Just as an aside, with no cites to provide, 'cuz I’m not in the mood to go searching, BUT, IIRC, I read somewhere, the Washington Post maybe, that before “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell”, wasn’t the number of gays booted out lower before this policy? Inquiring minds want to know…
Hell, I’ve always thought they should enforce the anti-fraternization rules rather than bring sexual orientation into the mix (but I have to second Airman here and say y’all need to remember that it’s the civilians who give the military orders so talk to your elected officials about this). I can personally say that when the 1st Sgt. and a Pfc. in my last unit started boinking, the morale and cohesion in the entire company suffered (they were a hetero couple, BTW). Given that this was a National Guard unit and we only had to deal with this situation once a month, I can imagine that having the same thing occur in a regular unit would have made it much much worse. So yea, I think anti-fraternization polices should be enforced but gay couples shouldn’t be subjected to any more (or less) enforcement than straight ones in this matter.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Jersey Diamond wants her freedom protected, even if the one protecting is gay?
To those who say that it’s the civilians who control things I’d like to point out that simply by electing what to enforce or not the top ranks in the military could easily make this a non-issue. If the JCS sent word down the line to discontinue any form of ‘pursuit’ then bang, it would end.
It’s easy to say “I’m just following orders”. But that basically boils down to claiming that responsibility for one’s actions lies with someone else. And that’s as close to being morally bankrupt as I ever want to come.
In other words, for all persons subject to the UCMJ, oral (or anal) sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and whether “on base” or “off base”, is a court-martial offense.
Question: how kosher is it in the military to attempt to get rules changed that you don’t agree with?
Say I’m a heterosexual but enlightened private who feels the military’s position on homosexuals is ridiculous. Say I wanted to organize a grass-roots group of enlisted men to work toward changing this policy, while never violating it or advocating that anyone do so. How would that be seen by those higher up? Would it even be allowed?
Dr. J
Wabbit as I pointed out earlier, I feel that is the only arguement that I’ve heard that in the end stands up with the test of time.
Anyone who thinks that gays can not fight well, or cohesively, might want to read a bit about the Spartans. Our society however is different, so not everything translates into terms we accept. But the one thing which even the Spartans understood, is that where the line of command is concerned, fraternization is taboo.
DoctorJThat’s highly unkosher, and would not work within the military environment. “Grassroots Efforts” for anything is really tough. Military is Top Down. They’d need to get to the media, which is generally frowned upon unless you have already been booted, or are in the process of being booted. SLDN (Servicemembers Legal Defense Network) has taken this particular issue to heart, and is doing that fairly well, in my opinion.
Agreed Narile–there’s nothing more demoralizing than getting saddled with someone else’s KP shift because she’s ‘too busy’ to scrub pots. I can personally attest to that… 
Thanks Miller.
Exactly. The fact that he was gay made me more sympathetic because I don’t think that a persons sexuality should be an issue in the work place.
The interview was good. They were on the same page about the issue.
In a nutshell Poly, from what I have read on the board, I think many gay people are bitter because of they way they have been treated IRL. What they don’t realize is that I didn’t do it.
It is a terrible thing to be treated as if you are garbage or not even human. I would never dehumanize anyone.
The gay people I have met IRL are nothing like some of these posters, and they have probably been through just as much. Cajun Man, Dr. Matrix, and Oxymoron don’t seem bitter or negative about anything. (I don’t know anything about their personal lives, but I have met them)
Cajun Man, when we first met, talked to me about these issues. I think he was a little wary of me at first, but he got to know me a little bit better.
We have had drinks together, we talked about whatever, we walked in the cold to a bar together, and he is just a regular, normal, nice guy. I never judged him for his sexuality.
I don’t walk around saying, “YOU ARE ALL GOING TO HELL”.
I don’t know who is going to heaven or hell, and I never claimed to know. In my posts I have only stated what I have read in the Bible, and what it means. Obviously, we see the Bible a little differently, so our views will vary.
When I first graduated from HS, I took a job as a home health Aide. There was a particular case that none of the girls wanted to take. When I walked into the office, my supervisor told me about it and asked me if I would do it. I said, “sure”. It was my first hospice patient. He was gay and HIV positive.
He lived with his SO and his mom was staying with them because they knew he was on his way out. I took care of him for 6 months. I took care of him for 8 hours a day. I treated him like a human should be treated. He wasn’t bitter, his SO wasn’t bitter. I became very close to him and his family. The day he died, I was crushed. I had to be strong for his boyfriend and his mom. I had some time alone with him and I cried and I prayed. I prayed that God would keep him.
Many of the people on this board cannot get back at the people that hurt them, so they attack me. Well guys, I am the wrong person to attack. Just because I believe the Bible doesn’t mean I am going to treat you badly.
Pursuit? What pursuit?
You guys are under the impression that we are actively seeking out homosexuals and throwing them out, it appears.
That is most assuredly not the case. We have better things to do. Furthermore, if you call out someone claiming homosexuality, you had better have proof, or the wrath of God will come down and smite you, i.e. your Commanding Officer. There’s far too much to risk to go “gay bashing”.
