The End of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at Hand?

[Homebrew]

from the Advocate (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail.asp?id=15484)
Republican lawmaker calls for end to military's gay ban

U.S. representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican Party standard-bearer, broke party ranks with a call for a change in the Pentagon's ban on openly gay members of the military. "We've tried the policy. I don't think it works. And we've spent a lot of money enforcing it," said the Miami Republican, a member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations. "People who've signed up to serve our country, we should be thanking them."

Ros-Lehtinen is cosponsoring a bill, along with House Republicans Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Jim Kolbe of Arizona and 70 Democrats, to repeal the 12-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It allows gays and lesbians to serve as long as they abstain from homosexual activity and do not disclose their sexual orientation. Ros-Lehtinen's district includes Key West, which has a large politically active gay population, and she has taken a leadership role on pro-gay legislation.With three Republican co-sponsors, especially one as well-placed at Ros-Lehtinen, I think the time it might actually happen.

[rjung]

I'd put good odds on it ending. The military needs every warm body in Iraq it can find these days, and tossing out folks for not being heterosexual isn't enough reason otherwise.

[Malodorous]

Could be. As the article mentions, a gay Sergent with a purple star in the US army just came out, basically daring the military to fire him. I imagine that, unlike in the 90's when most of our soldiers hadn't seen combat, there will be several more cases in the near future where gay military men who have served in Iraq/Afganistan will come out. The bad PR from discharging a bunch of guys who have taken bullets for our country because of what they do in private is going to be increasingly intense.

Finally, the army is having a lot harder time retaining troops then it was in the 90's, so the fact that we're turning down people just based on sexual orientation is becoming impractical. There was a case a year or so ago where two arabic interpreters, an area where the army badly needs more people, were discharged due to being outed. Again, handicapping the war on terror because of unrelated sexual issues that people in this country are increasingly unconcerned with is providing terrible PR for the army and this adminstration.

[treis]

It allows gays and lesbians to serve as long as they abstain from homosexual activity and do not disclose their sexual orientation

Someone is gonna have to 'splain to me how this is different from don't ask don't tell.

[Homebrew]

That *is* don't ask, don't tell. The bill proposed will allow gay folks to serve openly.

[Sampiro]

There's no way lawmakers from conservative states can afford to endorse this. The "he wants gays in the army" ads are already being made before they ever vote. Plus with George W. "You know Bob, I don't know. I just don't know (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/debate.transcript/) [if homosexuality is a choice]" Bullwinkle as Commander-in-Chief it'll probably be vetoed anyway. I'm not optimistic.

[Ravenman]

Yeah, three Republican House members can't override a veto. Zero chance that it'll happen until at least 2009, when there's someone else in the White House. If its a Republican, they can pull the "Nixon goes to China" maneuver, in which a Republican does what Democrats would be raked over the coals for doing. If it is a Dem in the White House in 2009, it could well be a repeat of the bungling that led to DADT in Clinton's first year.

[rfgdxm]

There's no way lawmakers from conservative states can afford to endorse this. The "he wants gays in the army" ads are already being made before they ever vote. Plus with George W. "You know Bob, I don't know. I just don't know (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/debate.transcript/) [if homosexuality is a choice]" Bullwinkle as Commander-in-Chief it'll probably be vetoed anyway. I'm not optimistic.
I'd expect this to die in the Senate. And, Bush couldn't get re-elected if he signed this.

[2nd Law]

I'd expect this to die in the Senate. And, Bush couldn't get re-elected if he signed this.

This is his second term. He can't get re-elected if he walks on water.

[treis]

That *is* don't ask, don't tell. The bill proposed will allow gay folks to serve openly.

Ah thanks for the clear up.

*shakes fist at writer*

When you use "it" to begin a sentance it refers to the subject of the previous sentance damn it!

[rfgdxm]

This is his second term. He can't get re-elected if he walks on water.
Duh. :smack: Let me rephrase that to say that Cheney (who I presume will run in 2008) will be seriously tarnished if Bush signed such a bill.

[rfgdxm]

Yeah, three Republican House members can't override a veto.
And Republican Senators and House members would get creamed in the next primaries if they voted for this.

[jayjay]

Duh. :smack: Let me rephrase that to say that Cheney (who I presume will run in 2008) will be seriously tarnished if Bush signed such a bill.

