ADDED: Here's the article:
The recruiters were told that if a candidate admits he or she is openly gay, and qualify under normal recruiting guidelines, their application can be processed...So then they'd kick you right back out again. You'll have given them the evidence to do it. I wonder how many people will take advantage of this strange option. It will, I think, make it harder to revoke the policy, so it is perhaps altruistic for a gay person to sign up now and be honest. Obviously, you can also "not tell" and hope for the best.
The notice also reminded recruiters that they have to "manage expectations" of applicants by informing them that a reversal of the court decision might occur, whereby the "don't ask, don't tell" policy could be reinstated...
Posts
38 comments:
http://www.enormousconsequences.com/
Nothing so far.
You forgot the part in the subtext where the recruiters tell them that they have to live in a van down by the river just off post if they're coming in "out".
More details.
I figured something happened. I glanced out my window a few moments ago and there was a whole stampede of homosexuals rushing to the nearest recruiting station.
No. I doubt this really changes much. DADT just isn't the career culling machine it's made out to be. I mean, when a married serviceman a few years back was found to have had sex with another man (I think he was filming porn. Who knows.), he was discharged for adultery and not under DADT. And I've yet to meet a gay serviceman or woman who wasn't out to his colleagues. Repeal slays a BLAAD's favorite bogeyman but doesn't do much more.
There goes the neighborhood. Now the argument will become that the validity of Gay marriages entered into when on active duty must be recoqnized by all States. It will not become much of a real problem, but the timing is another political nightmare for Obama.
the timing is another political nightmare for Obama
Only because he's not a very good politician.
Really, this should be an ideal circumstance for him. The pro-gay section of the Democratic base gets what it wants, and those people who are infuriated by the decision can't plausibly blame Obama for it.
So...what is he good at? I would have said public speaking, but it turns out that had a technological side to it (ie TPOTUS).
And the quid pro quo is the Pentagon calls more shots in the war?
And the quid pro quo is the Pentagon calls more shots in the war?
No, but the Hilton in Las Vegas will start hosting the Tailhook again...
I'm wondering if there's some deal between some of the 4 stars bucking for advancement and certain people in Congress.
Letting some chi chi g*yboys in the infantry may not be the greatest idea, tactically speaking, but a few platoons comprised of downtown SF or LA leather dykes could probably defeat the Taliban in a matter of days.
Since I expect that few people tell recruiters: "Hey I like girls, and I like them unshaven", why would anyone volunteer that they like boys. There have always been gays in the military, so I just don't see why you would tell them now, when you could simply not.
Revenant: The pro-gay section of the Democratic base gets what it wants, and those people who are infuriated by the decision can't plausibly blame Obama for it.
It's the exact opposite though. The people who were for a DADT repeal think Obama stood in the way, and those against it, think he did a poor job defending it in the courts on purpose.
Reading some of the excerpts from the court cases made me extremely angry. It was so insultingly done, and it all goes on Obama's record.
And I should point out, even most Republicans wanted gays to be able to serve openly in the military.
I think this is a good thing. It will show that the sky doesn't fall. Gays have always served in the military - and they always will. The change is that it will be in the open.
I can tell you exactly what will happen based on my own recruitment experience:
Rectruiter: "Now listen carefully, the MOS you want requires a background check. If you tell me you've ever done drugs, I have to disqualify you. Do you understand me?"
Same speech for gays I assume: "if you describe your sexual orientation as gay, and the court decision is reversed, as it has so many times re gay marriage, you will be forced out of the service. Do you understand me?"
Obviously, you can also "not tell" and hope for the best.
Hey! Don't ask and don't tell and do your job and keep your private life private and to yourself and ...
oh wait. That's where we are (or were before the Liberal Fascist judge decided that Legislatures don't count).
By the way, all those who think that out gays in the US Military will be a good thing need to head over to the Zombie Time blog and check out his pictures of the Folsom Street Fair and the Gay Pride parades.
You can use Google search to get there.
Just saying ...
Man the following issues will keep biting the GOP in the ass:
* supporting Creationism
* gay bashing
* knee-jerk support for the military-industrial complex
that's just as bad as knee-jerk support of the welfare-state is for the Democrats.
Centrists like Althouse and myself want secular, limited government in ALL areas.
paul b'arge : By the way, all those who think that out gays in the US Military will be a good thing need to head over to the Zombie Time blog and check out his pictures of the Folsom Street Fair and the Gay Pride parades.
So, I suppose the military now is like a cross between a bachelorette and a frat party? Naked people are running everywhere tripping over beer kegs?
By the way, I'm well aware of the "horrors" of a pride parade. (There's people of different races standing next to each other!)
I doubt this really changes much
What changes is that people in the military now have to deal with a bunch of political BS rather than simply fighting wars.
To me the situation seems worse for gays than it was before the court decision. In DADT the military didn't ask. With the end of the policy, they can ask. So if you're gay, how do you answer?
1) "None of your business". This is the right answer in my book, but I guess in theory they can refuse to enlist you because you didn't answer.
2) "What? Me? Of course not. Well, now you've lied on your enlistment papers, and they can discharge you for lying if you're discovered.
