Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Matter

[popeye]

I'm not going to make any more comments/posts on the subject. We'll see how it works out. I was in the military. I have a feeling openly gay men who flaunt it while in the service will have difficulties.

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

I have looked at this topic on several different boards and at least this thread seems the most civilized. The repeal of DADT has been in the works for a long time. The focus of the military is to carry out the orders of our civilian leadership and kick the enemies ass on their soil. Doing this requires good order and discipline. Even with this change, the military will adjust and continue to do it's best to defend our country.

I have served with gays in the past with a huge majority being outstanding professionals and a few others who were huge distractions to the overall morale of a unit. Pretty much the same ratio as any other category of human who is serving. Even the professional gays displayed their contempt for the drama queens.

The problem comes in when the new rules are implemented and we get the unforeseen issues that always crop up with a new program. Example; what happens when a transgendered individual decides that HE wants to be in a female barracks and use the female showers and latrine? The females proceed to give him wall-to wall counseling in a display of their displeasure with this idea. A Commander and 1st Sgt are going to have hell of a time working through that mess. In the mean time, other mission responsibilities are not being attended to. Should make for interesting times while we are at war on two fronts.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Wow some people never cease to amaze me.

 

[Expat]

Let's face it, this is one of those areas that some people have very strong feelings about. This site has rules against even discussing why many of us feel so strongly about it. Which obviously the other side celebrates and takes advantage of every chance they get.

 

[blue2golf]

I have looked at this topic on several different boards and at least this thread seems the most civilized. The repeal of DADT has been in the works for a long time. The focus of the military is to carry out the orders of our civilian leadership and kick the enemies ass on their soil. Doing this requires good order and discipline. Even with this change, the military will adjust and continue to do it's best to defend our country.

I have served with gays in the past with a huge majority being outstanding professionals and a few others who were huge distractions to the overall morale of a unit. Pretty much the same ratio as any other category of human who is serving. Even the professional gays displayed their contempt for the drama queens.

The problem comes in when the new rules are implemented and we get the unforeseen issues that always crop up with a new program. Example; what happens when a transgendered individual decides that HE wants to be in a female barracks and use the female showers and latrine? The females proceed to give him wall-to wall counseling in a display of their displeasure with this idea. A Commander and 1st Sgt are going to have hell of a time working through that mess. In the mean time, other mission responsibilities are not being attended to. Should make for interesting times while we are at war on two fronts.

Excellent post and one that illustrates the conundrums behind the whole issue. Our forefathers dealt it simply...no gays allowed. Now, we will have a bewildering array of "what if's?" presented by an almost infinite combination of sexual gender, attitude, orientation, surgical alteration, etc....

Meanwhile, like you stated, the mission suffers.

 

[CombatVet]

I will never understand why some people are still allowed to post here after crap they say in these threads. If this was about race/religion there would be bans handed out, but because it's about sexuality we wont see any, or maybe the Mods are avoiding this thread like the plague, because it's a huge pot of **** that just gets stirred and stirred.

Any way, if you want the government to leave you alone, but you want it to regulate how some one else lives their life, then you're a hypocrite. Plain and simple. As redneckmedic said, something like this is never the governments business. Neither is marriage. As I understand it, it's a function of the church and family. Separation of church and state right?

As I've stated before this is a Civil Rights issue, nothing more. This is NO DIFFERENT than desegregating the military.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Ummm.... Did anyone bother to read the text of the bill that passed? Go here to read it. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr6520ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr6520ih.pdf

DADT isn't repealed. It set a 60 day window after the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff do some stuff to remove section 10 USC § 654. Until then the law is in effect.

(c) NO IMMEDIATE EFFECT ON CURRENT POLICY.—
Section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain
in effect until such time that all of the requirements and
certifications required by subsection (b) are met. If these
requirements and certifications are not met, section 654
of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect.

Additionally, the UCMJ is not affected by this law. All this bill did was restore the law to the state before Congress passed DADT during the Clinton years. This bill has effectively removed the protections afforded homosexuals through DADT to serve in the military but did not remove the penalties for engaging in homosexual activity.

I'm not sure I would trumpet this as a success.

 

[photoshooter]

Interesting how many other nations don't discriminate based on sexual preference in their military. Surprisingly to me, Israel is on that list, as is Australia.

Sexual orientation and military service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[grimor]

I'm not going to make any more comments/posts on the subject. We'll see how it works out. I was in the military. I have a feeling openly gay men who flaunt it while in the service will have difficulties.

No, they will become a protected group. Any accusations of discrimination against them will be dealt with severely as an example to others.

 

[blue2golf]

I will never understand why some people are still allowed to post here after crap they say in these threads. If this was about race/religion there would be bans handed out, but because it's about sexuality we wont see any, or maybe the Mods are avoiding this thread like the plague, because it's a huge pot of **** that just gets stirred and stirred.

Any way, if you want the government to leave you alone, but you want it to regulate how some one else lives their life, then you're a hypocrite. Plain and simple. As redneckmedic said, something like this is never the governments business. Neither is marriage. As I understand it, it's a function of the church and family. Separation of church and state right?

As I've stated before this is a Civil Rights issue, nothing more. This is NO DIFFERENT than desegregating the military.

This is entirely different than race. This is about sexual turmoil in the ranks.

However, it is now a moot point. Your side won. It is up to those who voted for this legislation to provide the funds for a logical sexual segregation of gays in the same manner that we seperate men from women.

