September 20, 2011

"Gay men and lesbians in the military no longer have to hide who they are, and the servicemembers who were discharged under this policy can re-enlist."

Says email titled "It's officially over" from BarackObama.com. "It" is, of course, Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The email includes this video:



ADDED: Is the right to re-enlist really enough for the individuals who were discharged?

96 comments:

NYTNewYorker said...

"It" will never be over. There will always be "more".

Fred4Pres said...

I am glad it is over. I think the military can deal with this issue just fine in the normal course of things. Someone's sexuality is not a distrupting factor, it is excessive behavior that can be disrupting (gay or straight).

Still, as General Patton said, a solider who does not want to fuck cannot fight. So something along those lines.

Fred4Pres said...

As far as homosexuals wanting more than equality, that is true to a point. They want acceptance.

Scott M said...

Is the right to re-enlist really enough for the individuals who were discharged?

They were discharged in keeping with the UCMJ as the UCMJ was then structured, so, yes. If you want to expand on the question of "is it enough" perhaps we can go further and ask if it's enough for the straight members of the military that are forced to share same-sex bathing facilities.

Pastafarian said...

I was listening to NPR this morning (only because my XM isn't working) and they interviewed a gay Marine Corps major who was relieved that DADT is a thing of the past.

Of course, with DADT, he still rose to the rank of major. And about the only benefit he could list is that he wouldn't have to suffer the disconcerting feeling of having a "bifurcated" life.

Huh. Because he couldn't tell everyone all about his sex life.

You know, I work in the private sphere, and I'm not able to tell my co-workers the sorts of orifices into which I like to stick my dingus. I'd be sued. So instead, like everyone else in the sane world, I don't talk about fucking at work.

Oh, the humanity. I'm forced to hide my secret heterosexuality, when I want to sing and wax poetical about it.

garage mahal said...

Wait a gawl darn minute. Where is the counter opinion from a right wing hack? No Limbaugh, Peretz, or Brooks? pfft!

ginnad said...

Oh honestly Pastafarian.

It's not about "talking about fucking". It's about the very real possibility that if any one of your co-workers saw you at the mall with your partner, your whole career could be over.

It's about the idea that talking to any of your co-workers about any relationship in your life, even accidentally, could end your career.

You get to bring your significant other to company events. Gay military had to pretend they didn't exist.

It's about hiding nearly every single aspect of your personal life from your colleagues, for fear of your job.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yawn...

I suppose this will be his crowning achievement since pretty much everything else he's done has turned to poo.

Dark Eden said...

I enlisted in the navy in 93, and there was a guy in my boot camp company who was obviously gay. Very few people were bothered by it, we had enough on our minds.

"Huh. Because he couldn't tell everyone all about his sex life."

This is pretty disingenuous. There are all sorts of issues involved in having to hide that you're gay way beyond talking about the hot taste of manmeat. I've known gay couples who never touched or acknowledged their relationship in public or with their families in any way, I knew a devout catholic latino gay guy who was actually hallucinating hearing the devil talk to him because he was so conflicted between his religion and his sexuality. If you think its that simple and petty a thing, you really need to meet some gay people and talk to them about the things they go through.

Bob Ellison said...

Is the privilege to re-enlist really enough for the individuals who were discharged?

Fixed that for you.

AllenS said...

garage mahal said...
Where is the counter opinion from a right wing hack?

Here I am. The vast majority of homos that were discharged, self-identified. That it, they wanted out, and that was a way to get discharged. Now what do they do?

Bender said...

How is asking or telling someone in the workplace what their sexual preferences are not sexual harassment? A person's sexuality has nothing to do with the job.

If a guy says to a woman in his office, "I like to have oral sex with blonde women," the proper response is to fire him, then sue him for sexual harassment, not pat him on the back for being allowed to openly serve.

Bender said...

I see Pasta beat me to the point.

Fred4Pres said...

AllenS is right in part. Some did self identify to get out early. Many got outed (like Ellen Page got outed by the left just recently). But of course when you are outed by the left, it is for the greater good of the gay community. When the Army does it it is discrimination.

Of course, the Navy (as opposed to the Marine Corps) has always turned a blind eye to shipboard shennangins.

Fred4Pres said...

Enlist Now!

MarkG said...

If you have to spend 24/7 with someone for the next six-plus months (like a military deployment), Bud Grant is the ideal. He's sober, stoic and quiet.

People who are flamboyant, loud, emotional, or dramatic are difficult to live with in close quarters. (Titus would get tiresome quickly).

It's less about sex and more about other characteristics. Officers share quarters with few individuals, so their opinion doesn't mean much to me.

MarkG said...

