Quote :

"President Obama pledged during his presidential campaign to end the military’s ban on gays serving openly, otherwise known as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. The president has been in office for over a hundred days and the armed forces continue to fire gays and lesbians who violate the military’s policy on serving openly as a homosexual. Lt. Dan Choi of the New York National Guard is an Iraq War veteran and a West Point graduate. He also happens to speak fluent Arabic. Choi received a letter of discharge from the Army for “homosexual conduct.” His firing comes after he came out in March along with 37 other West Point graduates in a group called Knights Out. Lt. Choi joined Carol Costello on CNN’s “American Morning” Friday. He acknowledges he made the choice to publicly admit his sexuality. “I publicly admitted who I was. I refused to lie and to hide my identity. And because of that, they said, it doesn’t matter that you graduated from West Point. It doesn’t matter that you’re fluent in Arabic. It doesn’t matter that you went to Iraq and that you want to deploy again. Pack your stuff and go home. You’re fired.” The Department of the Army’s discharge letter to Choi states, “This is to inform you that sufficient basis exists to initiate action for withdrawal of Federal Recognition in the Army National Guard for moral or professional dereliction… You admitted publicly that you are a homosexual which constitutes homosexual conduct… Your actions negatively affected the good order and discipline of the New York Army National Guard.” Choi says the letter was a “big slap in the face.” “I raised my right hand and said I want to serve. My commander in chief is going to send 21,000 troops overseas. I want to be one of those… Basically, by me saying I am gay, they’re saying that that ruined the good order and discipline of the entire New York Army National Guard, which is very ridiculous. From what I’ve seen, my unit has been very professional. I’m very proud of my unit. They respect all soldiers for what they can do as members of their team.” The White House has not yet commented on Choi’s case, but their website’s statement on the policy currently reads: “He [President Obama] supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security.” This is a change from what the website previously stated in April, which was ”President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.” Since the passage of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 1993, more than 12,500 men and women have been discharged from the military under the law."

Translators, especially those who speak Arabic, are in such high demand that it pisses me off to no end that people like this are being dismissed from the military.

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/08/dont-ask-dont-tell-continues-under-obama/

5/8/2009 3:11:32 PM

i posted this in another thread, but since you've got a dedicated DADT thread now:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/a-soldier-fights-back.html


SUMMARY (remembered off the top of my head from a few hours ago):
it's a vid from the rachel maddow show where choi is interviewed. they also talk about a woman who recently came out and got discharged from the military. she sent obama a letter about the ordeal asking him to repeal dadt, he replied with a hand-written note saying that he was still in favor of repealing DADT, but that it might take a little bit of time because it has to go through the legislature.

they then had a congressman on who is trying to spearhead this effort in the house and he is fairly optimistic about the prospects of DADT being repealed this year in the congress.

5/8/2009 3:34:43 PM

It kind of sucks that it is the policy, but it is indeed the policy and it would be wrong of the military not to enforce it. If you have policies and then overlook them when someone blatantly goes against them, what does that say about your organization and other policies it puts in place. Whether or not the policy needs to be changed is an obvious point of debate.

I have been in the military for twelve years, in a job that is restricted solely for men. There have been a couple cases where two guys have gotten caught in compromising situations, and I can say that it was very distracting for the crew as a whole, so the policy is not totally without merit.

5/8/2009 3:41:39 PM

Quote :

"Choi says the letter was a “big slap in the face.” "

I won't argue that.

I will argue that when the order is pretty clear, and if you go out of your way to thumb your nose at it and make a point, that's a slap in the face to your commanders, and when they do exactly what they are supposed to do, you have no right to whine about it.

Furthermore, if you're that damned serious about your service, you wouldn't pick a time of war when your specialty is in particularly high demand to choose to dive on the political grenade.

Finally, nobody except for fellow West Pointers cares in the least that you graduated from West Point.

