just end up on blogs and tweets otherwise. Given the key dates this month for repeal to be include in the Defense Authorization bill it is critical to keep the pressure up now. And I mean its not like they are holding an armed rally as close as they legal can to the nationals capital on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing or anything. Given the Tea Party type protests out there right now this is pretty mild stuff, but just edgy enough to get a little coverage.

5/2/2010 8:09:07 PM

SECDEF and JCS just advised Congress not to repeal DADT until military review is completed. My guess is that pretty much puts this thing dead in the water until then.

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM. Reason : ]

5/3/2010 11:12:23 AM

I do not see what the issue of DADT is. You are in the military to do a job, not to brag about playing buttdarts with some stud you met at the gay dance club while on leave a week before.

Nobody is saying "don't be gay." I thought the intent is solely to say "do not talk about it." I would imagine this would be in one's benefit anyway given the homephobic attitude of a lot of people. I could see how being the "gay guy" in one's squad, could be a liability if your unit is stuck in the middle of a fire fight in a war zone.

5/3/2010 11:26:57 AM

^ Explain that to the majority straight folks that will do exactly what you suggested, except about that hot number in the red dress or whatever. Look, people are gonna talk about whatever they're gonna talk about. The point has nothing to do with talking about who's snogging who. It's about the basic need to be honest about oneself. The military requires gay men and women who serve their country to voluntarily give up the homosexual aspects of their lives, for fear of being "outed" and discharged. That standard does not apply to heterosexuals. And I'm not talking about enforced celibacy during deployments and whatnot.

The standard being enforced for homosexuals in the military is, in effect, "we appreciate your service, but we don't like this one aspect about you. Suppress it."

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 11:37 AM. Reason : .]

5/3/2010 11:35:45 AM

people are asked to suppress and change a lot of things when they join the military....seeing their families, living where they want to live, keeping classified information secret, hair styles, physical appearance, what clothes they wear....etc...




you are in the military by choice. it is not something you sign up for in order to express your "individuality." I have no problem with the rule as long as it is applied evenly.

5/3/2010 12:08:36 PM

The suppression isn't enforced evenly.

Under DADT, to remain in the service:
* A gay serviceman has to hide that he went to a gay bar, whereas a straight serviceman does not have to hide that he went to a bar.
* A gay serviceman has to hide that he has a boyfriend, whereas a straight serviceman does not have to hide his girlfriend.
* A gay serviceman has to live in fear that anything he does to act on his homosexual nature could get reported.


Homosexuals in the armed forces aren't merely asked to keep it in their pants. They're asked to suppress it altogether, even when they aren't on a base or on duty.

5/3/2010 12:18:44 PM

so they have been asked to keep their sexual preferences to themselves. while I have no evidence to support it, I bet a lot of gays in the military would choose to keep it to themselves were it not required anyway.

again, a lot of your individuality is implicitly forfeit once you join the military for the duration of your service. it is nothing new.

5/3/2010 1:11:28 PM

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/03/13/today-in-un-american-activities

Quote :

"Police in Rapid City, South Dakota, looked through the window of a home and spotted an Iowa marriage license sitting on the kitchen table. They were at the home to serve an arrest warrant to one of two women who lived there. The other woman who lived in the home—a woman who wasn't wanted for anything—happened to be a sergeant in the Air Force. The Air Force sergeant wasn't in trouble with the law, the sergeant hadn't broken any laws, her marriage license and her military career had no bearing on the case. But the Rapid City police officers—just for shits and giggles—let the Air Force know about the Iowa marriage license and Sgt. Jene Newsome's nine-year military career is over."

5/3/2010 1:21:00 PM

Quote :

"so they have been asked to keep their sexual preferences to themselves"

Not exactly. If a gay soldier is off base on his or her free time, on a date perhaps, and is spotted holding hands maybe, he or she can be reported and fired under DADT.

5/3/2010 1:23:45 PM

Waiting "until military review is completed" likely means December of this year instead of somewhere in summer/fall. And my understanding of said review it is about how to proceed with removing DADT rather than whether or not to remove it. But if the argument has basically come down to should we repeal it in the next 2 to 5 months, or should we repeal it in the next 6 to 9 months then it hardly seems like much of an argument is left at all.