You know, you really shouldn't scare me like that. Give a guy some warning if you're going to posit a Cheney candidacy!

Seriously, Cheney would never be elected President. Bush at least has some kind of charisma and apparently is considered charming by a large proportion of the population. Cheney is the original Nosferatu. Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric dust that has so much as brushed past someone with charm won't even settle on the man's body. He's the anti-charisma.

[rfgdxm]

You know, you really shouldn't scare me like that. Give a guy some warning if you're going to posit a Cheney candidacy!

Seriously, Cheney would never be elected President. Bush at least has some kind of charisma and apparently is considered charming by a large proportion of the population. Cheney is the original Nosferatu. Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric dust that has so much as brushed past someone with charm won't even settle on the man's body. He's the anti-charisma.
The incumbent VP usually get the party nomination. I presume you are a Republican? As a Democrat myself, I consider the enelectability of Cheney in the general election a Good Thing. :)

[Steve MB]

Cheney (who I presume will run in 2008)
Why do you presume that? Cheney's age and health are major stumbling blocks, and the man has the charisma of a cardboard standee.

[John Mace]

The incumbent VP usually get the party nomination. I presume you are a Republican? As a Democrat myself, I consider the enelectability of Cheney in the general election a Good Thing. :)

Cheney won't even run. You heard it here first.

It could be that recruitment problems might force the abandonment of this policy. Whatever the reason, this could only be good for gays. Acceptance in the military would be a big step towards better acceptance throughout society.

[asterion]

Couldn't the President (and I'm talking in general here--I don't see Bush doing this or any first-termer of either party) just force it one way or the other by executive order, like Truman forced integration?

[Lemur866]

Cheney has already announced categorically that he will not run in 2008, not that anyone seriously thought he would.

2008 will be the first wide wide open presidential election in a long time, with no incumbent president or former vice president running. In fact, I think the last one was 1952, Eisenhower vs Stevenson.

Back to gays in the military. Given the manpower requirements for the army, discharging volunteers just because they are gay makes even less sense than it did before the Iraq war. As for the contention that a Republican congressman would be in trouble for supporting it, well, as Nixon used to say, if the president does it it is not illegal. If the President signs on, suddenly the conservative talking heads will turn on a dime and talk about how inclusive and statesmanlike and patriotic it all is.

[rjung]

The well-oiled right-wing media machine could easily sell "legalizing" gays in the military to the GOP's core voters. Just pitch it as King George's infinite generousity for the 21st century and you'd be done by lunch.

[Jonathan Chance]

No Cheney. Let me fifth that.

And I see the fact that three Republican's are endorsing this as a cry of military pain. This can get through congress if it's sold in a 'we need to keep recruitment up' way.

[Captain Amazing]

Couldn't the President (and I'm talking in general here--I don't see Bush doing this or any first-termer of either party) just force it one way or the other by executive order, like Truman forced integration?
No. Don't ask, don't tell was passed by Congress, and an executive order can't be issued that violates the law. Before the Don't Ask law was passed, the President would have been able to.

[Scott Plaid]

I am all for female presidents, but I hope we don't have O Fortuna Rice run for prez. Why? Because she's unmarried. We can't have a president who goes out on dates. :D

[Broomstick]

What I would really hate to see is the welcoming of gays/lesbians while we're at war, followed by a mass dismissal after peace breaks out. There is historical precedent for various not-liked groups being encouraged to sign on when warm bodies/cannon fodder is needed then disposed of when no longer so essential.

[Bryan Ekers]

a gay Sergent with a purple star

Maybe his Lieutenant's not using enough astroglide.

The award is a purple heart.

[alphaboi867]

Duh. :smack: Let me rephrase that to say that Cheney (who I presume will run in 2008) will be seriously tarnished if Bush signed such a bill.
Cheney has said several times that he'll never run for President. And if he did his daughter would be a way bigger issue than this could be.

[Ravenman]

Cheney made a good funny last week. At some speech, he categorically refused to run for President in 2008. But he did volunteer to lead the Republican search committee for their 2008 presidental candidate....

[John Mace]

What I would really hate to see is the welcoming of gays/lesbians while we're at war, followed by a mass dismissal after peace breaks out. There is historical precedent for various not-liked groups being encouraged to sign on when warm bodies/cannon fodder is needed then disposed of when no longer so essential.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. Though not impossible, I do think it would still be pretty difficult to go backwards on this.

