Integration is a good example of a precedent. There was a lot of opposition in the ranks when Truman signed that order, and some of the same specious objections. It was too bad for them. The Commander in Chief should never be afraid of offending bigots within the ranks. They are the problem, not the targets of discrimination.
Well, the Dems have control of the house and senate. Time for them to shit or get off the pot I’m thinking.
I think this is a golden opportunity for Obama to push through some important things while the country is focused on other things (like the economy, war in Iraq, etc.). He has a good chance to get a lot of small but important things pushed through and in place before the other side can start to build resistance.
-XT
Technically, yeah, but as was pointed out, Obama can still effectively end enforcement of it with an Executive Order until it gets legislatively repealed.
Most military showers are already individual stalls, and most sleeping quarters are 2-4 person rooms, not the open group barracks. The main exception to this is Basic Training camps, where the recruits are deliberately kept doing everything in groups.
. . . mmph . . . Must . . . resist . . . gratuitous . . . cheapshot . . . must . . . resist . . .
I’d ask Bill Clinton about that
I think allowing gays to serve openly in the military is a good idea so long as they are assigned to appropriate duties.
Like, guarding the POW camps.
“All right, Colonel Gaylord, we are putting yew and the Fighting Pink Panthers in charge of this heah POW camp . . . 1500 prisoners, more arriving every day . . . All of them are lean, muscular, swarthy, hardy sons of the desert . . . They have been raised to respect authority, but only when it applies discipline with a firm hand. As devout Muslims they are accustomed to getting down on their hands and knees five times a day; however, they cannot be induced to eat pork in any form. Think yew can handle this assignment, Colonel?”
“Oh, YES, General! There’ll be no escapes from this camp!” 
And there won’t be . . . because if they try, they know what’s coming . . .
“Colonel Hassan . . . Colonel HASSan . . . WON’T you come into the Commandant’s office for a moment? We know what you naughty boys in Barracks Four have been up to! One way or another, Colonel Hassan, you are going to show the Commandant your escape tunnel!”
I will point out that I am in favor of this change in general, but let’s not kid ourselves - in order to be done correctly this has to take into account sexual misconduct among all soldiers, which was winked at for way too long and has only been addressed systematically fairly recently.
Like it or not, too, there are differences between gay and lesbian soldiers in this area - lesbians tend to get into trouble in this regard less often than than gay soldiers, and even are seen by some commanders as easier to manage than straight females in the aggregate - since they have fewer family problems that screw up work schedules and deployments.
I have no doubt that the military can handle openly gay members, but this has to be planned for and the rules they would have to follow would not make most of us comfortable - as indeed all military members are subject to a discipline we don’t have to deal with. Discharges for sexual misconduct and adultery would still happen, for instance, and members who can’t get their family or financial life in order will pose a discipline problem as well.
I assume the military won’t be providing same-sex couple’s housing unless the federal government repeals DOMA and grants equal rights/equal access. Don’t see that happening right now.
Enlisted berthing aboard ship is still “open bay”, too. Not that that matters much, as far as I can see.
Eliminating DADT should be packaged right alongside opening up combat arms jobs to women. It seems to me that opponents of one are opponents of the other, and that Obama could easily kill two birds with one stone.
I don’t know if this is anywhere on his agenda, but if it is, it makes sense to get both changes made together as the logistics and the opposition are pretty much the same.
I don’t see what berthing has to do with DADT…gays can’t get pregnant.
Excuse me? I support getting rid of DADT, but the other thing is a different matter entirely. You cannot make women hike further or lift heavier loads by legislation.
You merely legislate it and woman can crack track or chip paint and haul heavy loads just like men!
-XT
We had a discussion about that this morning in the Battalion briefing room. (our annual POSH class…Prevention of Sexual Harrassment) I’m just coming from Europe and a NATO job so I can confirm something the 1st Sergeant said: Other militaries have already let homosexuals openly serve. (UK, Nehterlands, Canada). Its not that big of a deal.
I know its not for me. As long as a person can perform their duties I really don’t give a rats ass what they do in the dark with another person at home. Most of the people I hear complaining from my side of the biz is rather childish.
“I don’t want some guy checking out my package in the shower!” kinda stuff. If you’ve served in the military for any significant amount of time you’ve probably served with a gay person already.
thats only my 2 quatloos but its not 1990 anymore. We need to grow up a little.
A side note: Wghen DADT was in effect, as a recruiter I was told that if I believe an applicant is gay I can refuse to enlist them even if they don’t admit it. The applicant has to prove they aren’t gay. I thought that was ridiculous. Whats the applicant gonna do? Tape themselves doing it with their girl/boy friend and show it to me in the station?
I’ve put at least 2 people in the army that I knew were gay when they enlisted. (like they would have turned them down in 2005 anyway…:rolleyes:)
No, but the ones who already hike and lift enough can certainly be allowed through legislation to choose the job they want, instead of being artificially restricted as now.
I guarantee you that there are plenty of infantrymen right now who can’t pull their weight, and as many women who can easily do the job but are being denied the chance to prove it. Why dismiss 50% of potential recruits? The next Audie Murphy is probably out there right now and some recruiter is talking her into becoming a cook.
Heehee…now thats funny.
Not at all. Women are not open to combat arms for a reason other than bigotry. Because they are inferior fighters. It’s not a politically correct thing.
How high are the physical requirements for front-line combatants in the U.S. military? Are we talking 10% of the female population, or 0%?
Cite?