5/3/2010 1:32:46 PM

Quote :

"Not exactly. If a gay soldier is off base on his or her free time, on a date perhaps, and is spotted holding hands maybe, he or she can be reported and fired under DADT."

well things like this and the article posted above are examples of ridiculousness that I definitely agree have no place.

5/3/2010 1:39:28 PM

Quote :

"They're asked to suppress it altogether, even when they aren't on a base or on duty."

I think that, if kept, the policy could be enforced in better ways, but to be fair, everything he listed in the post above yours is "suppressed" off base and off duty, too. The only real difference is that if you get caught out in town wearing torn up jeans, you might have some negative consequences, but you won't get kicked out.

Quote :

"Police in Rapid City, South Dakota, looked through the window of a home and spotted an Iowa marriage license sitting on the kitchen table. They were at the home to serve an arrest warrant to one of two women who lived there. The other woman who lived in the home—a woman who wasn't wanted for anything—happened to be a sergeant in the Air Force. The Air Force sergeant wasn't in trouble with the law, the sergeant hadn't broken any laws, her marriage license and her military career had no bearing on the case. But the Rapid City police officers—just for shits and giggles—let the Air Force know about the Iowa marriage license and Sgt. Jene Newsome's nine-year military career is over."

If that's all there is to the story, then that's fucked. That's the kind of enforcement of the policy that I have a problem with. People shouldn't be punished when they're holding up their end of the deal.

Quote :

"and is spotted holding hands maybe, he or she can be reported and fired under DADT."

While this kind of thing probably can happen, and I have a problem with it when it does, it is by far the exception rather than the rule. Stuff like this would normally get squashed at the lowest level--i.e., not acted on.

5/3/2010 1:40:42 PM

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/Mike-Almy/

Quote :

"During my career, I deployed to the Middle East four times. In my last deployment, I led a team of nearly 200 men and women to operate and maintain the systems used to control the air space over Iraq. We came under daily mortar attacks, one of which struck one of my Airmen and also caused significant damage to our equipment. Towards the end of this deployment to Iraq, I was named one of the top officers in my career field for the entire Air Force. In the stress of a war zone, the Air Force authorized us to use our work email accounts for “personal or morale purposes” because private email accounts were blocked for security. Shortly after I left Iraq -- during a routine search of my computer files -- someone found that my “morale” was supported by the person I loved -- a man. The email -- our modern day letter home -- was forwarded to my commander. I was relieved of my duties, my security clearance was suspended and part of my pay was terminated. In my discharge proceeding, several of my former troops wrote character reference letters for me, including one of my squadron commanders. Their letters expressed their respect for me as an officer, their hope to have me back on the job and their shock at how the Air Force was treating me. Approximately a year after I was relieved of my duties, my Wing Commander recommended I be promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, even though the Air Force was actively pursuing my discharge. But instead, after 16 months, I was given a police escort off the base as if I were a common criminal or a threat to national security. The severance pay I received was half of what it would have been had I been separated for any other reason. Despite this treatment, my greatest desire is still to return to active duty as an officer and leader in the United States Air Force, protecting the freedoms of a nation that I love; freedoms that I myself was not allowed to enjoy while serving in the military. "

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-former-navy-petty-officer-third-class-jose/

Quote :

"Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to. They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission of homosexuality."

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-lcpl.-danny-hernandez-usmc-separated/

Quote :

"My discharge came from the fear that my sexual orientation was going to be revealed by a third party; a group of unknown Marines who threatened to use my sexuality as a way to retaliate after a dispute in a bar. I had spoken with two fellow Marines from my unit; both of whom I trusted. They calmed me, told me that it wasn’t a big deal, and reassured me that everything was going to be fine. I returned to drill only to find out that the two Marines – the Marines I confided in -- had mentioned it and word had reached my 1st Sergeant and Commanding Officer. They told the two Marines to submit written statements detailing everything I had told them. When I walked in to my 1st Sergeant's office the first question out of his mouth was, "Are you gay?" I answered honestly. The investigation was now underway."

