SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
The End of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
Mike Francis, writing an Oregonian editorial, said it "reverberated from central Portland to military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan." Last Tuesday night, Barack Obama announced that after promising to do so in his presidential campaign, he's ready to seek the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":
This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.
This led to cautious cheers from some members of the gay community (basically a collective "I'll believe it when I see it"), as well as protest from other quarters: Bill Kristol, for example, called the repeal an "untested, unnecessary and probably unwise social experiment."
Both sides might have a better sense for how this will play out — militarily and politically — now that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen have testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Here's a full video from hearing.
Admiral Mullen spoke personally:
No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.... For me, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.
But Senator John McCain was skeptical:
Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not. But it has been effective. It has helped to balance a potentially disruptive tension between the desires of a minority and the broader interests of our all-volunteer force. It is well understood and predominantly supported by our fighting men and women. It reflects, as I understand them, the preferences of our uniformed services. It has sustained unit cohesion and unit morale while still allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country in uniform.
If you served in the armed forces — or are serving now — how has DADT affected your life? What would its repeal mean to you? What challenges do you think the the military will face as it begins to dismantle this 17-year-old policy?
And what historical parallels might shed light on this moment? If you served in the military when it was racially integrated in 1948, how was that top-down order received on the ground?
Tagged as: homosexuality · military
Photo credit: louthepicdoc / Creative Commons
-
What has always been odd to me, is why in the world, would gays want to be in the military? I can understand the need to end the discrimination for posterity and symbolism, but that there are actually gay people that want the bigotry to end so they can join a group that formerly didn't want them as members, is beyond my comprehension. Inherently the military is a conservative group, a group that survives and thrives by the abandonment of individuality. It will take ages for the military to treat gays as equals. In fact the military will be the last group in our society to do so, as is evident by the lagging existence of DODT, when in many other areas of society gays are treated as equals. The military is one of the last forms of government sanctioned bigotry, because of its inescapable bastard architecture. The infection isn't going to heal in our lifetimes. The end of DODT won't be a celebration, it won't be an achievement, an 'oh we've come such a long way', it will be more like 'Domino's arrives an hour late with your inedible, frigid pizza.' Don't Ask, Don't Tell---Don't Want Any.
But, perhaps, I forgot that equality, isn't just about sharing in the good, perhaps, there are some that also wish to share in the bad. Perhaps, you have to eat dirt, as well as roses, to be truly part of the rat pack. From another angle: gays wanting to join the military shows that the gay spectrum is just as diverse as the rest of the population. Gays aren't all savvy, liberal, aesthetically gifted, revolutionaries, many are just as common as the rest of us. This isn't progress, it is the realization that homosexuality is not a choice! Because, no one who decided by 'choice' to lead a contrary and marginalized life, would ever want to conform to the military credo. It, perhaps unfortunately, shows that gays are just as banal as everyone else. They are nothing special! So, let them in, into your bastion of brutality.
-
Geeze, sorry, DADT.
-
"The end of [DADT] won't be a celebration, it won't be an achievement, an 'oh we've come such a long way', it will be more like 'Domino's arrives an hour late with your inedible, frigid pizza.' Don't Ask, Don't Tell---Don't Want Any."
The reference to Domino's is too awesome to worry about little things like acronym errors!
-
And what historical parallels might shed light on this moment?
So many. The summary mentions integration of the military which is good from a logistics point of view... how did they do it, how did it work, how long did it take, how did military dynamics change, etc. etc.
But, what about considering that blacks (black females even...double the irony!), after suffering at the hands of whites for centuries and literally having to fight tooth and nail for civil rights and the removal of anti-miscegenation laws in the Land of the Free (TM), turned around and voted in religious blocs to "defend marriage" and deny equal rights under the law to a group of people? ...a group of people that even overlaps their own ethnicity!
"This has all happened before, and it will all happen again." --- BSG
That is probably the most depressingly true statement ever made by a television show and it applies across the board to politics and humanity at large. In this case, though, there will always be a marginalized section of humanity, and a majority of people, no matter their own past experiences with marginalization, will be perfectly willing to enforce that marginalization.
I do not know who it will be after gays... Maybe the Dutch, maybe Whites, maybe aliens... but, I am sure there will be many gays not in that group that will gladly throw them out of the military, vote away their marriage/reproduction/adoption rights, beat them to death, etc. etc. etc.
-
2,947 sexual assault reports filed with the Pentagon in 2006. Up 24% from 2005.
2,923 sexual assault reports filed with the Pentagon in 2008.