Of course, the Navy (as opposed to the Marine Corps) has always turned a blind eye to shipboard shennangins.

Oh, bullshit.

Real American said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Real American said...

get ready for re-education, e.g., "sensitivity training" coming to a boot camp near you

cubanbob said...

If there is a rush of those discharged to re-up I'll take them seriously.

Pastafarian said...

ginnad said: "...if any one of your co-workers saw you at the mall with your partner, your whole career could be over."

Really? If you're a major in the Marines, and I'm a PFC and I see you at the mall with another dude...I can turn you in for homosexuality?

Or do you have to be making out with him at the mall?

"...talking to any of your co-workers about any relationship in your life, even accidentally, could end your career."

Oops, I just accidentally was telling my co-worker just this morning intimate details of my sex life. The words spilled out of my mouth.

"You get to bring your significant other to company events."

And that should do wonders for morale of the 99% of non-homosexual marines; many of whom are 20 year old guys who aren't that secure in their masculinity yet. And it should do wonders for recruitment, particularly in conservative places like the south where many of those recruits come from.

That's what the whole point to ending DADT was -- weakening the military by any means available.

frank said...

Heh, where to start? The 1st lie in the clip the dyke "claims" he can't list his "wife" as emergency contact--lie. General Laitch [heterosexual] who in his 35 year military career never heard a shot fired in anger does his liberal stitck as an expert. For AA and Bozo, "AA babies"--of course Ann, this is not enough. We have our "holistic" President, "holistic" law prof, "holistic" murdering anarchist terror bomber [army math center] logic demands a "holistic" queer AA program of promotion for the military. All you Neandrathals--get with the program--or we will abort you.

Pastafarian said...

Dark Eden: "I knew a devout catholic latino gay guy who was actually hallucinating hearing the devil talk to him..."

Because of DADT? Or because he was bugfuck crazy?

"This is pretty disingenuous."

Yes, yes it is.

John M Auston said...

Q: What can't heterosexual men and women barracks and share toilet and showers?

A: Because a person has the right to not be the unwilling object of the sexual titillation of another.

Q. Then why are openly homosexual men and women allowed to barracks and share toilet and showers with their heterosexual same-sex-er's?

A. "Shut up", he explained.

AllenS said...

I wonder what The Althouse Woman would think and do, if a heterosexual man from the University openly and constantly told her she had a nice set of tits?

ginnad said...

Pastafarian said:

"Really? If you're a major in the Marines, and I'm a PFC and I see you at the mall with another dude...I can turn you in for homosexuality?

Or do you have to be making out with him at the mall?"

Sigh. Do you really not understand how that worked? A PFC sees you at the mall with "your friend Mark", and mentions this to his buddies. You and Mark have been spotted at the grocery store, at a bar etc. Someone else says you go camping with Mark a lot. All of a sudden you are being watched closely, then you are discharged. Everything over.

"Oops, I just accidentally was telling my co-worker just this morning intimate details of my sex life. The words spilled out of my mouth."

Again. It's not about oral sex. It's about "what did you do last weekend"? It's about not mentioning any bit of your personal life, because someone might put it together that you have a lot of "friends", and never any dates, or you and "Mark" do a lot together etc. If you make friends with colleagues, they may try to set you up on blind dates, believing you are single. So you just don't make friends.

Every aspect of your personal life must be kept secret, just in case.

"That's what the whole point to ending DADT was -- weakening the military by any means available."

You know that the US was the last of any western military to allow gays to openly serve, don't you? Even the Israelis allow openly gay members. I heard all of these arguments years ago when Canada allowed gays serve openly.

EDH said...

Not sure I buy that female Pentagon officer's claim that her partner would be the last to know of her death because she couldn't be on the emergency contact form, or why she should have to fear that she'd been "outed" under DADT when called to the admiral's office.

Pastafarian said...

AllenS, I wonder what the Althouse woman would do if she was required to share a shower with several heterosexual men. Whether they give her their opinion or not, I don't think she'd like that arrangement.

edutcher said...

Considering that 45% of the respondents to the DOD survey seeking servicemen's - and women's - opinions were from the Coast Guard - serving men and women avoided it like the plague and saw it for the political dodge it is, this is the phoniest nonsense the Democrats have foisted on this country since Social Security.

This is about getting the Demos re-elected.

Won't save them.

Fred4Pres said...

As far as homosexuals wanting more than equality, that is true to a point. They want acceptance.

Baloney.

They want to be a special, privileged class with all the PC emoluments to protect them from criticism or restraint.

chickenlittle said...

Allens wrote: That it, they wanted out, and that was a way to get discharged. Now what do they do?

The bitter corporal Klingers will have to find another way.

Scott M said...