[rfgdxm]

Couldn't the President (and I'm talking in general here--I don't see Bush doing this or any first-termer of either party) just force it one way or the other by executive order, like Truman forced integration?
Quite possibly. Particularly if Bush let in people who openly admitted they were homosexuals, a later president would have trouble drumming them out. Of course, Bush isn't so crazy as to do such a thing.

[jayjay]

The incumbent VP usually get the party nomination. I presume you are a Republican? As a Democrat myself, I consider the enelectability of Cheney in the general election a Good Thing. :)

Ewwww...no, I'm not a Republican. I just think that a Cheney candidacy is completely out of the question and would be a net increase in general pain because I'd have to go through an entire campaign season with Smugly Lizardlips out front and center all over the place...

[Harborwolf]

Yessir, this one's a real coin tosser. On one hand you have rights natural dislike for the homosexual. On the other you have their love for patriotism and their need for warm bodies in Iraq.

What the heck. I'll be optimistic and think that this has a chance of passing. Now is not a good time to be turning away willing soldiers. I think that those in favor of it's passing can make a really effective push.

[Neurotik]

But...but...if we start letting them risk their lives for their country, we may feel obligated to let them marry who they want...

[rfgdxm]

But...but...if we start letting them risk their lives for their country, we may feel obligated to let them marry who they want...
And given that gay marriage is hugely unpopular in the US (in Michigan where I live, a constitutional amandment banning it passed easily because of fear of activist judges), I can see this why the logic above would be good reason for many to oppose gays in the miltary.

[alphaboi867]

And given that gay marriage is hugely unpopular in the US (in Michigan where I live, a constitutional amandment banning it passed easily because of fear of activist judges), I can see this why the logic above would be good reason for many to oppose gays in the miltary.
I suspect the biggest issue the DoD will encounter when (yes when it'll happen eventually) gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly will be the status of their partners? Will they be given the same benifits as military spouses? Will the military even recognize them as next of kin? There are issues like housing, pensions, etc that will need to be addressed. Or what if a gay/lesbian soldier doesn't come home and gets a posthumous, will his/her partner be allowed to stand in during the presentation ceremony?

[Ravenman]

Well, the Defense of Marriage Act says that the Federal government may not recognize same sex spouses, so no, unless that law is changed as well. And seeing how DOMA was passed by a pretty wide bipartisan margin, we're likely looking at no less than another decade before there might be the political will to change or repeal DOMA.

[Scott Plaid]

Let's say "civil unions" get passed, and then a gay person dies heroically serving his country, I can easily see a ground swelling either overcoming reluctance to use the term, marriage, or inclusive language allowing soldiers partners to reap benefits of being married to a solider. Of course, with public opinion the way it is, such a scenario would probably take only a slightly shorter time then the Ravenman's projected timeline of a decade, so......

Just my 2….

Just where the ¢۩۞₤∏™£ΔΏ is the symbol for cents?

[jayjay]

Just where the ¢۩۞₤∏™£ΔΏ is the symbol for cents?

Silly! Discussions about homophobia NEVER make cents...

[Johanna]

OK, now that the gays in the military issue is about to be settled (hopefully), what about the transgendered? The final frontier.

[Captain Amazing]

What I would really hate to see is the welcoming of gays/lesbians while we're at war, followed by a mass dismissal after peace breaks out.

That happens anyway. In both WWII and Vietnam, the military sort of turned a blind eye to homosexuality, only to crack down on it when the war ended.

[Captain Amazing]

OK, now that the gays in the military issue is about to be settled (hopefully), what about the transgendered? The final frontier.

I doubt that'll happen for quite a while, honestly. There's still more of a stigma about transgenderism than there is homosexuality, there are fewer transgendered people than homosexuals, and the transgendered don't have an effecive lobby (while the gay rights groups do, supposedly, lobby for transgendered rights, they don't really focus on them, or do an effective job).