The Army even says there is no evidence of an increase in assaults, just a willingness to report them. That is reassuring.
And, for added fun, there is a great deal of evidence that military command structure attempts to silence victims with threats.
In light of these facts, I am sure Senator McCain and everyone else that opposes gays in the military will proudly stand up and advocate a ban on women in the military. After all, it's really all about unit cohesion and morale, right?
-
Kudos to Mike Mullen. The Admiral understands reality. People who object, like McCain, are living in the past. They fail to understand that the world moves on, whether they like it or not.
It is quite simple. If you are willing to die, then your sexual preference is really a small thing. Those who object are captive to some outdated, outmoded thinking.
-
The issue is that gay and lesbian Americans have always served in our military, the difference is now is that we would able to do so openly. This policy kept me from following my father's example and join the Marine Corps. Even as a young man struggling to understand my own sexuality, I knew that it was impossible for me to serve my country honestly if I had to lie about who I am. This policy has also impacted my partner and far too many of our friends. I am heartened to hope that with the lifting of the ban, my friends who are still active will be able to live and enjoy the freedoms they risk their lives to protect.
-
part 1
I am prior Marine Corps and current Army National Guard. I am in full support of the REPEAL of Don't Ask Don't Tell (D.A.D.T.) and the allowing of members of the military to serve their country honorably without sexual orientation being an issue. As the Admiral said yesterday, it isn't about command control but about leadership.
Our military has many virtues that many of us hope to live up to. One of them is integrity. It is impossible pretend to have integrity when a person must lie about their sexuality, or the institution of the military tries to avoid dealing with the issue.
This is NOT a social experiment, as so many right-wing types deem to call it, it is justice. I wonder if they would have also have termed some other advances in civil rights down the years as social experiments as well.
The downright truth of the matter is this. The military has a deep core of misogyny. The values that are culturally and socially supported within our branches are those of masculine traits. We are 'hyper masculine'. The opposite of a good soldier/marine are also traits that are given to women. Soft, emotional (any emotion save violence), empathy, submission, tenderness, collaborative, and others are all negative traits for us.
Keep in mind the job that we must do. Kill. We train for war and combat is not a time to lose your cool. Emotional distancing can be very useful when patrolling a section of Iraq for a year.
However what is acceptable in our military culture is not so much the professionalism as is often expressed in various creeds (the NCO Creed of the Army for one) nearly as much as the pressure to be more masculine.
-
part 2
Never mind that women can be very competitive, goal driven, quick to anger, aggressive, take charge, decisive, and so on. These are, in our still infantile masculine culture of misogyny, masculine defined traits. Women in the military are not women, but lesser men trying to be as manly as the men are. For their efforts they are admired as much as they looked down upon. The mentality is 'at least they are trying'.
No man that I've ever met in over twelve years of military service as ever expressed any amount of concern if a woman in the military was a lesbian. The problem comes from the notion of there being gay men. And the reason for this is that the men, who can really BE men (that is all the qualities of masculinity thought to inhabit a pair of genitals) are giving up this in order to be like women, therefore they are worse than women who are at least trying to be something. Gay men are an offense to the values of the imature masculine ideal and the misogynist culture that is predominant in our military fears and hates it.
A common sentiment among some of the men who are opposed gays in the military will often cite that they do not want men looking at them in the shower, or any unwanted sexual advances. This sort of behavior is an epidemic in our military concerning our women service members. Whereas a man can go jogging on a base in Iraq by himself, a woman is told to go with a buddy because of the elevated risk of being sexually assaulted. She is more likely to experience MST, military sexual trauma, than she is to be shot at in a warzone.
When I've asked these men, at other times, if they would object a woman seeing them in the shower, or their sexual advances, it rarely makes a difference if the woman is 'attractive' or not to the male. He has the power and is not threatened by it. He doesn't care. But when I ask how does this differ from a gay man and he becomes defensive, angry, irritable, and falls back on the same tired excuses of 'its just wrong'.
-
Ok so I am the guy you are talking about. except for a difference. One while in the navy I was hit on by another man. Not comfortable. It did change the working relations of the shop and made me really uncomfortable when it came time to take a shower after PT. On one of the ships I served on there was a guy who would grab guys when they were sleeping.
The truth of the matter is that men are for the most part predators and most of us men know that to some extent or another. The alphas do not mind so much as they are not challenged but those of us that are lower on that scale! Well we get a little scared.
