In the past I have found information on the DOD website that shows that only 1/3 of those serving in WWII volunteered.
I still don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. Dopers are a smart and knowledgeable bunch, and I’m pretty sure most Dopers know full well what the UCMJ is, if they’ve ever read a military thread. Even if they didn’t know, most Dopers could google it faster than it took me to type this sentence.
What is so unique about the UCMJ you think Dopers aren’t grasping?
Thanks.
It is something of an unanswerable question though. How many draftees would have volunteered eventually, given enough time? Maybe they just got drafted a couple of weeks before taking that decision upon themselves?
Maybe they figured sitting back and waiting for Uncle Sam to call was the best way to help the war effort, and without a draft would have succumbed to recruiting pressure instead?
How many people didn’t volunteer OR get drafted, simply because the draft was in place? By that I mean people who said “Gee, if the government really needed me, I’d be drafted already,” but without a draft would have felt guilty for not volunteering and might have joined?
You can see why a simple “percentage of military who volunteered” isn’t the most satisfying answer to my question, although I appreciate the effort.
For six years in the US Navy I read the UCMJ over the urinal almost every day. During that time I personally violated the sodomy article more than once. I listened to people (up and down the chain from me) talk about violating it. In a few commands, people would initial the parts they violated in the latrine.* I knew of two people who left the service because they were gay and neither was prosecuted under that article. What is your point?
Jonathan
*They initialed in the latrine, I have no knowledge of where the violations took place. For those who were never in the military, the Navy choose to post the USMJ in every bathroom. Usually right above the urinals.
The entire thing?
Not all of it. Mostly the punitive articles and few others. They do it to comply with Article 137:
Well, the white house web page says that he is going to end it.
It says he’s going to “work with military leaders.” Not to be a crab-ass, but we’ll see. I was in the military when Clinton did the same thing. Maybe Clinton’s groundwork will enable Obama to get more accomplished.
My idea is simply no double standard. I am aware that military conduct is stricter than civilian law. As long as hets and homos have to follow the same rules I’m fine.
That also works the other way - how many people would have volunteered if there wasn’t a draft? Remember, even in WW2, all the best, most interesting and most prestigious positions had to be volunteered for. How many men said to themselves, “Well, they’re probably going to draft me anyway, and I don’t want to end up driving a tank. I’m going to join the Airborne Infantry”? In fact, many of the veterans featured in *Band of Brothers *said similar things.
I myself am a case in point. Would I have joined the military if my country didn’t have a draft? Probably not. But it does, so I volunteered for an infantry unit.
Theres still the curtain though. You do NOT touch another mans curtain unless you’re willing to get your ass kicked.
But its really no big deal. We had a gay guy in our berthing, and nobody cared. He wasn’t open about it, but it wasn’t a secret either. Sadly, he got booted for being gay, which was such a stupid waste. He was a good mechanic.
Nope. As someone pointed out upthread, if it’s made clear in Basic Training that sexual orientation is just not a problem in the military, then attitudes will start changing from the bottom up (STOP that sniggering) reasonably fast. Anyone who’s gone through Basic will have had a few other prejudices adjusted, anyway.
As for existing units, chances are that anyone who gives a damn knows already. A simple order should hammer it home (“This will NOT be a problem in this unit, and anyone thinking about trying to make it one will NOT like the consequences. Dismissed.”) The military does not operate on a system of consensus democracy.
Yeah, no shit. Most of my Army career I worked with women. They worked under me (heh, heh) they worked over me (heh, heh) and guess what? Women like men. Ewww! Ick!
Somehow it worked.
Indeed, it was much weirder than I expected. It looked like a parody.
Exactly. And this military, is subordinate to the elected civilian leadership. As it should be.
As mentioned, the issues about potential sexual misconduct (once the UCMJ is amended to be in accordance to the Lawrence case) would have to be dealt with under rules covering **gender-immaterial **assault/harassment (including hostile workplace)/fraternization/“damage to good order and discipline”, and it would require taking the improper conduct seriously wherever, whenever, among whomever it happens… and probably having a good look at what IS considered inappropriate so the rules make sense in what’s supposed to be a grownup environment.
Now, I do see one potential difficulty, with the “deadenders” inside the system deciding that now they’ll jam the system up with accusations or complaints. To which the answer also is that anyone trying THAT kind of trick will not like the consequences.
One of the biggest impacts of don’t ask don’t tell is that partnered gays and lesbians have to hide their families. One of the things that helps when a family member is overseas is talking to others in the situation, and of course talking to your family member. Don’t ask don’t tell takes that away. The arguments about sexual misconduct and discomfort are trivial compared to the enormity of asking our soldiers to serve with no connection to their families.
It’ll be interesting how the military defines “family.” The federal government still doesn’t recognize gay marriage, and I imagine the military won’t start performing marriages either, right away at least. I wonder if there will be any way to keep couples together if both members are in the service?
It isn’t any definition of ‘family’ that’s needed – just simple things like being able to kiss your partner as they go off overseas, or being able to say “I love you” at the end of a phone conversation from a war zone. Right now, those would be a violation of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Presumably, the same that is done now for opposite-sex couples. I know several families where both people are in the service.
What about simple stuff like being able to live on base with your partner, having them on the health plan, or getting survivor’s benefits? Once gay soldiers are allowed to serve openly they will start to demand recognition for their partners.