You know that the US was the last of any western military to allow gays to openly serve, don't you? Even the Israelis allow openly gay members. I heard all of these arguments years ago when Canada allowed gays serve openly.

That argument didn't work on my mom for the same reasons that it has no relevance here.

PETER V. BELLA said...

There is no right to enlist or re-enlist in the military. There is no right to serve in the military. Military service is a privilege not a right. Never has been a right and never will be a right.

Pastafarian said...

ginnad, I believe this witch-hunt you're describing was covered by the "DA" part of "DADT". Please feel free to link to some evidence of a discharge from being seen at the mall with someone.

"Again. It's not about oral sex..."

Where did I say anything about oral sex?

If my co-worker asks me what I did over the weekend, I'm not going to mention boning him or her. Because I'm sane, and I don't want to be sued.

"You know that the US was the last of any western military to allow gays to openly serve, don't you?"

You know that, up until now, the US military has been the most effective in the world by a very long shot, don't you? Hey, I know, let's open up the Maserati's hood and see if we can give it a tweak with this here ball-peen hammer. Nothing to lose, but a few young men's lives.

Maybe the Packers should raid the playbook of the Arizona Cardinals. Who gives a fuck what other militaries do?

Kensington said...

"I knew a devout catholic latino gay guy who was actually hallucinating hearing the devil talk to him because he was so conflicted between his religion and his sexuality."

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment (pardon the expression). How can you be so sure that he was hallucinating? If the Catholics are right about homosexuality, then it would make perfect sense for the devil to be talking to deeply conflicted sinners. I should think a "devout catholic" would take that possibility very seriously.

Dark Eden said...

No the latino guy was not in the military, I was not talking specifically about DADT, I was talking about 'gay issues' in a more general sense. The feeling I am getting from a lot of commenters here shows some ignorance on what daily life for gays is actually like. Its not pretty and it can be pretty miserable, and it goes far beyond not being able to talk about hot gay sex with your coworkers, which was my entire point.

As for the catholic latino guy, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that him hearing the devil talk to him was a hallucination.

edutcher said...

ginnad said...

You know that the US was the last of any western military to allow gays to openly serve, don't you? Even the Israelis allow openly gay members. I heard all of these arguments years ago when Canada allowed gays serve openly.

And the US had the only military that was intended to actually fight. The rest were, and are, for show pretty much. Some, Canucks and formerly Limeys, may have some credible people, but they aren't going to stop anybody without the US behind them.

The Israelis allow homosexuals to serve, but they do not reside on post, they go home every night.

Letting this stuff go on in the barracks is only for people who have a backup.

But then, I'm sure doing his little bit to help destroy the US military is something Barry wanted to do just to please Mommy the Commie.

PS What NYTNewYorker said. They've already issued a demand that partners be allowed on post housing in states allowing same sex marriage.

Kensington said...

I know a lot of gays who are having some terrifically "pretty" lives, including great jobs, high incomes and (primarily amongst the men) as much indiscriminate sex with like-minded individuals as they desire.

Sure there have been a handful of miserable ones, too, but no more so than amongst the heteros I know.

EDH said...

Answer me this in all seriousness, because I don't know:

Immediately before repeal of DADT, what would you have to fear more as a soldier,

1.) being outed accurately by another soldier as gay, or

2.) being found to have outed a gay soldier?

G Joubert said...

As Bork so aptly put it, Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

And, Fred4Pres, I don't know on what ships and in whose Navy you served, but in my 4 years 1 month and 24 days on active duty, 3-1/2 years of which were on two ships in the fleet, "shipboard shennagins" probably occurred, but they definitely were not because "a blind eye" was turned or were in any way tolerated.

EDH said...

"Gay men and lesbians in the military no longer have to hide who they are..."

The Warriors were pretty gay in those sleeveless leather vests.

Fox: We're not gonna hide who we are because some whore shakes her ass.

Mercy: Don't call me no whore. I ain't no whore!

Swan: Let's go.

We're marching down to the next station, right through these lame fucks' territory.

Now, let's move.

Fred4Pres said...

G Joubert, I was USMC reserves. But friends of mine who did active Marine duty in the fleet said the squibs were constantly being caught committing shennangins all over the ship. They said it was like walking into a bath house when you were on night watch.

But then again, Marines assume that from all non Marine naval personnel.

Fred4Pres said...

edutcher, it is deeper than that. Many homosexuals are deeply unhappy (not all, but many). Sorry gays, but you know it is true. Some think, if only I was treated as an equal, if only I was accepted by society, everything would be okay...

But they will not be made happy by anything government does. Those that are unhappy will still be unhappy. Welcome to the club. Do you think all straight people are happy?