Now I would be all for it if they had "separate but equal quarters and showers" or if they would just make it so that every thing was unisex. That way I can be looking at what I like and just keep living in my own little fantasy world believing that the other guy with a hard on is looking at the same thing I am.
-
@ marcants
The truth of the matter is that men are for the most part predators and most of us men know that to some extent or another.
Then you deal with the people that cross the line. That's the whole point. You don't ban women from the military because they might be raped, you prosecute rapists. You don't ban gays from the military because they might prey on straights, you punish gays that cross the line.
Anyway, suck it up and be an adult. Boohoo, a gay man hit on you...oh, the trauma! Imagine how a woman feels putting up with that everyday outside of the military...let alone in the military where, as eddiecoyote pointed out, she is more likely to be raped than killed by enemy fire.
As far as showers go, you know, it is possible to be respectful and not look at the person next you...woman or man. It's even possible, as a straight man, to catch a glimpse of a naked woman and not get turned on. And, you know what? Gay men can control themselves too...because they are human beings...like you and me...and they respect other human beings.
-
@Marcants
I applaud your desire to repeal DADT, but it's a FACT that if you've played on a college sports team or gone to a local gym, you've showered with someone of the same sex who is gay. It's just not that big a deal - and shouldn't be.
You have served with gay men your entire enlistment and will continue to do so. So even though they are there, and you KNOW they're there, pretending they're not is the critical piece for you to be comfortable? What about truth, honor and integrity which lead to unit cohesion?
So a guy hit on you - big deal - take it as the compliment it was and just say "hey dude, i'm straight" and that should be the end of it. What if it had been you hitting on a female? Would you want her transfered because she rebuffed you? Or if she hit on YOU, would you require she be transferred so you're "not uncomfortable?"
This is a bizarre and bogus argument. There are existing regs on fraternization or harrassment. The guy who was grabbing guys when sleeping should be disciplined, as it is today.
-
Ok so you understand some of what I was saying. But you are missing my main point. For further clarification you should ask your sister, wife, or female friend, how they would feel about taking a shower with a guy who has expressed amorous intentions toward them.
If I had not had to share what is considered intimate conditions (showers) with this man I would not have had any more difficulty with it than, as you mentioned, a women would if I had hit on her.
So all I am saying is either separate showers or everyone shares one shower. It just seems fair that if I am being looked at I should be able to -
part 3
I am of the strong opinion that there should be seperation of church and state. We are not a white nation, but a nation of many peoples. We are not a Christian nation, but one of many religions and faiths. We share a dream of equal protection under the law, that no race or religion can dictate to the others what is moral or immoral, or holy or not. Marriage is not only a Christian idea and should not be legislated according to this. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.I do not care if the person beside me is white, black, atheist, Christian, Muslim, homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual. I care only that they are competent in doing their job, that they love the higher ideals of liberty and equality that this country is still trying to aspire to and, hopefully, someday more fully achieve, and that this person has my back.
Concerning sexual assault in the military, it is underpenalized. We have women soldiers who are leaving the military from their ordeals, while the perpetrators are kept in because they are a 'good soldier' and that's what men do. I am very proud of my uniform and this country for which I've fought in two wars. Yet our military, like our country, is not perfect and knowing this with humility we ought to take strides to ever keep working toward the achivement of those ideals which this country is founded upon...
...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Eddie S Black
Beaverton, OR
USMC 89-94
Oregon Army National Guard 04-10
-
The camp against gays in the military would perhaps have a strong argument if they focused only on the way women are separated from men in the military currently (showering, sleeping, training---I think?). And, perhaps demand that if gays can serve openly then women should be fully integrated with no separation of (at least) the showering and sleeping. The training could perhaps be separate because of the physical differences. I think this is the only plausible area where the true controversy exists on gays in the military: based on the current separation of men from women because of their sex. But, this might lead to questions about the difference between sex and sexuality (or maybe there is a better word for that). For instance, does the reasoning for the separation of heterosexuals extend to homosexuals? Or are homosexuals somehow a different case because they are physically the same?
One thing about women in the military, they are currently accommodated for, but are also treated differently. So, clearly on the basis of sex the military has already decided not to entirely discriminate. So, it would make sense for gays to be allowed to openly serve in the military. But being women are treated differently from men, once gays are allowed to serve openly, should they be treated differently from the heterosexuals of their sex? While I don't personally agree with the separation of heterosexuals from homosexuals, it seems like it might be in line with current military sex based precedents. But, what isn't commensurate with those precedents is Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
-
I'm not sure it's really that big of a deal. It's too bad a guy I know probably will not be able to comment on any of this because of work. He served pretty much openly on a submarine. As far as he has told me, everyone was mutually respectful and cohabitation was never a problem.
