My Dad is a retired Major General, also a West Point grad, dual Vietnam vet, career Army officer in the Corps of Engineers, pretty damn conservative…and even he is coming around to the notion that as long as you are a good soldier and perform your duties as instructed without fail, then your sexuality is moot. I agree with him, even in spite of the fact that the machismo culture of the military would be pretty rough internally on any gay people that get “outed”. And to me, therein lies the flawed wisdom of DADT.
If I were gay and wanted to militarily serve my country, there’s NO WAY I would let that fact become common knowledge. An openly gay man (a “flamer”) would be mercilessly beaten at some point by his dittohead comrades.
I think that most of the military generally finds the sexuality to be a moot point these days. I think Obama was dragging his feet because he wanted the military to get acclimated to the idea before it was forced upon them. It’s called being, “Diplomatic.”, but for the LGBT:
What do we want? Equal Rights!
When do we want it! NOW!!!
Can’t say I blame them for that POV, I just think it’s stupid to treat Obama like the enemy when he’s the most powerful friend they’ve ever had.
I was positively incensed when they fired the gay translators under the Bush admin.
Common sense and basic observation tells me differently.
Well, that’s an objective group.
Social scientists know that.
I never said it was 2%. What I’ve seen from actual scientists is somewhere around 5-6% for men and 2-3% for women.
As for DADT, that only applies to acts while the person is in the military. Even if the general population who has had one same sex experience might be higher, the number who did so while in the military would not be as high.
There’s a big difference between “openly gay” and “a flamer”. Not that there’s anything wrong with any group, but there’s a wide range of openly gay men, from nondescript everyday people to those who couldn’t be more obvious with a neon sign.
A bold move fraught with political danger for Obama.
Good on him, but now he needs to sell it . Politics being the way it is in America today, he NEEDS some Republican support.
He could mention that 23 other countries allow gays to serve in the military but I’m afraid that mentioning the popularity of a program (like UHC) in other countries just won’t cut it with Republicans.
That’s what many groups said in 2000 (and look what’s happened since then), and I think they all have the same problems.
So I think it’s already been threatened, done, and failed.
And a devil’s advocate question: this tactic seems to presume that a President Palin could not cause any major damage to gay rights while in office (which, despite what you said above, could very well be eight years). On what assumptions are you basing this belief on, given that you already think Democrats will not lift a finger to help gay rights?
There is? Color me confused. To me, (an admitted somewhat homophobe, like an “alcoholic” is an alcoholic), a “flamer” and an “openly gay man” are close to the same thing. I realize upon reflection that they are not…but I said that and have no way to back it up other than my prejudice.
I also realize that a “flaming gay man” is pretty out there in terms of sexual orientation (is that what we say these days??) while an “openly gay man” is more prone to keeping his sexuality quiet…which I suppose I was getting at in a roundabout way…
Well, it looks like it’s more than just lip service, after all. Although it does look like they might be willing to scale it back, rather than repeal it. I’d guess it comes down to how many votes they can get in the Senate.
Then, maybe we can work on ENDA. I don’t see a repeal of DOMA coming in the near future, though.
As an Active Duty Sailor with 18 years in, my personal opinion is that a repeal of DADT would do little. I have known plenty of gay sailors in my 18 years of service, including a Master Chief, who hid it for 30 years. Most sailors would not care if we came to work one day and found out that 5-10% of our shipmates were gay. True “flamers” could still be kicked out of the military on other charges. You can be brought up on Sexual Harassment charges for creating a hostile work environment. Most gays would probably remain closeted, for fear of that, but at least they would have greater protection from bigotry. The “hostile work environment” could then be brought up in the case of Gay bashing and Gay jokes. And, if you are assaulted, you would actually be able to say “He hit me because I am gay”, without fear of getting kicked out, although “He hit me” would suffice at NJP for getting the other guy kicked out. At this point, I don’t think it would matter much, but I am only speaking of my Navy experience, and can’t speak for the other services.
Oh, and I guess the Navy has always been a little more gay friedly - see the Village People…
Sexual orientation is the determiner of which gender you find attractive. Nothing more. Orientation neither predicts nor controls behavior. Some gay men are flamboyant, some gay men are not. The sexual orientation of both is “gay”. There are openly gay men who play sports and openly gay men who only go to sports events to watch the other men in shorts. There are openly gay men who do woodworking, and openly gay men who knit. Now, you’re going to find more flamboyant behavior among openly gay men, but that’s a matter of those men (who are somewhat effeminate OUTSIDE of being gay) not feeling they have to hide their effeminate mannerisms. There are probably just as many straight men who have effeminate mannerisms who’ve had the idea that they MUST suppress it hammered into them their whole lives.
And there IS a segment of gay men who adopt those mannerisms because that’s the way they think gay men are supposed to act.
Ae you talking about the Officer ranks? Navy Officers are known to be back-biting idiots when it comes to competition for promotion, and they will pull anyone down for anything.
“Flaming” has strictly to do with over-the-top effeminate behavior, and nothing to do with being openly gay. Richard Simmons is a flamer, but denies that he’s gay. Jack, on *Will & Grace, *is a flamer, and is also openly gay. Most openly gay men, on the other hand, don’t “flame” any more than most straight guys. Being gay, openly or otherwise, has to do with being attracted to one’s own gender, and has nothing to do with behavior. An openly gay man is honest about is sexuality, as opposed to a closeted gay man.
I said I would apologize if there was structure or a time table. President Obama, I am sorry I doubted your word. You have put structure behind your promise.
I wonder if the plan will include asking Congress to address Article 125 of the UCMJ (“sodomy”)? The rest of the country outside the military has managed to somehow stagger along through the daily rains of fire and brimstone, cats living with dogs, etc., for over six years now. (And not maintaining a policy that declares nearly everyone in the armed forces to be a criminal would seem to make sense to me, but then again, I’m not in the military, and I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not a Congressperson, so what do I know.)
Does the UCMJ trump a SCOTUS ruling (which basically means trumps the US Constitution)?
I know the courts extend more latitude to the military but I thought the Constitution was THE law of the land. Indeed, those in the military take an oath to uphold the Constitution so seems they are doubly bound by it.
If sodomy laws are deemed unconstitutional then I would think Article 125 is essentially worthless now.
People in the military do not necessarily have all the same liberties that they have as civilians. It has long been held that the military has the right to impose rules it deems necessary to maintain full functionality, order, discipline, morale, etc.
Adultery is still illegal in the military, for instance, and they can tell you to shave and get a haircut.
If black men (as an example) were being abused by other sailors and the chain of command ignored it that is a good argument in favor of not allowing blacks in the military? :rolleyes: