It’s a stupid and pointless policy, but every gay person who enlists already knows it’s there. I don’t understand why gay people would want to serve in a military where institutionalized bigotry and open homophobia are still the accepted norm.
The military really is incredibly hypocritical in how it treats hetero misconduct too. Adultery and fraternization among heteros are commonplace. We really need a CIC who’s willing to take the brass by the throat and change the whole culture.
A rule is only a rule to the extent that it’s enforced consistently. I suspect flyboy would be pretty pissed if he got a ticket for going 56 in a 55. I know I’d be.
I read this in Playboy a few years ago, so take it with a grain of salt, but supposedly there were Guard units basically ignoring DADT. As units were getting ready to deploy (or go back), gay troops were basically saying, “Look, I’m gay! I’ll take that OTH discharge now,” and were told that they would deal with it after the deployment.
The other problem is the threat of coercion if it usually isn’t enforced. If most troops get away with being out on Myspace or Facebook, for example, you run the risk of someone saying “Do X or I’ll blow you in.”
I agree with the idea that they knew the rules going in, but only if the rule is being applied the same way in all cases.
Not sure I’d view Playboy as an honest broker vis-à-vis the military.
There are almost 3 million men in women in various categories of the military (some of these are retirees). So the rules are probably not 100% uniform. If that was the criteria, we’d have no law at all.
As I said, take with salt. But my bigger point is that if DADT is being enforced ad hoc, it’s a problem. There’s a difference between “not 100% uniform” and “arbitrary and capricious.” I don’t know which end of the spectrum is closer to the truth here. But I suspect that back in 2003-04 when the Army was falling short of its recruiting goals, they were not tossing [ha!] everyone who put their orientation on their Myspace page.
I’m not giving the brass a bye on this - you’re right that so many of them view even DADT as going too far in the wrong direction.
But you can’t pretend that if Congress would gonad up and extend Federal employment protections to the military for sexual orientation, the brass would have to smile, salute, and say “Yessir.” Just like they had to do with unit integration during the Korean War era.
A lot of people are falling down on the job to allow this abortion to continue to be on the books.
Yes they would. The military follows civilian driven law and policy. It really is that simple.
Having said that are there some in the 3 million man (and woman) military who won’t be happy with that? You bet. But give me any group of 3 million people, and I’ll show you some idiots. Probably more than “some”.
The law wasn’t created in a vacuum. It’s there because the Army squealed in 1993 when Clinton was going to eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Uh … What mhendo said.
You don’t think what is what happened here? The OP is lamenting about what happened here. The girl herself seems to be indicating she’s the victim:
… even the reporter implies it: “Most of all, she has had a difficult time rectifying the discharge in her mind.”
You say the law is immoral and the consequences are unacceptable to some of you. I’d like to correct you and say that it’s immoral only to some of you, too. Plenty of people think it’s the perfect picture of morality (again, I’m not one of them).
UncleNito, you may have a point, but I have no info on how consistently the policy gets enforced, and I honestly don’t think it does anything to detract from my point. I drive through my neighborhood all the time. I’ve seen one or two speedtraps in several years. I wouldn’t call that consistent enforcement of the speed limit. However, if I got nabbed going one mph over, yeah, I’d be pissed, and I’d fight the ticket. An avenue exists for that. I understand that before I make my decision to exceed the speed limit. My actions may be different if I knew the officer with the radar gun had the final say on my guilt.
I’d say that had this girl been private about her orientation, she’d be one of those getting nabbed going one mph over the limit. If that were the case (which I don’t believe it to be), I still think she knew the rules, knew the boundaries, and wandered across the line. However, she was going 70 in the 55. She was not private. She made little to no effort to hide her sexuality. It came back to bite her in the ass. I don’t understand why anyone is up in arms about this particular case.
I don’t have a problem with her, but I do have a problem with her saying she doesn’t understand or agree with the separation (and that seems to be the gist of the article–certainly the reporter is tripping over himself to say that). I do have a problem with the Teeming Millions looking at this case and bashing DADT and the military. This is not a singularly tragic product of that policy. Pick one (I’m too lazy to find one if one exists) and I’ll probably stand behind the outrage.
I can handle the profanity for you. THOSE FUCKERS. There.
I can’t wait to see this ridiculous rule done away with once and for all. They all look like a bunch of morons at this point. I read an article about one of the few guys who was good with the middle eastern languages and he was dumped, too. What? Are they brain dead?
So who outted her? Why aren’t they getting the boot? The rule is “don’t ask, don’t tell.” She said she didn’t tell. But someone did.