-
I don't think it is a big deal either, but, I think, if there is an issue, this is entirely where the issues lies, or the crux of it. All the other talk about gays in the military and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, is sort of irrelevant (obviously in my opinion). This should be the center of the debate. All the personal stories, the anecdotes, the general conversation, just doesn't seem to stick to the fundamentals of what it is we are actually talking about. In some ways everyone has a point, but they are using other ancillary arguments to support their points and not talking about the actual precedent, of how we treat sex and sexual orientation of men and women, both heterosexuals and homosexuals, currently in the military.
-
This seems like good news. However, excuse some of us for being cynical enough to look around for what we might be missing while this moldy debate flares again.
Gays can serve in the military? Of course they can, as they always have.
-
I'm a retired Senior Chief from the US Navy's submarine force, one of the most insular communities in the Armed Forces. When I retired in 1996, DADT was a source of controversy in the submarine fleet, but I saw it mostly among the old-timers. Younger sailors were more tolerant, and I think that tolerance has increased dramatically over the last 14 years as these younger sailors have become the old timers. It's time for that disriminatory and out-dated policy to go.
-
I hope that this happens. First, I think if the military has its high standards, this will not be a problem. Second, this could help deal with other issues in the military such as some of the treatment of women. They are doing a a job and that should be the focus. The military does not have to "lower" their standards if gays are in the military; this is so odd to think this would happen.
People should be able to love who ever they want and the military already has "rules" that would apply to specific conduct. If two people are in the same troupe, fractionalization shouldn't be happening no matter your sexual orientation. It could actually help with the homophobic attitude in this country. The gay people I work with and are friends with... are people!!! People want to serve their country and if you do, you should.
I think people think it would turn into the Village People and if the military doesn't know how train soldiers, this would happen. As I've seen, this is not the case. I think this gets to a deeper issue in this country--when hatred of people is honored, it goes deep into society. It would be nice to have people be treated as people first!!!
-
Listening to the pro-DADT guest, David, is just too irritating because of his ignorance; it made me turn off the show. Keep up the good work trying to talk to people like this. Keep asking questions about how he thinks this causes "unease".
-
I agree. My ears close when I hear people use the term: "the gay lifestyle." Being gay is not a choice. As an out lesbian I can honestly say that the only choice I made was to accept who I am and be proud.
-
My ears were wide open, Q-tips clean, trying to figure out what these nutters really think. The progression of Emily pressing to get to the fundamentals of what their objection actually is, with gays in the military, was interesting.
-
If I understand correctly, the objection posited by the military leadership is that the presence of the homosexual in the close ranks of battle would cause difficulty, either in attitudes of other soldiers, or in sexual dimensions. I hope the objection is not in the realm of abilities, since the great historian Will Durant mentions the phenomenal skill of the ancient Greek homosexual units.
-
I am a military brat and lived on military bases all around the world during desegregation of the services. All of the same arguements are now being used to prevent open acceptance of homosexuals in the military, and have as little value. My experience showed that, as conservative as the military can be, when it gets its marching orders it can execute this type of policy change very effectively. I was shocked to experience segregated schools when we were stationed stateside after being in desegregated military schools. And, as an aside, my uncle who was gay, served with exceptional distinction throughout the Pacific campaign during WWII, receiving a battlefield commission. I doubt his men were losing sleep over his sexual orientation...
-
Thank you Mr. Beady [apologies if I miss-spelled your name] for your service, but... As a Colonel and an instructor you were out of mainstream military service, and I think that is something that you should be disclosed, as it's a lot harder to have your finger on the pulse of what's going on in the enlisted ranks today.
I retired a few years ago, enlisted, and down in the navy berthing compartments all of us gay guys and strait guys got along and talked about our boyfriends and girlfriends. It's changed alot for those of us who don't have the privlege of "Officers' Quarters"
-
Geez, this former West Point Prof is making all of the same arguments that were made against integrating Black people into the Military so many years ago.
About how "Conservative" the military is, how the military doesn't like to change, how families living on base would not want "them" living next door and possibly having to "associate" with "them". How "they" cause unease among the ranks.
But they did integrate, and now they have people of all colors serving an all of the ranks.
Conservatives have always bullied and picked on minorities in order to fear-monger their base into submissive compliance and now that women have rights and people of color have rights, there are only a few groups left to discriminate against.
