On the day that a House Armed Services subcommittee will hold a hearing on the continued viability of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," National Review Online has a good column by Deroy Murdock arguing that openly gay people should be allowed to serve.
Murdock summarizes some familiar developments of the past 15 years that have undermined DADT: more tolerant attitudes toward gays among servicemembers; changing views of military brass; the overriding needs of the country in wartime, especially for certain specialists; the incongruity of enlisting felons while discharging law-abiding gay soldiers with excellent records of service; and the lessons from militaries like Britain's and Israel's that allow gays to serve.
He does offer one argument I hadn't seen before:
The battle-cry “Think of the children” also applies to this issue.
While gay couples and same-sex parents might disagree, gay service members generally are less likely to have spouses and kids awaiting them stateside. Therefore, pro-family conservatives should decry a policy that strips a childless gay soldier of his uniform, but keeps a straight GI in his body armor, far from his wife and kids, on multiple combat tours in Baghdad. Since 2003, NBC News reports, the Pentagon involuntarily has redeployed 58,000 such “stop-lossed” servicemen and women.
Eliminating DADT as pro-family social policy? James Dobson, call your office.
75% percent is a very nice significant number, for it is pretty much the opposite of the evangelical republicans which constitute about 1/4 of total voters in the US (which is also Bush's base for this is about the lowest Bush approval rating gets to). Thus democrats will have very little political losses for pushing a repeal of DADT, has political cover from many generals, and it is likely to gain several republican votes in certain parts of the country.
I would think that a soldier could defend himself against the advances of an unwanted suitor. Not to mention the military justice system for more (may I be so droll) gross breaches of decorum.
Under DADT they already can, allowing them to serve openly would just like the shy know who they don't want to shower with. They would deal with it of course the same way anyone in the military does if there's someone in the shower the owe money to - they just won't go in until they are gone. (NO better way to lower your run in probability of someone in the Army than to lend them money...)
Whichever President signs the eventual DADT repeal should also issue a pardon to every soldier that was expelled for violating DADT.
Anyone who holds a different view and who has not served as an enlisted man has no basis for their opinion. Those who have so served are worth hearing out even if I disagree with them.
As for the public's opinion, that is worst reason for forming military policy I have ever heard.
Also, it is totally unfair that gays in the military get to have all the fun in the shower! Shower-fairness is a compellingly important policy consideration.
Finally, gay men are EXACTLY like women, except with more penis. All policies can be made by analogy to what the military does to women.
I can see why you pursued a carrer as a PAID mercenary ("service" - LOL ) rather than as an academic - critical thinking skills are hard!!!! The people PAYING the mercenaries to do our grunt work are the only ones with control over what they do. We are the ones who can judge how good a job the mercenaries we pay do. Mercenaries should know their place - we give the orders, we pay them. We are the ones who see the big picture of what is desirable in our work force.
No, you're slandering him and anyone who agrees with him by insisting that his view can only be the result of prejudice.
"Our armed forces seem to be working just fine at the moment. We depend on young men to volunteer and they continue to do so. The thoughts and concerns of young men therefore need to be taken into account. The number of additional soldiers that might volunteer as a result of a repeal of DADT is not likely to be more than the number who might not volunteer because of such repeal."
Lawlz. Friends of mine in the military have consistently told me that the rate of gay sex is...er....more than one would expect from watching movies. Especially in the navy. I mean c'mon...what kind of people are going to be attracted to an all-male environment for an extended period of time? lot of men join the military precisely so they can act on their gay fantasies.
Who came up with this whole civilian control idea anyhow?
Trying to explain why it is a bad idea is like trying to explain a sunset to a blind man, or music to a deaf man. The life of an enlisted man is so different that it cannot be explained.
I'm a military retiree, enlisted man, 20+ years of service, combat experience, several leadership positions, and heterosexual. I would not have said this 15 years ago, but today, it's time to dump DADT. Homosexuality just isn't the threat to order it used to be. Toward the end of my military career, I noticed the young troops really didn't care if someone was gay (and believe me, sometimes it was easy to figure out who was, even if they didn't "tell" and as a leader I couldn't "ask").