[rfgdxm]

That happens anyway. In both WWII and Vietnam, the military sort of turned a blind eye to homosexuality, only to crack down on it when the war ended.
And the Korean war. Think of Klinger from M*A*S*H. The real problem today is that homosexuality doesn't have the huge stigma it did back then. If the draft were reinstated today, we'd find half the young men in the country were gay. ;)

[rfgdxm]

I doubt that'll happen for quite a while, honestly. There's still more of a stigma about transgenderism than there is homosexuality, there are fewer transgendered people than homosexuals, and the transgendered don't have an effecive lobby (while the gay rights groups do, supposedly, lobby for transgendered rights, they don't really focus on them, or do an effective job).
In the event of the draft though, transgendered folks who went from male to female would create an interesting problem. We don't draft females.

[Captain Amazing]

If the draft were reinstated today, we'd find half the young men in the country were gay. ;)

That's what Chevy Chase did to avoid the Vietnam draft.

[Fiver]

And the Korean war. Think of Klinger from M*A*S*H. The real problem today is that homosexuality doesn't have the huge stigma it did back then. If the draft were reinstated today, we'd find half the young men in the country were gay. ;)What about Klinger? He (and the real-life soldiers on whom he was based) was neither gay, nor transgendered, nor even a "real" crossdresser.

Klinger has nothing to do with this debate.

[rfgdxm]

What about Klinger? He (and the real-life soldiers on whom he was based) was neither gay, nor transgendered, nor even a "real" crossdresser.

Klinger has nothing to do with this debate.
He most certainly is relevant to this debate. The point is that he was faking it to get out of the military. Expect a lot of this sort of faking if the draft is reinstated in the US.

[Lemur866]

First of all, the draft isn't going to be reinstated, it would be political suicide. We've had dozens of threads about this. There will be no draft. Not gonna happen. Nope. About as likely as Cheney running for President in 2008.

Second, if there was a draft, the restriction on gays in the military would be rescinded so fast it will make your head spin. If they're gonna draft you, you're not going to be able to get out of the draft by claiming you're gay.

Third, all the rules for a new draft (if we have a new draft, which we won't) would be completly different from the Vietnam-era draft. Just because the draft was organized in a particular way in Vietnam doesn't mean we'll do the same thing again. A draft would require an entirely new act of Congress, the President can't just write an executive order. And since almost all the senior military people in the Pentagon are Vietnam-era veterans, I think they'll attempt to avoid some of the more egregious errors of the Vietnam-era draft. Making all new errors of their own, of course.

[Mr. Moto]

I'm a Selective Service local board member, and I've been talking about some of those changes in this thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=311516)

The biggest one is with student deferments. They used to be very open ended, and as long as you were making progress toward your degree, you didn't have to report for induction. That has been radically changed.

Now, if you're a senior, you get to finish the academic year. Others in college get to finish the semester. High school students, if it comes to that, are deferred until graduation or until age 20, whatever comes first.

That is, if there's ever a draft, which I agree is unlikely.

[Rashak Mani]

Imagine an Arab country being threatened with a US invasion... if they think there are lots of gay soldiers participating they certainly would be more reluctant to face such an invasion ! ;)

Well tasteless comments aside... I'd be surprised if this passes... though I think its way past time that the US military change their attitude with their gay servicemen. Even if its not much of a change...

[Fiver]

He most certainly is relevant to this debate. The point is that he was faking it to get out of the military. Expect a lot of this sort of faking if the draft is reinstated in the US.
He was faking insanity, not gender dysphoria. Not relevant.

[Guinastasia]

That happens anyway. In both WWII and Vietnam, the military sort of turned a blind eye to homosexuality, only to crack down on it when the war ended.


Of course, that could also lead to a huge backlash. "How DARE you dismiss us, after we risked our lives for you!" Considering that homosexuality is much more acceptable than it was back in the days of Vietnam.

Also, in the extremely unlikely event there was a draft, I would think they'd seriously consider drafting females this time around.

[Ravenman]

I really, really wish this talk of the draft would die. Republican Congressmen are uneasy about going along with the President to reform Social Security. What makes anyone in reality-land think that they'll go along with sending unwilling Americans to war?

[Mr. Moto]

Of course, that could also lead to a huge backlash. "How DARE you dismiss us, after we risked our lives for you!" Considering that homosexuality is much more acceptable than it was back in the days of Vietnam.

Also, in the extremely unlikely event there was a draft, I would think they'd seriously consider drafting females this time around.

I don't think so. No females are currently registered, and the draft would have to operate from the registration rolls.

Besides, a draft, should it ever come, would be unpopular enough without sending the flower of American womanhood into harm's way as well. I really don't think we've come fully around to full equality on this one, and I'm not sure I want to be around if we do.