Exactly what I was going to say. The military has its flaws, and its strengths. It is subordinate to the civilian leadership, and this case that is a strength, because unlike states like Alabama and Virginia in the 60s and 70s, there won’t be any organized resistance. The brass will enforce the new policy when it comes, because that’s their job.
Being lawful doesn’t make it right. And even with her behavior, she didn’t deserve to be kicked out.
Let me change the hypothetical just a bit. Suppose state law requires cars to have a front license plate, but motorists routinely ignore it and no one is ever stopped for that reason alone. Now suppose that the police department in a wealthy, 98% white power suburb starts pulling over young black men – but no one else – for driving without a front plate. They knew the rules, no? Is this OK?
DADT is about as clear and easy to follow as “don’t be a jerk,” except that it applies to a much larger community, encompasses a much larger scope of behavior, and carries much higher consequences for transgression. If the military has promulgated standards (what is the boundary between asking and telling? what crosses the line between not telling and telling?) and makes a serious effort to enforce those standards consistently, then it’s still a dumb policy but I have no sympathy for violators. But if most people who are as discreet as this Guardsperson don’t get disciplined, and this one only did because a civilian contractor had an ax to grind, then I think she has a valid complaint.
I’d argue that this just demonstrates that plenty of people are idiots.
The difference is that there’s a defensible reason for speeding to be against the law, because speeding poses a threat to other people. There is no such rationale for DADT.
FYI, Colin Powell’s (who I highly respect) take on DADT, taken from a CNN interview:
There are some unique problems when it comes to integrating. I would be interested to hear if all of those in favor of reversing DADT would also be willing to pay more in taxes so that the military could build separate housing quarters for gays? For me, the biggest problem is the lodging question, and I haven’t heard an answer to it yet. Telling me I have to sleep and live with someone that may want to have sex with me is just as immoral as saying a gay person can’t serve in the military.
UncleNito, I think our definitions of “discreet” differ. “Judicious in one’s conduct or speech, esp. with regard to respecting privacy or maintaining silence about something of a delicate nature; prudent; circumspect.” I wouldn’t say that’s how this woman behaved.
This is from Wiki (and to address Kalhoun’s question; bolding mine):
Don’t ask, don’t tell is the common term for the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military mandated by federal law … the policy prohibits anyone who “demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” from serving in the armed forces of the United States … The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The “don’t ask” part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a servicemember’s orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though mere suspicion of homosexual behavior can cause an investigation."
It would seem to me that this woman behaved in manner demonstrating her sexuality. She may not have outright stated it, but those close to her knew, and she knew they knew. I don’t care who had an axe to grind, the bottom line is that she made this particular bed and now she has to lie in it. This is quite a big statement from her: "“Everyone I went with (to Iraq) knew I was gay, and no one had a problem with it.” How was she behaving, and what was she saying, to create this widespread perception?
Are you really that stupid?
Now, I can see where some posters are coming from when they say “She knew it was against policy when she enlisted”.
But DADT is simply wrong. It’s a bad law, discriminatory, and should be repealed. And people have broken bad laws before to make a point, or to set a precendent. Rosa Parks anyone? What about our Founding Fathers? Armed rebellion was their solution, and to us they are heros.
Yet a gay soldier is a disgrace. It just doesn’t make sense.
Now, I’m guessing that was aimed at me, and I don’t agree with it; however, this certainly applies to the TM.
Keep in mind, and I’m saying this over and over again, I’m not defending DADT. I’m not saying I in any way agree with it. All I’m doing is pointing out that a) The woman in the article should not be the rallying cry for this cause, and b) there are some problems with letting openly gay people serve, and those problems need to be addressed. If Federal Law says that I have to suck up dealing with my bunkmate making lewd comments about my cock in the shower, then that’s fine. But then, why do we segregate males and females? Maybe, as mhendo says, I am being stupid about it. Maybe, as an intelligent poster, he can make an intelligent post instead of attacking me. Then again, maybe he can’t.
I disagree–see above.
A lot of people here are blindly saying this policy is discriminatory, period. They fail to acknowledge any kind of problems existing with gay/straight forced cohabitation. Why is this?
If you think that simply requiring straight people to share quarters with gay people is immoral, i don’t think there’s a reasoned argument that would actually make any difference to you.
If you can co-exist with gay people in society in general, what makes the military environment any different? It is discriminatory and it deserves to be challenged at every turn.
Forgot to add…
News flash: This is already happening.
Everyone in America, inside the military and outside it, knows that there are gays in the military. Gays and straights, as the story in the OP demonstrates, are already sharing the same quarters.
I know it’s hard for some people to believe, but the gay folks in your quarters do not spend every waking minute plotting to sexually assault you, or to try and “turn” you gay. They’re professional soldiers and sailors and pilots, just like you, and they are serious about their jobs in the military, just like you.