JC, it’s never easy to say “I’m just following orders”. That conjures up images of My Lai and Lt. Calley, and nobody wants to be associated with stuff like that. Yet, we have to follow orders or things fall apart. It’s a delicate balance. I don’t particularly care for being called “morally bankrupt”, though. That’s a rather harsh condemnation, in my opinion. If your boss tells you to do something and you say no, what happens? You get fired. We go to jail in disgrace. So you have to be very careful about the line you walk on.
Also, I’m not sure that the dissolution of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule is something that comes under the purview of the JCS. Remember, the highest ranking General was once a Lieutenant, and while they gain considerable power, they’re still under the control of the President of the United States, and major policy decisions still have to go through him. There’s no such thing as selective enforcement. If the rule applies, it applies always, everywhere, forever, to everyone, unless it’s changed.
UncleBill, what can those of us who are civilians and opposed to this policy do, whether in aiding the SLDN or whatnot? It has been my experience that writing one’s congress rep/senator/mayor/news medium person usually gets a “thank you for your letter; we clearly did not read it, and we are fortunately not charging you for the effort it took to throw it away.” response.
"Furthermore, if you call out someone claiming homosexuality, you had better have proof, or the wrath of God will come down and smite you, i.e. your Commanding Officer. "
It is a pity that being homosexual is seen in enough of a negative light in the military that one can get in trouble for saying “Hey, you’re gay, aren’t you?”
A simple, “Nope, sorry” with a smile ought to be enough. Good grief. It’s not a disease…
I personally think the baiting of Jersey is pretty uncalled for. I disagree with her on a lot of things, but c’mon, give me a break!
Knock the chips off your shoulders.
And don’t worry about happy heathen-he’s the one who went around gloating when the priest abuse scandal broke.
In short-he takes joy in the misery of others.
That’s a great question, iampunha. I personally think it will take about eight or ten more years before this is cleared up. Legislation may change quickly, but attitudes take a while longer. What can we do NOW? Perhaps letters/e-mails/calls have a little more of an impact than you think. I don’t KNOW this, but I’m pretty sure Congressional offices have a staff just to tally these things. I write every so often, or e-mail, on various issues, and always start off with “I am a registered and active voter, a veteran, my wife is a veteran, yadda, yadda” and state my position and then closing respectfully. I have gotten “stock” replies that say “I hear you and will consider your point” when their position differs. Supporting SLDN may be your approach, too. I only know them through the media and their own website, but I assume they are legit and the point of main effort.
**Airman Doors, USAF wrote:
What I am is a person who understands exactly what the UCMJ means and who understands what happens when those laws are broken. Incidentally, I believe that the law that governs homosexuals in the military is Article 125, the one about sodomy, which is also a law fairly common among the individual states as well. Or is it something else? I dunno, but I would think Article 125 has something to do with it.**
The problem with this rule is that it’s being unequally enforced. IIRC, it deals with both anal and oral sodomy. Sure, they’ll use it to kick out gay men for having anal sex, but how many straight soliders are busted for having oral sex (giving or receiving). If the rule were EQUALLY enforced, you’d have 99% of the armed forces going through court martials.
Why not more properly put the responsibility where it belongs, on the politicians who make the rules, whom you elect time and time again?
Well, in the last national election, Al Gore was elected by the voters, but the U.S. Supreme Court decided its opinion counted more than mine on such matters.
Here’s a copy of the specific article:
- ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
A link to the appropriate site.
The way I read this, getting a blow-job is a punishable offense.
Sadly, the voters don’t elect the president. The states do, through their electors. President Bush was elected by the electors, because the Constitution says their opinions count more than yours or mine.
All the SC was to block the endless cycle of “I didn’t win? Recount them! Oh, I still didn’t win? Well, recount again. Still no? Ok, recount again…”
Let’s not rehash this whole 2000 election thing again, ok? It’s really old news.
And of course, if Gore had been in the White House right now, boy howdy, he’d have jumped right on this issue, wouldn’t he?
Do you have any idea how silly you make yourself sound when you bring that up?
And yes, getting a blowjob is in fact illegal according to the UCMJ. And in 14 other states, it appears.
The funny thing is, it’s a trumped up charge. It’s like getting Al Capone on tax evasion, because they have nothing else to go with. It’s cheap, it’s dirty, but it’s the law, and if applied equally, yes, Freyr, 99% of the military would be court-martialed. But it’s not. And I am powerless to do anything about it except destroy myself in protest.
And so, I repeat, for the people in the cheap seats, I think it’s dumb. But I am not going to immolate myself or make my family suffer to right this wrong. If that’s OK with you all, that is.
Airman Doors, it was the military with aid from their Republican friends and a few blue dog Democrats who pushed back any further modifications by Clinton stating they wouldn’t follow orders from a pot-smoking draft dodger on the issue of gays: Emphasis mine:
I remember it clearly. They said he can’t force us, and Clinton, already under fire for being a weak Commander-In-Chief chose to finesse the matter, rather than face mass resignations and the humiliation to follow. So let’s not pretend any given president has unilateral power over the entrenched military bureaucracy – what with even the Republican’s lack of success with cutting the obscene military spending like the Crusader boondoggle.