It is long past time for the military to stop their discrimination against gay people. It is time for Conservatives to grow up and act like adults and stop their fear-mongering against gay people.
-
What I have not heard is that according to the Servicemembers LegalDefense Network (SLDN) over 13,500 servicemebers have been discharged since 1994. Many of these were officers and highly specialized individulas. How can this be good for our military, and our country, especially when we are sending our troops on 3 and 4th tours? Jenn - openly gay in Portland
-
It seems to me that there are essentially two arguments against having gays serve openly in the military. One is undisguised bigotry ("We don't want fags in the army," etc.) The other is: The military's culture is very homophobic (Gee ... I wonder how it got that way?), so it would be best that gays either not serve, or that they "don't tell."
Neither argument is legitimate.
-
I think the real issue here is the fact that the majority of enlisted military men and women are straight and many of them are not comfortable with homosexuals in the military.
Case in point, my cousin was an army infantry guy, served two bouts in Iraq driving Hummers and getting shot at. Along with PTSD, a messed up leg, and a variety of emotional issues, he left the military being extremely homophobic. Why you may ask? because there were several times during his training and deployment where he was put into extremely horrible situations by gay men, not by choice (won’t go into detail). He's a strong guy but not strong enough to ward off 5 guys. Anyway, bad experience all around.
However, I believe the problem isn't necessarily gay people in the military, the problem is the way the military treats people in general and deals with these type of abuses. Shouldn’t we be training our soldiers to be upstanding citizens as well as protectors of our nation? Why does so much sexual harassment and rape occur both by straight men attacking women and gay men attacking men? That’s the real question we should be answering and coming up with a solution for.
If gay people can be open about their sexual disposition, perhaps they can be held accountable for their actions and the military can start cracking down on sexual harassment, rapes, etc. However, I'm not too hopeful the repeal of this policy will make a difference considering how women are currently sexually harassed and raped quite often in the military…
-
The notion that the military community is incompatible with gay members is just wrong. I'm from Colorado Springs, a town dominated by the military culture. The problems with crime, prostitution, domestic violence, drugs and on and on is MUCH worse than anything to do with gay members. My next door neighbor was in the Air Force, gay and a very smart man. Throwing a man like this out of the military would weaken our Air Force, not strengthen it.
-
As one who lived during the draft era I find all this concern almost puzzling. When we were in the Army (1966) most of us didn't want to be there. We didn't want to go to Viet Nam (a war most of us didn't believe in). We didn't even think about gays in the military. All we cared about was believing that the man to our left or right in combat would be there fighting with us and that he would be willing to risk his life to save us should that become necessary.
Furthermore, I'm concerned about the Army being made up of conservatives and fundamentalist religion men/women. What the military needs is more liberals in their ranks to counter this almost Right Wing approach to diplomacy. Perhaps gays allowed to be themselves would be more willing to express their more liberal ideals.
Karl in Milwaukie
-
My best friend’s family was discriminated against by other military personnel and their families while living on Keesler AFB in Biloxi, MS for being black. I think that though racism is a continuing problem, it’s something that is worth changing. I think that sexual discrimination, though it may take time to overcome, is worth ending as well. Our military, charged with protecting this country, should reflect the public it serves.
-
Maybe they need to try some all gay units, like the all black Tuskegee Airmen "Redtails", or like the all black Army units that served so valiantly in the civil war.
Or just gather up all of the stories of the gay people that have already served and demonstrated that they served their country well and without causing any problems. I know that the examples are abundant, after all, didn't Adm Mullen say that they already have lost some 13,000 service members because of this Conservative caused "problem"?
Gather up those 13,000 examples and read them before the Congress and on one of the C-spans. Embarass the Conservatives into stopping their discrimination against gay people.
-
Hi Tom -
Over 13,500 men and women have been officially discharged under DADT, but MANY MANY more officers and enlisted decide to quietly leave the service because they are tired of living a lie and being REQUIRED BY LAW to prostitute their integrity in order to honorably serve their country and protect their families and neighbors - I'm one of the latter.
Engraved on the class ring I shed blood, sweat, and yes, tears to earn is engraved my class motto - "Sibi Aequum". Latin for "Be true to yourself". I remember looking at my ring (which I still proudbly wear) and tearing up as I signed the letter to CinCPacFlt resigning my commission.
I agree - we should all be invited by Congress to testify and have these lawmakers, including John McCain, tell us why we're unfit.