5/8/2009 3:43:48 PM

i won't argue that his commanders were doing exactly what they were supposed to do. but i think could turn your point around and say that if the congress cares so much about the security of their country, why grasp onto this antiquated notion of don't ask don't tell?

turning away people who want to serve their country (and are qualified and ready to do so) is the ultimate stupidity in all of this.

not to mention, this guy is making this point now specifically because it is important that he serve right now. i think he is trying to help move the process of repealing don't ask don't tell along.

[Edited on May 8, 2009 at 3:56 PM. Reason : .]

5/8/2009 3:54:44 PM

^ I think you're right about him making a point.

I know it's a TV show, but there was an episode of West Wing when the Chairman of the joint chiefs walked into a meeting about repealing this. The military guys that were there, and a few congressman said that they felt it would disrupt the unit. The chairman (who was black) responded along the lines of "they wouldn't let me in the military because they thought it would disrupt the unit"

I just think it's a valid point is all.

5/8/2009 4:01:02 PM

But the fact remains it is the policy. The military has other avenues to go about things if you disagree with a policy/order, but I can assure you simply ignoring it and doing what you want is not one of those avenues.

When you join the military you sign a contract. You give up a lot of your liberties and rights as an American. I can't tell you how many times I have heard, "We are here to protect democracy, not practice it," but it is the truth.

And like I said before, the policy is not totally antiquated. I really don't know if I am for or against open homosexuality in the military, but it can without a doubt cause a disruptance.

5/8/2009 4:01:05 PM

Quote :

"I will argue that when the order is pretty clear, and if you go out of your way to thumb your nose at it and make a point, that's a slap in the face to your commanders, and when they do exactly what they are supposed to do, you have no right to whine about it."

Sounds like you know more about the circumstances than what the article details. How exactly did he go out of his way to expose his nature?

5/8/2009 4:03:53 PM

(he went on the rachel maddow show and outed himself on national television)

5/8/2009 4:18:01 PM

Quote :

"I really don't know if I am for or against open homosexuality in the military, but it can without a doubt cause a disruptance."

i think that our soldiers are professional enough to handle it. also, i'm sure it's more of a disruptance to have to deal with having to feel like you've got to live a lie just to serve your country if you are gay.

5/8/2009 4:24:48 PM

He went on the show before he was discharged? That is quite douchebaggish.

5/8/2009 4:25:45 PM

he was in the national guard at the time, yes. and i don't call standing up for what you believe and being willing to take the consequences for your actions as being "douchebaggish".

5/8/2009 4:32:12 PM

THIS POLICY IS HATEFUL AND WRONG, BUT WE MUST ENFORCE IT!!

5/8/2009 4:45:15 PM

Quote :

"This is a change from what the website previously stated in April"

Not to defend the administration too much, I think they've been pretty slack on this, but they apparently did a lot of revision to their website around this time from to transform their website from that of campaign to that of a a sitting government official & they streamlined a lot of it.

Quote :

"Major Tate: "Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals." Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: "You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?" Tate: "No sir, I don't." Fitzwallace: "'Cause they impose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion." Tate: "Yes, sir." Fitzwallace: "That's what I think, too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change." Tate: "Yes, sir." Fitzwallace: "The problem with that is, that's what they were saying about me 50 years ago. 'Blacks shouldn't serve with whites. It would disrupt the unit.' You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... beat that with a stick.""

Someone referenced this scene, just to flesh it out.


Since the Rachel Maddow stuff was discussed, here is the clip from yesterday about it.


Other countries' militaries can function without banning people based on not lying about sexual orientation, and I think in the long term the US military will find a way to do so as well.

5/8/2009 6:09:11 PM

(that's exactly the clip that i linked to in the second post)

5/8/2009 6:19:28 PM

DADT is stupid. I may have said otherwise, years ago, on this site; if so, I apologize profoundly for having done so. It's time for the policy to end. The people in uniform can live with whatever initially uncomfortable changes come about, and the military as a whole needs every competent person it can get its hands on.