I served with a lot of professional and dedicated women when I was in the Navy, all of whom explicitly wanted to be there, and all of whom faced restrictions on duty classifications that men did not face.

I do support lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military, since the utility of this ban ran out long ago. Restrictions on the jobs women can do, and exempting them from conscription, are in place for far different reasons, and don't need to be scrapped, IMHO.

[Deist]

Hi,
I've been lurking around here for quite awhile, never felt the need to subscribe. Until I saw this thread. As a member of the United States military, I have an interest in threads such as these.
Now that that's out of the way, I can tell you that allowing homosexual's to openly serve in the military would not be a good thing. There would never be any acceptance of them by their heterosexual peers, perhaps in time there would be, but not anytime soon.
With that said, I would never treat gays badly based upon their sexual orientation. I would merely be uncomfortable, as would many others, serving with them in any situation.

D

[Scott Plaid]

Deist, I recall reading an article which claimed that in countries with openly gay people serving in the military, the problem you address weere barely existant. I have no cite, but I'll bet other hear have read it.

[Deist]

Yes, many countries allow gays to openly serve in their military. This includes every member of NATO with the exception of Turkey. http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/gays_in_the_military_overview.html
It is also true that many of these countries are much more tolerant of gays in general. The population of the United States is not as liberal or tolerant as our allies. Most US military members are even more conservative than the american population. With this in mind, I believe there would be many different problems in our military.

[Miller]

He was faking insanity, not gender dysphoria. Not relevant.

In the time period depicted by the show, wasn't gender dysphoria considered to be a form of insanity?

[jayjay]

In the time period depicted by the show, wasn't gender dysphoria considered to be a form of insanity?

Not to mention homosexuality in itself.

[matt_mcl]

Now that that's out of the way, I can tell you that allowing homosexual's to openly serve in the military would not be a good thing. There would never be any acceptance of them by their heterosexual peers, perhaps in time there would be, but not anytime soon.

Thanks for your comments. I don't see, however, how discrimination by other troops against gay people in the military is supposed to end without their being permitted to serve openly in the first place. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Homebrew]

Most US military members are even more conservative than the american population. With this in mind, I believe there would be many different problems in our military.Well, you guys are supposed to be highly disciplined, right? With proper leadership, then problems should be dealt with quickly and decisely and the military can lead society as it did with racial integration. The same dire predictions about allowing gays to serve openly were made about integrating units; but the brass made that happen relatively smoothly. Certainly more smoothly than the schools in Little Rock or Alabama.

[rfgdxm]

Not to mention homosexuality in itself.
Yes.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/210

"In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant. While the 1973 DSM-II controversy was highly public, more recently a related but less public controversy involved what became the DSM-III category of Ego-dystonic Homosexuality. The author presents the DSM-III controversy and a reformulation of the issues involved in the diagnostic status of homosexuality. He argues that what is at issue is a value judgment about heterosexuality, rather than a factual dispute about homosexuality."

Unltil 1973, homosexuality was a recognized mental illness in and of itself.

[Broomstick]

With that said, I would never treat gays badly based upon their sexual orientation. I would merely be uncomfortable, as would many others, serving with them in any situation.
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but you're already serving with homosexuals. You just don't know/aren't sure who they are under the current system.

[Jervoise]

Hi,
I've been lurking around here for quite awhile, never felt the need to subscribe. Until I saw this thread. As a member of the United States military, I have an interest in threads such as these.
Now that that's out of the way, I can tell you that allowing homosexual's to openly serve in the military would not be a good thing. There would never be any acceptance of them by their heterosexual peers, perhaps in time there would be, but not anytime soon.
With that said, I would never treat gays badly based upon their sexual orientation. I would merely be uncomfortable, as would many others, serving with them in any situation.Deist, you may be interested in an independent report (http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Publications/AustraliaPub1.htm) written on the impact of the decision to allow gay men and women to serve in Australia's military. The study was conducted eight years after ban was lifted and found:
[T]he full lifting of the ban on gay service has not led to any identifiable negative effects on troop morale, combat effectiveness, recruitment and retention, or other measures of military performance. Furthermore, available evidence suggests that policy changes associated with the lifting of the ban may have contributed to improvements in productivity and working environments for service members.It is perhaps arguable that Australia tends to be more tolerant towards sexual minorities than the United States, but the fact that Australia has a federal ban on same-sex marriage and a federal ban on overseas adoption by gay couples tends to show that there is still widespread homophobia in this country. Nonetheless, the Australian military has not suffered any adverse effects on morale or effectivness since gay men and women are allowed to (openly) serve.

You may be "uncomfortable serving with them", but I'd suggest you'd probably get used to it, just like military personnel have in other nations.

[Deist]

There would never be any acceptance of them by their heterosexual peers, perhaps in time there would be, but not anytime soon.

Perhaps in time.....what I mean by that is the fact that at this moment in time it simply wouldn't work to allow open service by gays. In time there would be change as people become more comfortable and accepting of minorities. Perhaps ten years, twenty, or five years, who knows? I simply think that pushing to lift the ban on open service would not work right now.

[Homebrew]

Suppose the ban is lifted today, Deist. Would it change anything for you? Would you punch out if someone in your unit came out? Would you harass him or beat him? If not, why do you think you're so much better disciplined than your peers?

[Bryan Ekers]

I simply think that pushing to lift the ban on open service would not work right now.
Sounds like an excuse not to do anything. I suppose if there wasn't an unpopular war on now, the luxury of selective recruiting and arbitrary dismissal could be clung to, but as long at the U.S. military want to impose arbitrary limits on itself, it doesn't really deserve sympathy for low numbers.

[Dubious Weasle]

Hi,

Now that that's out of the way, I can tell you that allowing homosexual's to openly serve in the military would not be a good thing. There would never be any acceptance of them by their heterosexual peers, perhaps in time there would be, but not anytime soon.
..........
I would merely be uncomfortable, as would many others, serving with them in any situation.

D

I'm also in the service and have to say I agree with your point that there would be a great deal of resistance within the ranks. Likewise, I agree that many would be uncomfortable serving with openly homosexual peers.
That said, I disagree with your conclusion. Yes, many would be uncomfortable but the way to get over that would be to allow homosexuals to serve openly. My thinking is that the best way to 'get over' the issues with homosexuals in the military is to allow them to serve and then to wait the bumpy process out.

Racism was alive and well, both in the military and in American society at large when blacks were first allowed to serve in the military. At first it was in segregated units, then in menial positions in mixed units and finally in the service at large. Likewise, I'm sure the open service of homosexuals in the military will be a rocky path but it is my contention that as these openly gay members prove themselves in combat, their compatriots will 'get over it.' And, as these veterans make their way back into the civilian world they will take that tolerance with them.

The military is a very unique place in that it forces a degree of integration. In a way it's like the idea version of the "American Dream's Melting Pot" ...except without all the freedom.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=rjung]The military needs every warm body in Iraq it can find these days . . .QUOTE]

Oooh, you did not go there! :D

[BrainGlutton]

OK, now that the gays in the military issue is about to be settled (hopefully), what about the transgendered? The final frontier.

That would reopen the whole question of whether women should be allowed to serve in combat roles. I.e., is a transsexual a "woman" for that rule's purposes or not?

[BrainGlutton]

My thinking is, we should allow gays to serve openly provided they serve in appropriate assignments. E.g., guarding the POWs.


GENERAL HOMINYGRITS: Awright, Colonel Gaylord, we are putting you and the Fighting Pink Panthers in charge of thishear POW camp. 10,000 prisoners, more arriving every day, most of them lean, hard, muscular, swarthy young sons of the desert. They have been brought up to respect authority, but only when it applies discipline with a firm hand. And they are accustomed to getting down on their hands and knees five times a day. Think you can handle this assignment, Colonel?

COLONEL GAYLORD: Oh, YES, General! Take it from me, there will be no escapes from THIS camp!


And there won't be, either! 'Cos the prisoners know what's gonna happen if they try!


COLONEL GAYLORD: Lieutenant Hassan! Lieutenant HASsan! WON'T you come into the Commandant's office for a moment, Lieutenant? We know what you naughty boys in Barracks 4 have been up to! One way or another, Lieutenant, you are going to show the Commandant your escape tunnel!


:D


(BTW -- who was the girl, Klink or Schultz? Schultz was bigger, but Klink had the higher rank . . .)

[Johanna]

I.e., is a transsexual a "woman" for that rule's purposes or not?I say yes, of course. ¿Como no? Once the premise is that transgender be accepted, then its own definitions come into play.