The benefit to the military of having a larger accession pool, not having to discharge people in critically short specialties, and so on, far outweighs the rather miniscule threat to order of allowing gays to serve. I would bet most gays would not go out of their way to be open even if it were allowed.
"Oh, this dip? Yeah it's great, nothing like the rations we had to eat back in the service.
Never mind, you wouldn't understand."
"Yeah, this song was playing once when I was in the service.
But you can't relate to that experience."
I don't think this is right. Without doing the research (too busy), I am pretty sure that the DADT discharges are usually admin discharges. Only a courts martial can award the "duck dinner."
And Happyshooter has a point. I was an "O" type but I think I can safely say that (at least in the Marines) it is an entirely different world, hard to put into words and even harder to understand if you haven't been there.
And yes, I could tell some funny stories, and I am sure Mikey could tell a whole lot better ones.
However, the plain truth is that it is a whole different world.
Correct, gays are administratively discharged. The DD is a punitive discharge that can only be imposed by a court martial.
There may be some gay conduct currently prohibited by the UCMJ that would lead to a court martial, but simply announcing one's homosexuality results in an administrative discharge.
I retired in 2006, so this info should still be accurate...
Some kind of civilian control with military input is just crazy talk! Either you're on one side or you're not!
I stand corrected. Thank you.
This is just traditional election-year pandering to activists for votes and campaign contributions.
DADT was hardly a civilian railroading of the brass, it was written by Colin Powell, if wikipedia is to be believed (I know, it's run by craazy communist hippies).
And, to open another can of worms, didn't shoehorning blacks into the military benefit the organization in the long run?]
Allowing gays harms good order and discipline.
The only thing that harms discipline and unit cohesion is bad leadership. Officers and NCOs get orders every day that they don't like. The good ones deal with it and follow them. They don't take down their unit because someone decided to implement a policy that they don't like.
I disagree. A good NCO and officer can control the troops even in the face of a really bad policy, but:
1) How many Officer and SNCO teams are that good; and
2) The time and effort needed to keep the gay unharmed would be much better spent making a better unit.
This isn't nearly as difficult a problem as you seem to think that it is. I've seen racism dealt with very effectively in some of the units I've been in. There wasn't a whole lot of rocket science to it.
The time and effort needed to keep the gay unharmed would be much better spent making a better unit.
Seriously? This at least explains why you think that there aren't many effective NCOs, SNCOs and officers. Even the infantry units that I had to work with weren't that bad.
Is it possible that when framed that way, the American public wouldn't be quite so willing to go along? The image of their 18-19 year old daughter sharing a room and shower with one, or possibly more, heterosexual male soldiers would not be one many would embrace.
The plural of anecdote is not data. I can easily come up with soldiers who have no problem with gays--the only reason I can come up with fewer is because I haven't served. But if you'd like to match anecdotes with my Marine and Army friends, I can pass a request on to them.
In the meantime, "The Army can't handle gays because I've been there and say it" is as much bullsh*t as "Nixon won't win, nobody I know is voting for him."
Seriously? This at least explains why you think that there aren't many effective NCOs, SNCOs and officers. Even the infantry units that I had to work with weren't that bad.
Indeed - I served in the 70's and 80's and troops didn't cared about gays then and if the polling is to be believed even fewer care now.
And all this group showering - it happens so rarely any more - even in the field they were divided individual stalls made of canvas in the shower tent...
So many other civilized countries have made the switch without an issue - why do they assume that American troops are incompetent in this regard?
I met a lot of homosexuals in the military, especially women.
My question has always been the same as Russ's. Why is letting a homosexual man or woman live in a single mass living quarters not the same as letting a straight man or woman live in the barracks of the sex they are attracted to?
Logically there is no difference, but no one will admit it. I had women friends in the Navy tell me that living onboard a ship with lesbian women felt like sharing their quarters with guys sometimes. They were oggled and commented on going to the showers just as if the people making the comments were guys.
I have heard homosexual guys claim that it is different because they aren't attracted to straight guys because the straight guys aren't interested in them. I call BS. I am a normal guy. I look at and admire the female form whether or not they are attracted to me. I can't believe that homosexual guys are that different.
The answer is that barracks won't go coed because some people think it is icky. People in and out of the military would complain. The politics of it would make DADT look like a walk in the park. They will turn a blind eye to the homosexual berthing issue and pretend it is different.