3) "Yes, and proud of it." Works for you now, but you're taking a risk the circuit judge will be overruled. The appeal has at least a 50:50 chance of prevailing, from what I can see.
Seems like the safest option is to lie, and if you're discovered at a later date claim you didn't realize your true orientation when you enlisted.
Alex...What's wrong with a little gay bashing, creationism and support of a strong military among friends? The GOP + Tea Party + Rinos will all need each other to govern. Let's all become more tolerant. The younger generations have already fully accepted gayness...it is no longer a political issue unless someone wants to drive a wedge between friends.
"The younger generations have already fully accepted gayness...it is no longer a political issue unless someone wants to drive a wedge between friends."
Really? Fully accepted? I'll go as far as saying some have fully accepted it. While the vast majority tolerate it. But tolerance is not acceptance as you know.
By the way, all those who think that out gays in the US Military will be a good thing need to head over to the Zombie Time blog and check out his pictures of the Folsom Street Fair and the Gay Pride parades.
That's ridiculous. The Folsom Street Fair is a place with no rules. The military has lots and lots and lots of rules. For example, until recently all sex between people who weren't married to each other was forbidden to US service members in Afghanistan.
Married service members can be prosecuted for adultery. You can still be prosecuted for sleeping with a subordinate. You can be prosecuted for sex in the wrong place. And even though you can sort of legally have sex in A-stan now, it's "highly discouraged".
So the most likely result of all this is the gay guys will openly have gay blue balls instead of straight blue balls.
Let the grand social experiment begin.
TRO: Let the grand social experiment begin.
That began in the 70's. It's not an experiment any more, it's way the world is. The military under DADT was also an experiment, which is also now over.
So does this mean that recruiters are now asking?
Why would they even bother asking anymore?
At the end of this clip we learn that there is a political party that will let folks marry a shoe. So, they're probably in favor of not just gays in the military, but married gays in the military!!
Fen said...
I can tell you exactly what will happen based on my own recruitment experience:
Rectruiter: "Now listen carefully, the MOS you want requires a background check. If you tell me you've ever done drugs, I have to disqualify you. Do you understand me?"
Same speech for gays I assume: "if you describe your sexual orientation as gay, and the court decision is reversed, as it has so many times re gay marriage, you will be forced out of the service. Do you understand me?"
===================
It gets even funnier.
In my military past we had someone from our unit, a careerist who was going for a position that involved TS-Compartementalized subject to a whole new background check with an antidrug zealot. So it wasn't only personal use, but partying with those who did, where and when. The guy in question was a past druggie who swore off heavy drinking and drug use when he joined 6 years earlier. Rather than "screw up and tell the truth and fuck his career" he went with saying nothing since enlisting, but he "couldn't accurately remember" prior to that.
His SGT said the investigator accused him of being untruthful and lying..and the SGT's advice was to go back to the hack PI and say that he attended numerous parties and drank so much he couldn't remember if he did drugs, or was involved in a gang bang on the investigators daughter, if she had happened to be there.
I told the SGT I wasn't as experienced as he was, but I thought it was excellent advice - as past heavy drinking was "acceptable" - but maybe drop the "For all I know I banged your whore daughter in a sex train" bit.
The investigator then said OK, you're cleared. It worked.
As for gays though, lets just say that with some guys it is so obvious they are gay that it is the 500 lb elephant in a recruiting station. By their nature, a certain portion of the gay population are "self-outing" without having to say a word. The gays who were in in my time, aside from some career female NCOs, were for the most part indistinguishable from their straight counterparts. (And protected by the rest of us, so long as they were contributors to the group)
Unintended consequences says what?
@ TRO...the younger generations that I interact with see nothing more to gayness than the do to wearing shorts. It's a style, although a stupid one. Next issue.
A pilot got a blow job from his wife during a party, underneath a table, at the Officers Club at Columbus AFB, MS in 1982. He was punished under the UCMJ. Same rules still apply. BTW, I was there.
ken in sc said...
A pilot got a blow job from his wife
Now that's an awesome wife. Sucks to be him though.
"@ TRO...the younger generations that I interact with see nothing more to gayness than the do to wearing shorts. It's a style, although a stupid one. Next issue."
Thanks for clarifying that it's just the younger kids you personally interact with.
"That began in the 70's. It's not an experiment any more, it's way the world is. The military under DADT was also an experiment, which is also now over."
I was in the Air Force in the 80s and 90s and it wasn't over then. And it isn't over now because it hasn't started yet. DADT doesn't count. Openly serving is when it starts and we'll see how that goes. Or, well, we won't because the new politically correct military leadership won't ever share the non-sugar-coated results with us.
But DADT ain't dead just yet. It's only mostly dead. And we all know mostly dead is not really dead.
"the younger generations that I interact with see nothing more to gayness than the do to wearing shorts. It's a style, although a stupid one. Next issue."
Another quick thought. If this is true, why is there such a nationwide problem with the bullying of gays by teens in high schools (which result in the nationwide problem of gay teen suicide)? Assuming it IS a nationwide problem, that seems to be a contradiction, don't you think?
Post a Comment