If my (admittedly brief) career with ROTC on State's campus taught me anything, it was that most people don't give a shit. If you protect your buddy in combat, they don't care if you're queerer than a 13 dollar bill.

[Edited on May 8, 2009 at 6:25 PM. Reason : f not n]

5/8/2009 6:23:54 PM

^^I've become too spoiled/lazy, I don't really click on links to videos on other sites any more. If I can't play it in tdub, I usually don't watch it

5/8/2009 6:30:59 PM

Quote :

"i think that our soldiers are professional enough to handle it. also, i'm sure it's more of a disruptance to have to deal with having to feel like you've got to live a lie just to serve your country if you are gay."

It's nice that you think that. However, having served in the military for 12 years now, I have a lot of empirical evidence that directly contradicts this.

I have served on several submarines with crews of 150 men. Am I naive enough to think that none of these men were gay or bisexual? Not at all. However, most were mature enough to put these feelings aside and not let it interfere with their performance on the job. (In other words they did not ask and they did not tell.... they kept their private lives and military obligations separate, like the military requires).

There were a few cases where sailors were caught or admitted to fooling around with eachother while out to sea. This is totally unacceptable and is the whole premise of the policy. The military does not prohibit you from being gay, they simply prohibit you from doing it openly, especially while in a duty status.

It's not just homosexuality either. Men are not allowed to engage in anal sex with women either. It might be a dumb policy, but like I said, in the military, you lose many of the rights and priveleges that you defend.

I know a lot of people are posting that they "think" blatant homosexuality won't cause any issues, but the fact is, it will. I have seen it and it does. I definitely try to appreciate other opinions, but while most of you are speculating as to what you think based on... who knows what, I am giving you facts based on experience. Comparing a few months in ROTC or even 4 years in ROTC to the actual military is somewhat laughable too. It's like comparing playing JV high school football to the NFL....

5/8/2009 7:52:34 PM

Quote :

"with women either"

Yeah, but you can at least admit you've had sex with a women 5 years ago & not get in trouble, or admit that you have a wife and not get kicked out.

5/8/2009 8:20:32 PM

where do you bunk a gay male/female?

5/8/2009 8:58:38 PM

while it is a bit of a fucked up political move by a guy in uniform it is a policy position that needs to change RIGHT FUCKING NOW

government discrimination based on sexual preference is just wrong

plain and simple

5/8/2009 9:53:10 PM

FeebleMinded

Thank you for your service.

Had you been a southern white male in the navy 50 or 100 years ago, do you think you would have said the same sorts of things about black sailors serving alongside yourself? That is, actually serving, not just working in the mess hall to feed you crappy food. Because I think you probably would have said the same kind of things. I think that, had I been a navy man, I would have as well.

Just like back then, if there were a change that involved putting something different and uncomfortable on your ship -- in this case, gays rather than blacks -- you would initially oppose it. For a while. Ultimately, one of two things would happen...

Either you'd never be able to deal with it, and thus would not be able to function properly in the military, or...

You'd get the fuck over it and continue serving your country.

One of these makes you a good guy. The other makes you, frankly, kind of a dick. There's no level of experience necessary to know that much.

---

That said -- Maintaining an effectively asexual military environment is important. You don't want people in that situation developing special emotional attachments to one another that might affect their judgment. Ideally, at least, people in the Navy/Army/Air Force should not be doing one another for that reason. But to draw a specific line at homosexual relations is, ultimately, going to serve primarily to eliminate qualified personnel from their jobs.

---

Edit: I understand that the military has an obligation to follow its orders and policies, and so I don't blame them for following DADT. But the administration has an opportunity to let competent people back into the military by overturning it.

[Edited on May 8, 2009 at 10:10 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2009 9:53:56 PM

Anyone interested in debating whether gays could serve openly in the military without disrupting the service should definitely read RAND's 1993 report on the subject, "Sexual Orientation and US Military Personnel Policy." It was commissioned by the Clinton administration, but the release of the report was somewhat mishandled politically, such that by the time it was finally released, Congress had already proposed the DADT policy as a compromise and it had already gained political traction.

It's an extremely comprehensive study, however, that covers the topic of homosexuality in the military from nearly every angle conceivable. It goes far beyond any wealth of anecdotal evidence about how gays are handled in the military now or previously, and rigorously approaches the question of what service would be like under different policies. Their conclusion was simply that sexuality in any form should not be considered germane in determining eligibility for military service. They also drafted proposed standards of conduct under a policy that does not consider sexuality as part of military service, and an implementation plan for how best to make the transition.

At the same time that RAND was working on it, a blue-ribbon panel of officers in the Army also conducted a similar study of their own on the topic. While it was significantly shorter (<100 pages compared to over 500), the Army itself generally arrived at the same conclusions. DADT was adopted because it was more politically popular than making a clean break from the ban on gays at the time, but both organizations agreed that making sexuality not germane to military service was the appropriate policy decision.

Full disclosure--I'm biased since I work at RAND, but the report is a highly exemplary piece of policy research. All but one appendix from the report is available at the link below for anyone interested in reading it.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/

5/8/2009 11:36:39 PM

We had a kid here (Korea) straight out of basic pretty much, decide he didn't like the military, goes up to the Chief and go "Sir, I'm gay"...was gone in 2 weeks.

The only reason I see gays being allowed in the military is bad thing is god only knows the quality of the AFN commercials and all the SARC briefings we'd have to endure.

5/9/2009 12:02:32 AM

no one knows what that means

5/9/2009 1:15:44 AM

message_topic.aspx?topic=528301

BTW, Obama doesn't support gay marriage, either. But I don't hear Perez Hilton, Sean Penn, and all the other far-left loons giving him shit about it.

5/9/2009 1:27:19 AM

who gives a fuck what sean penn and some blogger think or say

[Edited on May 9, 2009 at 1:33 AM. Reason : .]

5/9/2009 1:32:49 AM

^^ It's not really relevant what you hear (or choose to hear).

^ exactly

AFAIK, no one has cited either of those people in this thread.

5/9/2009 1:35:34 AM

^^ and ^ Nearly 37 million people in the United States and millions more around the world watched Sean Penn call Obama an "elegant man" and imply that Bush was inelegant, while completely ignoring Obama's lack of support--and that of his Democratic predecessors--for gay marriage. In addition, millions of people also watched the Miss USA pageant, read/watched the flamboyant Perez Hilton's blog/vlog, and have watched the controversy surrounding Carrie Prejean's honest answer to an unfair question grow out of proportion--while Obama is held blameless for exactly the same position.

If you don't think the controversy at issue and the remarks concerning gay marriage by the celebrities I mentioned matter, you simply haven't been paying attention. Or perhaps you simply don't want to deal with the facts.

Whatever your reasoning, my reasoning is sound: Obama has punted on DADT and gay marriage, yet some still swoon over him. I would simply ask, why?

[Edited on May 9, 2009 at 1:59 AM. Reason : .]

5/9/2009 1:57:12 AM

This is not a thread about gay marriage. It is a thread about the don't ask, don't tell policy.

These are different things.

This thread does not and should not give a twopenny damn about marriage issues.

[Edited on May 9, 2009 at 2:24 AM. Reason : d not t]

5/9/2009 2:03:47 AM

Quote :

"Obama has punted on DADT and gay marriage, yet some still swoon over him. I would simply ask, why?"

^ Happy now?

5/9/2009 2:08:25 AM

Not even remotely.

Quote :

"BTW, Obama doesn't support gay marriage, either. But I don't hear Perez Hilton, Sean Penn, and all the other far-left loons giving him shit about it."

Quote :

"Nearly 37 million people in the United States and millions more around the world watched Sean Penn call Obama an "elegant man" and imply that Bush was inelegant, while completely ignoring Obama's lack of support--and that of his Democratic predecessors--for gay marriage."