I'm in the military, and I can say for a fact that the "group showering" thing happens a great deal during deployment. Let's see, are we in the middle of a situation that requires large numbers of deployments? Hmm...
The barracks often have three to four soldiers to a room, at least until a post recognizes the need to construct new housing units, and then it takes 3-5 years to do so.
Yes, I'm aware that most can handle it, but I still think my original question holds - why not completely integrate? If sexual preference/orientation is not an issue, then males and females should integrate in this close knit environment as well. Remember, we're not just talking about working together, but in living together. Why is one way discriminatory and the other is not?
That said, if a particular individual is obnoxious, there are ways of dealing with obnoxious individuals. In the meantime, I'm supposed to believe that Marines can face enemy bullets and explosives but they'll wilt if some guy admires their butt?
Um. . .what?
Is this a joke?
If the gays continued to act as they do now under DADT there would be few if any problems. BUT THAT is NOT going to happen. Sure 90% of the gays will continue without problems. But the others will just HAVE TO FREAK the STRAIGHTS. They can't do that now under DADT but allow openly gay and guess what? The FREAK the STRAIGHTS gays are PROTECTED. And if you think that THAT will not cause problems you are )&^^&@!&% stupid.
Would two or more gays of the same rank have the right to have sex in an open bay barrack? If not why not?
If a gay is rooming with straight(s) and he brings a friend back to his room for sex can the straight(s) complain?
IT is not simply that DADT is removed because most people today have a tolerance for gays. They have a TOLERANCE! There are many gays that want to force way past tolerance. Without DADT it becomes very hard to make lines of what is to much. Not impossible but hard and very hard across the entire military.
Do you really want to go there?
Is it going to make the military better?
Yes seeing Sister Boom-Boom show up for services at the post church is sure to improve the military.
Are you sure?
The no females in the room rule wasn't broken.
What becomes the limit? Kissing, what?
And what about he said he said.
1 - "He came on to me. I told him no. He continued to bother me. So I kicked his ass to teach him NO means NO."
2 - "I didn't do anything. He just started hitting me."
No other witness. I would bet the Straight gets punished.
If the straight told the truth? That squad is going to be really effective in combat?
Yet another great social experiment for the military.
Based on the military's sterling history of bringing sexual assault perpetrators to justice, I would have to agree.
That's not a sexual orientation problem. It's a jerk problem. I'm sure the military has effective ways (formally and informally) of dealing with jerks.
Until you've been shot at and had some guy admire your butt you have no basis for you opinion.
The AF was the first to leave open barracks, and first to give individual rooms. The other services are following up, at least on base(deployment is another issue, everybody uses open barracks there, with few exceptions).
The issues brought up by Dan are the big hurtle. There are plenty of stories showing that a relationship like this can rip a unit apart. Most militaries are integrated this way, and if it can work for them, it can work for us, but everyone has to work for it.
Part of the reason for having women separately billeted and not allowed in combat zones is to prevent relationships between people who have to make decisions outside of, and possibly contrary to, those relationships. Rules about fraternization and such are there for that purpose, but would have to apply, and be fairly enforced(teh scenario Dan mentioned).
I doubt that kind of response would be encouraged when dealing with an unwanted homosexual advance.
Being in the military means having lots of experiences you'd prefer to avoid. The food is bad. The beds are uncomfortable. It's a crapshoot who you'll room with. The hours are long and the pay is lousy. I fail to see why the occasional second glance from someone -- male or female -- who does nothing for me is qualitatively different. As has already been pointed out, if somebody's being a jerk there are ways of dealing with individuals who are jerks.
Just ignore it. Like you ignore the bad food and the uncomfortable beds.
Perfectly put. If gays cause a problem (hitting on or actually having unwanted physical contact with other soldiers) then deal with it in individual instances. Otherwise if someone who is homosexual should be able to serve openly in the military.
People in the military have to deal with, at worst, being shot at or blown up. I have a hard time believing these folks are so squeamish that they can't deal with showering with a gay guy. It's as though all the military does is take showers, and every male there is like George Costanza.
Well, according to Deroy Murdock's column in National Review:
My thesis is that having those linguists translating intelligence intercepts "will somehow improve the ability of the military to fight a war." Do you disagree?