Thanks for your comments and support! Jim Maguire (today's guest)
-
"Thanks for your comments and support! Jim Maguire (today's guest)
USNA88 — Wed Feb. 3rd 11:29a.m. "
No Jim, I thank you.
I grew up in an Air Force family and many of my relatives fought in WW2 and Korea and there was a rumor that one was even CIA. I don't always agree with some of the things our military has done and some of the wars that have been fought for other than freedom but in general I support the people who chose to be soldiers.
And I have friends and family who are gay and I just get outraged at social injustices done to any minority groups, because they hurt my people, my friends and relatives.
So I support the people who stand up against injustice and this time that's you, so thanks for speaking out.
Our Founders Declared that one of the Foundational Beliefs of our nation is that "... All men are created equal ...", and we are still working to make that true. To, as you say "Sibi Aequum" Latin for "Be true to yourself", because that's not just your class motto, that is our work as American Citizens, the work given to us by our Founders, to be true to our "Declared Beliefs" written out in our Declaration of Independence.
-
Two comments:
For those who said they were uncomfortable showering with gay people, I have news for them: In high school PE class, college PE, the community pool, and at the health club you've already been doing this. In the 40 years I've been in these situations, not once has something "strange" happened to me. Entertain the notion that this discomfort has nothing to do with gay people, and more about the person's insecurity with their own self. The military and civilian sectors have sexual harassment policies already in place that address any indiscretions in this situation quite well.
It makes no sense to bar participation from gay people in the military just because a person happens to be insecure. Try learning some tolerance and see just how much that will improve your own military performance.
For those who wonder why gays would want to be in the military, the answers are the same as they are for civilians who want to be in it: They are out of work and need the money. They need the discipline of the military at a tough time in their lives. They want to learn management skills. They have a unique skill and want to use it to serve their country. They need a way to pay for their education. They want to see the world. Those seem good enough to me.
-
When it comes down to it , 80% of our population is Bi or to some degree would like to explore being so . !0% is flaming , 10% is radical homofob' and probly in fear of them selves and there desires ... Our views , behaviours etc. for the most part are baased on behaviour training from & through our religious training systems ... there will probly be problems in this field of behaviour as long as there is our world is based apon religious control & deceptions . Gay , Les' , Bi is in truth normal behaviour of the homo'bi-ped ... personaly I am a straight man who is sexualy attracted to both male (sexualy)and female( romanticly) as anyone of both sexs who is honest with themself ........
-
I would also like to comment on Senator John McCain's lack of honor, courage and frankly, flagrant dishonestly, on the subject of repealing DADT.
On October 18th, 2006 on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" Senator McCain said, on camera, to an auditorium of Iowan's quote:
"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we oughta change the policy' then I think we oughta consider seriously changing it. Because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."
That day was yesterday. And how did Sen. McCain respond when the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs - the most senior civilian and uniformed military leaders in the nation came to him and stated in unequivocal terms, they wish to change the policy? With visible anger and outrage -- completely reversing his position and ensuring that everyone in the room knew that CONGRESS had the responsibility to change the policy, NOT the "leadership of the military".
But the truth is as Adm. Mullen so eloquently put it :
"....the fact (is) that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."
The distinguished senator from Arizona can learn a great deal about integrity and leadership from this outstanding Admiral and SecDef.
-
Gays In the Military—Part One By Dr. Mary Ann Humphrey-Keever
I appreciated the opportunity to speak as a special guest this morning on the OPB program, Think Out Loud. After writing this entire comment back, I realized that I could only post 2500 words! So this will be cut into sections and posted as Part 1, 2, 3 and 4 J
As a female, vastly affected by the still in place, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), I was forced to resign my commission in 1987, because a fellow faculty member at Portland Community College had an ax to grind. As a US Marine Corps officer, he was well-aware of the UCMJ and knew just what to do!
Back then, witch hunts were still going on in all of the militaries and I was but one victim of that process. After two years of going into drills every month, and doing my job as the Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Officer, I had to sadly give up 9 years of my Reserve career. The man who turned me in received his 20-year letter from the US Marine Corps Reserve and to this day enjoys that extra retirement income that I was denied, simply because I was gay!
The sad thing is that while the military tries to ignore the fact that gays are and always have been in the military, the higher commanders, still try to make excuses as to why the DADT policy should stay in place. Some of those very admirals and generals pushing for this are also gay!
Historically, President Truman, knowing he needed more troops and less segregation, integrated the military in the 1940's. The hue and cry from the white troops about "not ever going to shower with some nigger" went on and on. While the military is a microcausium of society in general, his plan was forced to work through this hate and discrimination.
A Black solider could have privileges in the military at that time, and yet be spat upon when actually wearing his uniform back in his own hometown. The military survived and adjusted and further set examples of what working together as equals can bring. Viet Nam saw thousands of Black soldiers die for their country. I won't say that there still isn't total harmony in the military between Blacks and Whites, but as evidenced by the likes of General Colin Powell, something worked correctly.
-
Gays In The Military—Part Two By Dr. Mary Ann Humphrey-Keever
Our United States community is still is not completely equal to all its citizens. Human nature is what it is. Short and sweet. However, it is vastly different than it was in the 1940's. It will continue to change in the 2000's.
Many militaries throughout the world accept gay individuals into their ranks. They live closely together and are still able to function well. I believe it is unfair of the nay sayers to tell us that our military is somehow different and therefore one can't compare such situations. It is just not so, success is success. We as a country, need to step up to the changes happening in the gay community that basically ignited in New York City, in 1969. Gay individuals will not be forced back into any closet again!
The old shower issue, usually brought up by straight males, continues to raise its ugly head every time someone mentions having gays in the military, serving openly! Interestingly, it is seldom an issue brought forth by females serving in the military. It would seem that females are so used to be ogled by their male counterparts, that perhaps they say it is just about time the shoe were on the other foot!
Somehow, straight men fixate on the fact that certainly if there were an openly gay man in the shower with them, that they must find them sexually attractive and it would just be unbearable! Surprisingly, as a gay woman, I certainly don't find every female I look at as someone desired sexually, and for these worried straight male soldiers, it is the same thing for the gay man. Not every male is looked at as a sexual conquest. Get over it!!
The arguments are old and tired. The old corps is changing to one that is more open, understanding, and accepting. Again, overall, it is bringing in members that have lived around gays and lesbians, and can see these individuals should be offered the same opportunity to serve their country, if they so choose.
-
Gays In The Military—Part Three By Dr. Mary Ann Humphrey-Keever
During the Senate Hearings conducted before DADT was put in place, they seemed to focus only on military personnel that couldn't stand serving next to a gay solider or sailor, there was surprisingly little conversation with those who could care less. Thankfully, the same senators that conducted those hearings are either out of the Senate or are literally no longer with us! Senator Strom Thurman, now deceased, could only focus on drilling openly gay service members called in for evidence as to why they "never sought counseling for their gay problem." Over and over!! The Hearings turned into a circus, unfortunately, with DADT the alternative result. It did nothing but insure gay and lesbian military would still be forced to lead double lives.
There are many commanding officers in the military today that simply ignore the DADT. While it is the legal law surrounding gays in the military, these commanders and higher NCO's know the value of a good soldier and would rather live and let live. There are many gays in the military that are out, and are still surprisingly doing their assigned jobs. Morale, cohesiveness, completion of the mission is not being compromised. The arguments, not unlike the "shower" argument, are outdated and non-existent. It is time for change; it is time to step into the new century of equality and acceptance of qualified, dedicated members of the military that are gay!
While it won't be perfect, it brings up another issue regarding the UCMJ. Sodomy is also addressed in this document. Sodomy was the main issue used to remove gay soldiers from the military in the past. Interestingly enough, it was never used against, married men and women and straight men and women who were dating. And we all know that sodomy is also a sexual activity of straights! That was not a way to carry out a regulation, when commanders only targeted gays and not straights for the same issue.
Rules are made to control a particular population. I don't believe there should be any special rules set aside for one group or another, particularly in the military. Everyone follows the same rules, which is what makes opportunity equal for the individuals involved. Break the rule, get the same punishment, not separate but equal.
-
Gays In The Military—Part 4 (final) By Dr. Mary Ann Humphrey-Keever
DADT must be dissolved. After my forced resignation from the military, I realized that I certainly wasn't the first to be unceremoniously kicked out and chronicled the first oral history of 42 gays and lesbians in the military from WWII to the present, in the book My Country, My Right to Serve. It is a cornerstone of information on the damages caused to gay and lesbian soldiers of all services, simply for being gay. This book is presently in the hands of President Obama, Secretary of Defense Gates, the Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mullen. I hope it makes a difference in the evidence gathering they feel should occur.
