[QUOTE=Billdo]
More significantly, we are currently in two wars and the military is having to stretch to meet recruiting goals. There have been well-publicized cases where critically needed Arabic translators were kicked out of the military because of the policy and several ranking officers have come out in opposition to the policy. And national polls show that a strong majority favors allowing gays to serve.
If a Democratic President is elected, and Congress retains its Democratic majority in both houses, I’d say it is very likely that the ban on gays in the military will be eliminated.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if a Dem is elected to the WH, I hope we won’t be in 2 wars very long. But after doing some googling on polling data, it does appear that a significant majority of Americans favor allowing gays to serve openly, so you might very well be right.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I’m all for that happening, however I’m far from thinking it will be sunshine and roses for everyone if it does.
Fact is, the fears some people in the military have of gay sexual relations creating a breakdown in discipline is a genuine one, and it has a basis in reality.
Sexual relations pursued without regard to command structure, rank, personal hygiene, birth control, personal privacy, or consent is a major problem for the military. And I don’t think the brass mentioned above want to invite more problems in the name of making things more equal.
Right now, the majority of problems caused are heterosexual in nature, which will always be the case, obviously. Even so, IMHO, this change cannot be made without cracking down on sexual misconduct broadly across the military
[/QUOTE]
This carries an assumption that openly gay people in the military would be more likely to engage in fraternization or sexual misconduct than heteros or closeted gays.
Nope. In fact, the opposite was true in my experience, at least by raw numbers. Lesbian military members also aren’t burdened quite so much by single parenthood, and that is a major problem that the military has to deal with among its single female members quite a lot.
However, I did see quite a bit of sexual misconduct of both the heterosexual and homosexual variety during my military enlistment, and saw how both can cause major morale and readiness problems.
The military needs to get serious about fixing these (and, indeed, is making steps in this area. It is treated much more seriously than when I was in.) Only in an environment where all sexual misconduct isn’t tolerated can gays and lesbians openly serve.
They didn’t cause this problem, by and large, but they damn sure have to be part of the solution if it is to work.
I just hope it doesn’t become a hot button issue during the next elections. Americans have given the House and Senate back to the Democrats. We’ve made our statement, and we’re under much less pressure to give the White House to the Dems too.
All we need is to pin Hillary or Barack to the gays in the military issue and we could easily see a Republican slide right back into the WH.
When I served in the Army I knew a gay man and a lesbian. The lesbian was our unit’s soldier of the year. The man was a good friend. Most of us knew their orientations and didn’t give a shit because they were good at their jobs.
When the man told me I already had my suspicions. He said he wouldn’t try to hit on me. I told him I appreciated the fact that he understood I was completely straight. He said, “Nope. It’s because I think you’re uglier than shit!”
It’s too bad that soldiers like these can’t be open about their orientations because of this half-assed policy.
Der Trihs made this same absurd comment in a different thread a few months ago. I was hoping it was a massive whoosh but it seems he genuinely believes the government is going to start slapping pink triangles on him and his friends and shipping them off to re-education camps where they will be forced to watch American Chopper, WWE and Walker, Texas Ranger while drinking Bud, eating chili and having farting contests.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
The problem is, “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a product of federal law, which means that, even if a president wanted to change the policy, he couldn’t. It would take a law to get through Congress and signed by the president to change the policy now.
[/QUOTE]
True, but all the President need do is issue and executive order halting discharges, forbidding courts-martial, and instructing COs not to discriminate and DADT would dead for practical purposes (though the next POTUS could reverse it just as easy).
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, no, and very small. America is getting more bigoted towards gays, not less; note all the anti-gay marriage laws passed recently. Gays in the military and out of it are going to be lucky to hold on to what they have, much less get anything else. I wouldn’t be surprised if I see it outlawed to be gay again in my lifetime; I certainly don’t ever expect them to be allowed to openly join the military; not for generations.
[/QUOTE]
Utter nonsense. A number of states in which it was previously illegal for gays to get married, passed laws saying that it was illegal for gays to get married. Meanwhile, one state has already legalized gay marriage, another state has passed a civil union bill that’s marriage-in-all-but-name, and a third state actually passed a law mandating recognition of gay marriage, only to have it vetoed by the governer. In dozens of other states, gay rights and protections are expanding. And look at the popular media. There are whole shows about gays now. Hell, there are whole networks about gays now. Will and Grace was a succesful, long-running sitcom. It wasn’t just gays watching it. Hell, from personal experience, there weren’t any gays watching it. All the queers I know hated that fucking show, myself included.
Yes, America is still overwhelmingly homophobic. But we’re less homophobic now than we have been at any previous point in our history. And we’re getting better every day. I expect to see gay marriage in my lifetime (although not until pretty late in my lifetime), and gays in the military within the next decade. Sooner, depending on how long Iraq stretches out.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Yes, America is still overwhelmingly homophobic. But we’re less homophobic now than we have been at any previous point in our history. And we’re getting better every day. I expect to see gay marriage in my lifetime (although not until pretty late in my lifetime), and gays in the military within the next decade. Sooner, depending on how long Iraq stretches out.
[/QUOTE]
I think it will be legal in CA, whre we both live, within 5 years. Ten at the most. Arnold will be succeeded by a Democrat most likely, and (s)he won’t veto the bill. I wouldn’t be surprised if we could pass a ballot measure at this point overturning prop 22.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Wellll . . . which of the current crop of announced or potential candidates might be gay?
[/QUOTE]
As I recall, when you get the most rabid right-wingers frothing at the mouth about Hillary Clinton, they’ll sometimes toss in lesbian among her real and imagined crimes against decency, humanity and The God-Given American Way.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I think it will be legal in CA, whre we both live, within 5 years. Ten at the most. Arnold will be succeeded by a Democrat most likely, and (s)he won’t veto the bill. I wouldn’t be surprised if we could pass a ballot measure at this point overturning prop 22.
[/QUOTE]
I’d like to believe that, but I don’t share your optimism. Even if the legislature passes the bill, the courts should rightly strike it down as trying to undo the initiative. As much as I’m not a fan of Arnold, he did the right thing in vetoing a blatantly unconstitutional law.
I think it’s more likely to take at least 20 years (barring a Supreme Court decision, which is not out of the question).
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I think it will be legal in CA, whre we both live, within 5 years. Ten at the most. Arnold will be succeeded by a Democrat most likely, and (s)he won’t veto the bill. I wouldn’t be surprised if we could pass a ballot measure at this point overturning prop 22.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I should have specified that I was talking on the national level. Individual states will legalize it at a much faster rate, of course.