I still think my original point is valid - if sexual orientation/preference is not an issue, then we should completely integrate. When your daughter calls and tells you she's now rooming with two 23 year old male SPC4s, you should have no problem with that.
What most people don't understand is that most of our closest allies already allow openly gay servicmen. It includes, Israel, Great Britian, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, among others. And most of these are part of the coalition forces in Iraq, so our servicemen are already working alongside openly gay soldiers. Studies have shown that there have been few or no disciplinary incidents caused by the new policy.
When Britian opened up their service, they allowed any current serviceman the opportunity to quit the service without any penalty. A total of three did.
So no, allowing gays to openly serve does NOT lead to disciplinary problems, or a lowered rate of enlistees. Of course, if you have better data, please show it. But the actual data from real life examples shows it hasn't been a problem.
Furthermore, the current policy forces servicemen to lie. Many officers have to ignore the policy because they don't want to lose valuable people, so they are forced to lie as well. This is good for our military?
And please tell us how many people, within the military or without, have actually advocated for such a policy. Presumably, you are against it, and you are advocating for it? That's pretty much the definition of idiocy, don't you think?
Seeing how no one is asking for all men and women to shower together, not even you, it's pretty much a non-issue.
But I see your point -- you don't want gays to serving openly in the military, so you are trying to tie the issues together and say that if you accept one, you must accept the other. No one's biting, though.
Seeing has how that has not happened in any other military that allows gays to open serve, I don't think that's going to be a problem. If it is, I'm sure they will be weeded out during basic training.
"I still think my original point is valid - if sexual orientation/preference..."
Un, Russ? No one chooses to be gay. Therefore, it's not a preference. It's an orientation. Perhaps if you had to serve next to a gay man or woman, this would be one of the new and interesting things that you would learn about.
If it were possible to have an all-straight military, then I'd be open to arguments that it would be a good idea. If the military experts said we should identify and expel every gay serviceman, I'd say OK, this is your field of expertise, if you say this will lead to a net improvement in the military's ability to fight wars, I'll take your word for it. But the problem is that an all-straight military is not possible; such an animal has never existed and will never exist. Every conceivable military will include a non-trivial number of homosexuals; the only question open to debate is what to do about that fact. And it seems obvious to me that making them hide, and live in fear of exposure, is not good for their morale, and therefore for their performance, and for the overall performance of the military.
If my own reasons and those of the gay men I knew/know who were/are in the military are any indication, we join for exactly the same reasons straight men and women do. Jerks who may be interested in joining to make a political point aren't going to make it through basic training. Imagine the commitment required to give up at least four years of your life, the incredible hassle and stress of basic training, and the sub-par pay just to make some pithy political statement. Anyone who'd go that far isn't sane and will wash out.
I have showered with other men. I've done it in the Air Force and I've done it in gyms. In my own experience, you've got too many other things going on in your life to spare more than a glance at anyone else. Leering at anyone is bad manners, regardless of gender, especially in close quarters. I've never experienced an issue with this and I'm fairly certain the folks around me suspected I was gay. The whole shower thing is just a scare tactic. It assumes normal gay male behavior is similar to the worst heterosexual male behavior.
For the record, in my dorms on Nellis AFB, the women in maintenance shared the same dorm as the men. They had a single side of the hallway on one floor. My dorm room was on the other side of that hallway. Two rooms shared one bathroom and there were no communal showers. I do not recall any issues with men living across the hall from women in the dorms. I'm assuming the Air Force doesn't have any special access to disciplined, professional people and that this behavior is probably the norm across all the branches.
In my opinion, lifting the ban (DADT is effectively a ban) will not noticeably increase the number of gay soldiers that join--not because more won't join but because no one will notice. A gay soldier is a soldier first.
If there hadn't been a ban in 1993 when I graduated from UNLV, I would have gone back in through OCS. However, in my field, I had already communicated in a couple well-known GLBT Net News groups (where I read my first Clayton Cramer post) and had essentially outed myself. This would qualify as "telling" and I wasn't interested in starting a military career with that sort of gotcha hanging over my head.
Do you see no difference between requiring a deep, expansive level of personal secrecy and prohibiting racist, misogynistic, or homophobic outbursts?