Quote :

"In addition, millions of people also watched the Miss USA pageant (which, as far as I know, referred to gay marriage but not, substantially, DADT)"

Quote :

"If you don't think the controversy at issue and the remarks concerning gay marriage by the celebrities I mentioned matter, you simply haven't been paying attention."

I see four references to gay marriage, and one to DADT.

[Edited on May 9, 2009 at 2:15 AM. Reason : and that seemed like an afterthought]

5/9/2009 2:13:30 AM

^ I was simply looking at the larger picture concerning gay-related issues, and Obama continually being held blameless as it relates to these issues. In any event, you're not likely to be made "remotely" happy or otherwise happy by me under any circumstances, are you, DrunkyGOP?

5/9/2009 2:24:08 AM

We have agreed in the past. I seem to recall as much from a PM from yourself. And I much prefer DrunkyGOP to FrumpyGOP. No matter how frumpy I may be, I am far more drunk.

But in this case, you seem to have attempted to derail a thread which was already expressly about Obama not doing things he said he would do with regards to gay rights. But, instead of sticking with what the thread was about -- that is, the DADT policy -- you have consistently tried to drive it into the territory of gay marriage, which I assume you think is more politically profitable. At least, I hope that's the case, because otherwise you're just fucking stupid.

5/9/2009 2:30:10 AM

5/9/2009 2:30:11 AM

^^

Quote :

"I was simply looking at the larger picture concerning gay-related issues, and Obama continually being held blameless as it relates to these issues."

hooksaw

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I happen to think, however, that my position can fit within this thread--but what if I agree not to mention Obama's lack of support for gay marriage and the pass he gets on this anymore (for now)?

BTW, I wish you'd lighten up a bit. In case you haven't noticed, I'm trying to do better about sticking to the issues and not going after people personally (I was just kidding with the DrunkyGOP based on info in one of your PMs)--but I don't know how long hooksaw's Kindness Campaign III will last (or if I'll even stay here after my latest 90-day hiatus).

[Edited on May 9, 2009 at 2:40 AM. Reason : PS: "with regards to" ]

5/9/2009 2:39:08 AM

also

Quote :

"President Obama pledged during his presidential campaign to end the military’s ban on gays serving openly, otherwise known as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell."

if you're serving openly, then you've told

5/9/2009 2:39:18 AM

^ A bit of a contradiction in terms, yes? I actually understand Obama putting off dealing with DADT--he simply doesn't want to get the Bill Clinton treatment, which I remember well. It bogged down his presidency early on and caused a lot of hard feelings.

Believe it or not, I think Obama is smart to delay reforming or removing DADT--and I happen to think that it's time that gays could and probably should serve openly in the military. My main point is that I think large parts of Obama's constituency expected more movement on DADT (and other gay-related issues) and they simply haven't gotten what they want--and what they were probably promised.

5/9/2009 2:46:50 AM

hooksaw

The problem with bringing gay marriage, even in the context of showing Obama's hypocrisy, is that it

a) Serves to belabor the point
b) Refers to an issue which is fundamentally different from the one at hand
c) Diverts the topic into another which is far more contentious, given that "gays in the military" has received far less coverage from either side than "gay marriage" in the recent past
d) Diverts the topic of a federal issue into a subject that many, many people think should be a state decision

As for me lightening up -- I'm not taking this thread terribly seriously. Sometimes it's harder (for me) than others to get that point across. But generally, there are very, very few things on the wolfweb that I actually worry myself over.

And nobody needs a PM to realize that I'm drunk -- that's consistently been the case since early 2005, when I went from being a teetotaler to being intoxicated all the time.

You do seem to have been better about not attacking posters personally, and it shows.

[Edited on May 9, 2009 at 2:54 AM. Reason : sleepy time now, response tomorrow]

5/9/2009 2:51:57 AM

Quote :

"^ A bit of a contradiction in terms, yes?"

probably... derek dodge needs to figure out what he's writing, because it doesn't make sense

if it's "don't ask don't tell", then he who has told, has told

but i agree with you, prof. dalton

if you want to take up a gun for america, then you should be able to do so

5/9/2009 2:59:18 AM

^^ Oh, Drunky. You're so dreamy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiGPQVUJqq0

^ You, too, marko.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZs61VCJvTg

TUGJOBS ALL AROUND!