5/3/2010 6:13:23 PM

5/8/2010 4:23:42 PM

Quote :

"Actually, "looser enforcement" isn't really what I want--I don't like to "fix" laws by not enforcing them...I should say that I'd like to see the policy itself relaxed, but not done away with entirely. "

And exactly how could the policy be relaxed? Either you let people admit that they're gay or you don't, unless I'm missing something. Although from the rest of your post it seems like you and your guys have a sort of hard-to-define policy of "Kicking out the mincing, prancing faggots, leaving in the gay guys who you could never tell in a million years are gay if they hadn't told you so."

Quote :

"It's more of an issue of maintaining good order and discipline"

Sure. I don't understand why you think gays would be held to a special standard here. If any of their actions cause a breakdown in order and discipline, they can be punished or separated for those actions. It doesn't matter if those actions are related to their homosexuality or not. And as you've said yourself, you've already got gays in there with you who presumably aren't causing a problem in these regards.

Quote :

"They mostly just don't want people effeminately prancing around, not carrying themselves with professional military bearing, and then crying discrimination when they get their tits hammered for it..."

Is military training that different from what we all think, that people can just prance around like dandies without being disciplined into submission? Presumably every now and then a minority walks around without military bearing and gets, as you say, his tits hammered for it. How often to they sue? I'm just not sure that gays would be any more likely to cry discrimination than the next guy who doesn't like getting yelled at. I'm also pretty confident that you won't get a lot of prancing dandies who say, "The Marines, now that's for me"

And you say I'm selling these guys short, then you tell me that they apparently think gays in the military will twirl about like ballerinas.

5/10/2010 2:27:55 PM

Quote :

"Recruiter: Now, are either of you homosexuals? Winger: You mean, like, flaming, or... Recruiter: Well, it's a standard question we have to ask. Ziskey: No, we're not homosexual, but we are *willing to learn*. Winger: Yeah, would they send us someplace special? "

5/10/2010 11:25:09 PM

Quote :

"Port Washington High School graduate Sara Isaacson worked for the past eight years toward the goal of becoming an Army doctor like her grandfather. She said she knew she was giving up that dream when she made the decision in January to tell the leader of her Army ROTC program that she is a lesbian. The University of North Carolina senior's decision might also cost her $79,265.14 - the price of seven semesters of out-of-state tuition, books and others expenses, all paid for by an Army ROTC scholarship. Isaacson, 21, said she thought the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was unfair years before she realized she was a lesbian and realized she had the option of hiding her sexual orientation. But she said misleading others would go against the Army's values. "It really came down to my integrity," she said. "That was the most important thing to me." Lt. Col. Monte Yoder, the head of North Carolina's ROTC program, said the Army is losing a "great young American" because of Isaacson's decision to hand him a letter formally declaring her sexuality. He said he gave Isaacson a chance to withdraw her letter - a step he could take because Isaacson isn't technically in the military, Yoder said. "She could have served if she wanted to," he said, adding that Isaacson's decision to present the letter meant "she didn't want to be part of the ROTC anymore.""

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/92524619.html

5/13/2010 7:10:08 PM

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-a-soldier-returning-to-baghdad/

Quote :

"Mr. President, my unit is extremely undermanned. We're working around the clock in Baghdad. My commander informed me that the Army cannot afford to lose me. I was told that they would prepare my discharge paperwork, "stick it in a Manila envelope, and keep it in a desk -- for now." One moment they wanted to throw me out and the next they are hiding evidence to keep me in. My comrades now know that I am gay, and they do not treat me any differently. Work runs as smoothly as ever, and frankly the only difference I see -- besides my pending job loss -- is that I am free of the burden of having to constantly watch my words and ensure my lies are believable. Having this out in the open makes things a bit less stressful. But it's also clear the Army is only keeping me around until they are done with me. After I have served my two deployments -- and only a year shy of separating from the military honorably -- I suspect they will kick me to the street. It's bad enough that there is a law that denies tens of thousands of service members from serving with integrity, but it's even worse when such a law is carried out with such inconsistency, without any warning of when it might come down. If my suspicions are true, my discharge will move forward after my deployment. I am good enough to serve in war, but not at peace?"

5/14/2010 12:57:13 PM