As a founding member of Veterans for Human Rights, and the ranking officer for the Color Guard every June in the Portland, Oregon Gay Pride parade for the past 12 years, I proudly don my uniform and carry the United States American Flag. This is a duty that I perform with extreme pride and respect. I also offer my expertise in the form of appearances and speeches to various organizations and functions throughout the year. As a veteran, I believe it is my duty to set a good example, and help where I can. Being open and out is one of the best ways to help change societies' fear and attitude about someone who is gay.
We must stop wasting tax payers' money by kicking out personnel simply because of their sexual orientation. While it may take time to adjust, there won't be an onslaught of openly gay people who will want to join the military anyway. The fears regarding gays in the military are unfounded as proven over and over again, particularly with the Rand Report.
Truman's bold move was highly opposed, but in the final analysis, it worked. Nothing is perfect, and this change won't be either, but it will set the military on a path of true equality and respect that can be a beacon of light for the rest of the country and the world. It is not an experiment, but evolving, as the changes we see in society are continually amazing us, day by day. The military will survive and be stronger for it.
-
Regardless of sexual preferences, power differences in the unenlightened lead to abuses. I have a good friend who treats sex offenders. One of the common excuses that abusers give for their misbehavior is that, “they could”.
Even in the military, you can’t watch everyone all the time. Rules and enforcement, while necessary, will only be part of the solution. It will also be important that we group people based on their ability to defend themselves. This includes areas that are physical, psychological, and rank related.
The complications of having people who are naturally sexually attracted to their fellow soldiers should not be minimized. It is an added distraction - especially in close quarters in times of emotional stress - but it is not insurmountable.
In the past, we tried to simplify the challenge of unit functioning by separating those who might be extremely sexually attracted to each other. People who are attracted to those of the same sex make this strategy mathematically impossible, unless you have units of two; comprised of one gay man paired with one lesbian.
We can desensitize ourselves to sexual arousal stimuli, i.e., we train doctors to do it, nudists do it intentionally, and people learn to masturbate to control their urges (if they have minimal privacy). The problem is when people who will take advantage because “they can”, are put together, (unsupervised), with people who are in a less powerful position. This is regardless of their race, gender, or sexual wiring.
-
When you think about it, Conservatives are just like the little boys in elementary school at the age when they don't want to be around girls because "girls have cooties".
Although Conservatives have grown up adult bodies they just don't have grown up adult minds. They are still at the mental age of little elementary school boys.
Well, the military didn't want to be around black people because "black people had cooties", and then they didn't want to be around women because "women had cooties" and now it's down to they don't want to be around gay people because "gay people have cooties".
Military like to brag that they fight for peoples freedom, and now it's time to make that true.
Frankly, I'd like to see them make it possible for disabled people, like people in wheelchairs, to be soldiers. How about the people flying drones, they just sit there and use their hands, don't they? How about using them in internet intel, they don't need to be fully physically able like a Marine rifleman in the field, all they need is their hands and minds. Take a look at each MOS and define exactly what physical attributes are needed to do that job and then make those jobs available to disabled people who can do them.
Let's make the Military look like The People of the United States as much as possible.
-
Comments are now closed.
As gay, married (since 2003, though together 20 years) dads raising two terrific, smart boys in Portland, my husband and I are still in the "we'll believe it when we see it" crowd...
Why? Well, since taking office, this President has directed his Justice Department to defend (vigorously) both the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Don't Ask Don't Tell.
He has continued to kick honorable gay and lesbian soldiers, Arabic translators, medical personnel, and other highly qualified, self-sacrificing Americans out of the U.S. military - for being honest and upfront about who they are, and who their families are.
Of course, last year, we expected better.
After all, this is a President whose own parents' marriage wasn't legally recognized in about 28 states because of religious prejudice - the same unfounded sort of nonsense spouted by Catholics, Mormons and many Christians against our equally American families today ("my invisible Jebus/Holy Spirit/Angel Moroni now hates...let's see - lesbians").
But, like so many Democrats, the President panders to this prejudice, probably convinced that treating gay and lesbian Americans as second class citizens isn't really a political liability. Why make religious voters uncomfortable, and where else can gay and lesbian voters go?
So I'd like to see the pretty words translated into action. Why doesn't the President issue an executive order barring any further dismissals until the policy is repealed? Is he still going to kick out soldiers, because they are lesbian, or gay?
And when will my family be treated equally under the law - as his parents were, eventually, not many years ago... Will the President quit pandering to evidence-free, Catholic, Mormon and Christian prejudice, or continue to defend DOMA?
I hope for the best (and we're trending in the right direction), but the President's actions speak a lot louder than his currently empty words.