[Edited on May 9, 2009 at 3:11 AM. Reason : PS: "[B]ut i agree with you, prof. dalton"--not yet, not yet! ]

5/9/2009 3:04:36 AM

Obama has been called out for going slow on DADT & other issues by gay community. HRC, PFLAG, & other groups have sent letters & done petitions & e-mail campaigns. Bloggers complain about it all the time. I've seen complaints on Dailykos, on pamshouseblend.com (a nationally followed lgbt blog run out of Durham), on BlueNC.com & elsewhere. I guess it depends on what blogs you follow & listserves you're on, but Obama is not being given a free ride by any means. That said at least repealing DADT is on his to do list, I don't think we would have had the same luck with McCain. Sure a Kucinich or a Gravel might have had a more immediate desire to repeal it, but I think they would have had significantly less political capital to do so, not to mention they weren't particularly electable in the first place.

While a lot of people aren't cool with Obama going slow on repealing DADT, I think everyone understands the situation could be a lot worse.


Just saw this as I was looking at CNN's website, I haven't actually watched the video yet b/c I'm at work & don't have speakers on these computers, but it might be relevant. At the very least posting it here will remind me to watch it later:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/05/08/tsr.crowley.obama.gay.rights.cnn

[Edited on May 9, 2009 at 9:25 AM. Reason : .]

5/9/2009 9:09:04 AM

Quote :

"Obama has punted on DADT and gay marriage, yet some still swoon over him. I would simply ask, why? "

Haha, right...

The "why" is fairly obvious. Either you're not capable of seeing why, or you choose not to.

5/9/2009 10:24:47 AM

THEY'RE ALL GAY FOR HIM, THAT'S WHY

5/9/2009 10:26:39 AM

The military, like the general population, has its fair share of homophobes. For that reason, I can see why a DADT policy makes sense. I can easily think of situations where a person being openly gay may cause problems for that person, or the people serving alongside them. It doesn't make it right, but it is a reality.

What actually needs to happen is a greater societal shift in opinion, where people come to the realization that gay people are just normal people. That's not something that will come about through policy changes. While I'd like to say that individuals should simply use good judgment in choosing when and where to discuss their sexuality, I know that it's a little more complicated than that.

5/9/2009 4:00:01 PM

The military, like the general population, has its fair share of racists. For that reason, I can see why a segregationist policy makes sense. I can easily think of situations where a person being black may cause problems for that person, or the people serving alongside them. It doesn't make it right, but it is a reality.

5/9/2009 4:08:34 PM

Question to our friends in the military in this thread:

The media touches on stories of people breaking the "Don't Tell" rule often enough, but do you ever see or hear about enforcement for breaking the "Don't Ask" portion of the policy?

If people are getting discharged for Telling, I'd hope that there at least are some sort of reprimands for Asking... certainly not to the degree of a discharge, since that would be totally impractical, but at least some form of reprisal would be welcome (for the sake of logical consistency if nothing else).

5/9/2009 4:13:57 PM

^^Yeah, it really is the same thing. My only point is that there's some function to the policy; it's there to prevent possible discrimination/conflict. I'd be fine with doing away with it entirely, and if sexuality comes up, it comes up. People will learn to deal with it eventually, military personnel included.

5/9/2009 4:19:17 PM

get rid of it. if there are pussies in the military who won't serve with gays, kick them out. they probably couldn't defend shit, anyway

5/10/2009 1:25:01 AM

Quote :

"but it can without a doubt cause a disruptance"

after serving with people who were gay and in the closet about it, I can say it only causes a disturbance with homophobes. just like blacks only cause disturbances with racists. it's bullshit we stamp out racism in the military but let homophobia drive regs

5/10/2009 2:12:14 AM