Third Answer: According to the RAND Corporation in a study commissioned by the Pentagon on lifting the ban on homosexuals, it would be possible to implement a plan to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
If you have to ask, Spoofe, I’m afraid you may just be hopelessly heterosexual. Back to boot camp for you, private!
When Harry Truman was faced with the decision to racially integrate the armed forces, he had all the same arguments Clinton had. Different is, Harry said, “I’m the CinC - do it and like it.” And they did. End of story.
As much as I like Clinton, on this issue, he wussed, and the entire thing has become a laughingstock.
Of course, Dubya ain’t gonna do a think to fix it.
Ummm… I think the most important words in your last sentence are “supposed to be.” Tailhook anyone?
Fairness would seem to play out that nobody should have to shower or change in front of someone who might be interested in them sexually. Most of us have been in the position where we were the object of unwanted attention, and it really doesn’t matter if it’s MM, FF, or MF, so one might think they should separate gays and straights as well. However, this doesn’t really solve anything either, since two gay men sharing a room is just as prone to the same situation. Throw in an era where retention rates and budgets are low, and sexual harassment laws include “a hostile working environment” (which barracks housing is according to the DOD) and you can begin to see where the military has some problems ahead WRT this issue.
My take on it is that either the upper echelons are going to have to take a “do it and shut up about it” attitude and then try to deal with the quartering issue on an as-it-happens basis, or the services are going to have to go to a more expensive single person per room policy. In any case, many of the folks aboard ship or bunked in temporary shelters like tents and quonset huts in deployed locations are going to have to learn to get along without the luxuries of private accomodations, so who knows? In any case, I don’t think it’s likely to happen until the military has a more comfortable budget, less retention difficulties, and we have a more forward-thinking leadership. What kind of watershed event could lead to that is anybody’s guess. Perhaps a social liberal president who takes over after a pro-defense hawk. Come to think of it, that’s almost a description of what happened when Clinton took over after Bush, except he wasn’t liberal enough, and military cuts had already begun by then.
Aha! So that’s what Chambers was warning about! I should have realized: how many kings in real life wear yellow?
To respond to the post more seriously, yes, DADT was a compromise worked out by Clinton, Colin Powell, and the JCofS. And no, it hasn’t worked.
As was already pointed out, the proper course for some courageous President to take, someday, is to say, that’s the way it’s going to be. As Truman did with blacks in the fighting forces. As was done when women joined the regular services instead of the WACs, WAVEs, WAFs, and whatever the Marines called theirs (and yeah, I know the standard slang acronym!).
The most obvious point to make here is the guy from Fort Campbell, KY, who was killed by two other guys – and here the story gets pretty touchy, because the man was not particularly gay-oriented. He’d fallen in love with a pre-op M2F transexual who was living as a woman, and was honest with him about who she still was. And apparently they were having sex, which is why I said “not particularly.” He had attended a show she was in at a gay club, and word of this got back to some homophobic barracksmates of his, who ragged him on the subject, and eventually it led to fisticuffs. He won the fight against the guy who murdered him; the murder was revenge on “the faggot who beat me up.”
I personally think any defense of what happened in this case by an active-duty officer should be summary grounds for dismissal.
Actually, it was a panicked attempt to keep a campaign promise to a key demographic without causing a mutiny or prompting massive failure of retention (Retention == reenlistment).
Having spent 15 years in the Nav, I might be able to speak on this with some authority (or maybe not ). The very best sailor I ever worked with (for) was a lesbian. I’m proud to have had her as a mentor and a friend, and she made me a far better sailor through her guidance. The very worst sailor I worked with was gay, but it had nothing to do with his orientation, and everything to do with the fact that he was a world-class f*ck-up.
The last sea-going command to which I was attached had at least 14 lesbians attached to the crew, and those were just the ones my supervisor knew about. There may be, infact a higher percentage of lesbians in the Nav than in the the general populace. My (and my friend’s) theory on this was as follows:
The military is a meritocracy, where performance is rewarded preferentially.
Many early female sailors were of the tough, hard-working type (they had to be, to even make it through an hitch).
In my experience (and my friend’s), lesbians tend to have a high sense of self, which makes them beter able to stand against adversity, as a group (I realize this is a broad generalization).
Once the these women had made a place for themselves in the Nav, the word went out that if you want promotion based on ability, Go Navy! (this is also why the Nav has a higher percentage of minorities than the general populace)
The net effect was to make the Nav more friendly for ALL women.
I’ve been a Recruiter for the Nav, as well, and the ‘Don’t ask’ policy was one of the most widely ridiculed policies I’ve ever seen. Recruiters NEVER wanted to know (at least none I ever met), and would ask (in the days when we had to ask) in the most cursory manner possible. If a hot prospect turned out to be gay, that was one more contract you’d not get, and numbers are the name of the game. The ‘Don’t ask’ policy just legitimized something we were already doing.
For all you sea-lawyers out there, yup, I violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice by not reporting my knowlege of homsexuals in the Nav, but I never thought it Honourable and Right to deny this country the services of a good sailor for such a BS reason, and I could always justify discharging a crappy sailor based upon performance. I didn’t feel the need to take a cheap-shot at someone’s personal life: If you’re a f*ck-up, you’ll provide me all the ammunition I need with out going into your sex life.
I really don’t know the prevalence of gays in the Nav, as I frankly didn’t WANT to know. This deliberate ignorance allowed me the illusion of privacy within my own skull (I sure as hell wasn’t going to get privacy anywhere else!), which allowed me to deal with the issue on my own terms.
Once this became a habit (the ability to find privacy between my own ears), it didn’t matter if the guy next to me was gay or not. Since then, I’ve found that it doesn’t matter anymore even if I know he’s gay. It doesn’t impact me.
I will guarantee you that I had gays in the berthing compartment with me. One even attempted a rape on one of my sailors. We bounced the would-be rapist on that charge, as it was far and away the most serious charge we could hang on him. There were also three attempted hetero rapes, and one completed lesbian rape. Those rapists also went to the brig.
Oh, and the crappy sailor I mentioned in the earlier post? His orientation was an open secret, but no one cared, as long as he did his job. Too bad he wouldn’t. He was insubordinate, lazy, unreliable, arrogant, and a bully. He’s also got a BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge), and an RE-4 reenlistment code (Don’t call us, and we’ll NEVER call you).
I guess the point is, every orientation has it’s criminals, but for most of us in the fleet, orientation is far less important than whether or not you pull your weight.
). The very best sailor I ever worked with (for) was a lesbian. I’m proud to have had her as a mentor and a friend, and she made me a far better sailor through her guidance. The very worst sailor I worked with was gay, but it had nothing to do with his orientation, and everything to do with the fact that he was a world-class f*ck-up.