 

[grimor]

Ummm.... Did anyone bother to read the text of the bill that passed? Go here to read it. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr6520ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr6520ih.pdf

DADT isn't repealed. It set a 60 day window after the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff do some stuff to remove section 10 USC § 654. Until then the law is in effect.



Additionally, the UCMJ is not affected by this law. All this bill did was restore the law to the state before Congress passed DADT during the Clinton years. This bill has effectively removed the protections afforded homosexuals through DADT to serve in the military but did not remove the penalties for engaging in homosexual activity.

I'm not sure I would trumpet this as a success.

The bill allows for gays to serve in the military openly, as such the current military regulations (UCMJ) will be changed to accommodate it. The good news is, sodomy is back on the table!! wooooooo

 

[CombatVet]

This is entirely different than race. This is about sexual turmoil in the ranks.

However, it is now a moot point. Your side won. It is up to those who voted for this legislation to provide the funds for a logical sexual segregation of gays in the same manner that we seperate men from women.

My side won? You mean the side that wants to keep the government nose out of my business? Yes, liberty won again today.

And yes obviously there will be barracks segregation probably. Unless the military is willing to allow males and females to live together?

 

[photoshooter]

...
Additionally, the UCMJ is not affected by this law. All this bill did was restore the law to the state before Congress passed DADT during the Clinton years. This bill has effectively removed the protections afforded homosexuals through DADT to serve in the military but did not remove the penalties for engaging in homosexual activity.

I'm not sure I would trumpet this as a success.

Interesting point. Since I'm ignorant of the methodology:

How exactly is the UCMJ amended? Is it by the Joint Chiefs? Does the SecDef and Commander in Chief need to sign off?

What role does Congress play in this? Do they get to dictate the broad brush that the code is ammended by, and the Joint Chief have to hammer out the final details - subject to approval by the SD and CiC?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

This is entirely different than race. This is about sexual turmoil in the ranks.

However, it is now a moot point. Your side won. It is up to those who voted for this legislation to provide the funds for a logical sexual segregation of gays in the same manner that we seperate men from women.

No, they didn't win. They actually lost protections. It's going back to the way it was when I was on active duty. Being homosexual meant you couldn't serve in the military. They asked you if you were homosexual. Homosexuals were tried and discharged under the USMJ under other than honorable conditions.

 

[blue2golf]

My side won? You mean the side that wants to keep the government nose out of my business? Yes, liberty won again today.

And yes obviously there will be barracks segregation probably. Unless the military is willing to allow males and females to live together?

When a citizen signs up, he's not exactly asking for the gov't nose to keep out of his business.

As for your other point, let's hope they don't go coed in the barracks.

 

[CombatVet]

Edit: Wrong info

 

[Expat]

No, they will become a protected group. Any accusations of discrimination against them will be dealt with severely as an example to others.

In my opinion this will be the case. Any problems that arise will be covered up just as with other protected classes (a la Major Nidal Malik Hasan). The Generals know that their political masters want this done, their funding and promotions could be affected. Anyone against it will get pushed out. We want politicians in the top levels of the military not warriors.

 

[blue2golf]

No, they didn't win. They actually lost protections. It's going back to the way it was when I was on active duty. Being homosexual meant you couldn't serve in the military. They asked you if you were homosexual. Homosexuals were tried and discharged under the USMJ under other than honorable conditions.

Interesting interpretation. I am not doubting it, for I haven't read the bill. Yet I forsee the military will not revert to the policy that you and I both enlisted under, namely, gays not being allowed to serve at all. That is the polar opposite of the spirit of the bill passed yesterday.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The bill allows for gays to serve in the military openly, as such the current military regulations (UCMJ) will be changed to accommodate it. The good news is, sodomy is back on the table!! wooooooo

Really? Who changes the UCMJ?

Interesting point. Since I'm ignorant of the methodology:

How exactly is the UCMJ amended? Is it by the Joint Chiefs? Does the SecDef and Commander in Chief need to sign off?

What role does Congress play in this? Do they get to dictate the broad brush that the code is ammended by, and the Joint Chief have to hammer out the final details - subject to approval by the SD and CiC?

The UCMJ is enacted in United States Code. Congress passes bills that affect it, just like any other federal law. Anybody want to take a bet on a Republican House passing a change to the UCMJ? OK, I'll give odds.

This just became cannon fodder for the next election. 60% of our combat troops said they thought it would hurt unit moral. No one asked the troops if changing the policy was the right thing to do, which they should not have been asked. Military rule is not synonomous with majority rule. But I'll be a lot of guys will vote with their feet at reenlistment time. Then what do you do with two wars - stop gap? That'll make the troops happy and embrasing of homosexuals even more.

I don't care who wants to do what to whom where. I care about screwing with our troops that we've put in harms way. If our wormbag politicians had spent a fraction of their time figuring out how to win the war as they have on their social experiments we'd be done by now.

Interesting interpretation. I am not doubting it, for I haven't read the bill. Yet I forsee the military will not revert to the policy that you and I both enlisted under, namely, gays not being allowed to serve at all. That is the polar opposite of the spirit of the bill passed yesterday.

There are a couple in the UCMJ sections they'll have to change. Sodomy is still illegal.

The spirit of the bill was to remove, under specific condition, 10 USC § 654, or the DADT protections afforded to homosexuals. If the spirit of the bill was to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, why didn't Congress codify it as such? They could have replaced 654 with "Homosexuality is not a bar to enlistment or reenlistment in the Armed Forces of the United States." if that was the spirit and intent of the law.

 

[popeye]

LINK: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – Yes and No | Keep The Constitution First