[Deist]

Racism was alive and well, both in the military and in American society at large when blacks were first allowed to serve in the military. At first it was in segregated units, then in menial positions in mixed units and finally in the service at large. Likewise, I'm sure the open service of homosexuals in the military will be a rocky path but it is my contention that as these openly gay members prove themselves in combat, their compatriots will 'get over it.' And, as these veterans make their way back into the civilian world they will take that tolerance with them.

The military is a very unique place in that it forces a degree of integration. In a way it's like the idea version of the "American Dream's Melting Pot" ...except without all the freedom.

Desegregation of the military occurred at a time when many people's opinions were changing for the better. This and the fact that white's had decades to get used to the fact that blacks were serving made the transition much easier than our current situation with gays would allow. Even then there was widespread resentment for mixing the races. If we were to all of the sudden allow gays to serve openly without some type of transition period or waiting for people opinions to change, there would be much resentment in the military. I am not saying there would be widespread gay bashing, assaults, harrassment etc. There would be a lack of trust and a lack of comfort among the troops. I would much rather have a military that works well together than to have one that didn't but had a few more soldiers.
Homebrew, I would never hit someone based soley on their sexual orientation/race/relgion/etc.

[Homebrew]

You seem to fail to appreciate the significant obstacles that were overcome with integration of the military. In 1945 the Gillem Board opposed full integration on the basis that it "would have been a radical step, out of keeping with the climate of opinion in the country and in the Army itself." Yet Truman went ahead with Executive Order 9981 in 1948. Dire predictions that morale would suffer, that there would be widespread dissastification and resentment in the troops, that "unit cohesion" would suffer were made in the 40s.

Enlistment for general service implies that the individual may be sent anywhere, -- to any ship or station where he is needed. Men on board ship live in particularly close association; in their messes, one man sits beside another; their hammocks or bunks are close together; in their common tasks they work side by side; and in particular tasks such as those of a gun's crew, they form a closely knit, highly coordinated team. How many white men would choose, of their own accord, that their closest associates in sleeping quarters, at mess, and in a gun's crew should be of another race? How many would accept such conditions, if required to do so, without resentment and just as a matter of course? The General Board believes that the answer is "Few, if any," and further believes that if the issue were forced, there would be a lowering of contentment, teamwork and discipline in the service.


[T]he mandatory intermingling of the races throughout the services will be a terrific blow to the efficiency and fighting power of the armed services....It is sure to increase the numbers of men who will be disabled through communicable diseases. It will increase the rate of crime committed by servicemen." (Binkin, M., Eitelberg, M.J., Schexnider, A. J., & Smith, M. M. (1982). Blacks and the military. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. l., p. 26).A 1948 Gallup poll showed 63% of Americans opposed integration of the military. Those fears have proved unfounded.

Contrast that poll with a 2003 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/122403militaryPoll.htm) which showed that 79% of Americans thought gays should be allowed to openly serve. Society seems far more ready to accept gays in the military than it was racial integration.

Your arguement that troops are so homophobic that their professionalism would suffer really casts a poor light on them. I give them more credit for being willing to take orders and do their job.

[Snickers]

Deist is quite right when stating that the majority of the US Armed Forces are more conservative than the population they defend. But I don't think that allowing openly gay soldiers to serve would cause an outward problem for their peers - they're soldiers, after all, they'll do as ordered (and I say that with honor and respect, not as a slight). Inwardly, yes, those who are more conservative will struggle. As will the openly gay soldiers that will be allowed to serve. I'd love to see it pass.

It won't, however. Not in this administration. Imagine the backlash! "We're good enough to fight for you, but not good enough to enjoy the same rights you do." Never happen. Our military needs aren't that great.

It's still a shame.

[spifflog]

As a military guy in the Pentagon, I whole heartedly concur with those who say there will never be a draft in this country, short of a war for of U.S. survival. No one, the politicos, the people, or the military leadership wants the draft.
In terms of the thread, gays in the military, you’d be surprised how little traction (or maybe you wouldn’t) letting gays in the military gets. And the 1,500 people a year separated for homosexuality isn’t going to keep gays in, no matter what manpower problems we may have. Keep in mind, there are 2.2 million people in the military. 1,500 separated for being gay doesn’t amount to much.