Reminds me of that Eddie Murphy SNL skit when he dressed up to be white and found this magical world that exists only when no black people are around.

Fred4Pres said...

EDH, one of the gayest thing in The Warriors was the guy clinking the beer bottles at the end, but of course, the gayest thing of all was The Furies.

Even the Lesbian Sirens were less gay than The Furies.

Coincidence they were wearing Yankee uniforms? There are no coincidences!

MadisonMan said...

Oops, I just accidentally was telling my co-worker just this morning intimate details of my sex life. The words spilled out of my mouth.

You assume gays are constantly talking to complete strangers about their sex lives.

I have to wonder about the kind of Gays you hang around with.

Scott M said...

Reminds me of that Eddie Murphy SNL skit when he dressed up to be white and found this magical world that exists only when no black people are around.

The bus was the best part of that bit.

Simon said...

Dark Eden said...
"I knew a devout catholic latino gay guy who was actually hallucinating hearing the devil talk to him because he was so conflicted between his religion and his sexuality."

I suppose one would be conflicted. The Church teaches that homosexuality is a burden that many people have to deal with, and that acting on that impulse—not the impulse itself, any more than it's a sin to be an alcoholic—is sinful. It's not easy for someone to live a chaste life, presumably, or more people would do it—but that would seem to be his answer if he is, after all, devout.

Trashhauler said...

For those who think nobody talks about sex in the Service, think again. When people are in close circumstances, sometimes at the risk of death, they want to know all the details about those around them. A secretive person who won't share the details of their life is an outlier. Others may put up with their secrecy, but that won't stop the curiousity.

Admittedly, things are different in office situations.

Simon said...

John M Auston said...
"Q: What can't heterosexual men and women barracks and share toilet and showers?

A: Because a person has the right to not be the unwilling object of the sexual titillation of another.

Q. Then why are openly homosexual men and women allowed to barracks and share toilet and showers with their heterosexual same-sex-er's?

A. "Shut up", he explained.
"

See, that's what I'd think. And one one hope there'd be a good answer to it. Nevertheless, the military has concluded that it isn't a problem, and I believe (and have consistently argued for years) that civilian policymakers should defer to military judgment as to purely internal military matters. That used to piss off gay friends when the military judged DADT useful, and now it pisses off SoCon friends now that the military judges DADT obsolete.

Hoosier Daddy said...

We'll probably need to increase defense spending a couple hundred billion to accomodate the new wave of enlistees that should be coming any minute now.

G Joubert said...

Fred4Pres:

Sounds like some inter-service bashing going on there more than anything.

My second ship was an amphib (troop ship), and when I was a 2nd class petty officer (E-5) I had a 3rd class reporting to me who was rumored to be gay. We had a USMC 1st Lieutenant permanently assigned to the ship who I was on good terms with, and he called me into his office and asked me point blank, "Is it true that [so and so] is a homo?" I said, "Sir, I've heard that rumor." He said, "You should ask him and if he admits it, put him on report" (this was before DADT). With a smile on my face I said, "Is that an order, sir?" With a smile on his face he said, "No." But I think he wanted me to.

Scott M said...

We'll probably need to increase defense spending a couple hundred billion to accomodate the new wave of enlistees that should be coming any minute now.

According to the career active duty members of my family (those not retired and those yet to enlist, lol) the quality of recruits in general has been going steadily downhill since the early 90's.

Cedarford said...

ADDED: Is the right to re-enlist really enough for the individuals who were discharged?
======================
Given there is no right to enlist in the 1st place, the only right is the right to APPLY to re-enlist. Plenty of enlisteds on active duty who apply don't get picked up for reenlistment - low quality lifers, those busted for crimes, RIF occasions when the military downsizes by budget constraints. And there is even less chance to stay in simply if you choose to, as an officer.

Also, what if we decriminalize pot? Does the military have to take back past UCMJ violators?

And AllenS is correct - for every homosexual that was involuntarily discharged in the volunteer military - you have 12 that voluntarily outed themselves including many heterosexuals falsely claiming to be gay - to get an early out from the military and an administrative, but honorable discharge. So I don't think any lawsuits for "back pay, lost advancement in the ranks" is going to fly.

Fred4Pres said...

Ask Titus if The Furies in The Warriors were not de ghey. Then let Trooper know.

MadisonMan said...

The Church

A Church.

edutcher said...

Fred4Pres said...

edutcher, it is deeper than that. Many homosexuals are deeply unhappy (not all, but many). Sorry gays, but you know it is true. Some think, if only I was treated as an equal, if only I was accepted by society, everything would be okay...

But they will not be made happy by anything government does. Those that are unhappy will still be unhappy. Welcome to the club. Do you think all straight people are happy?

Reminds me of that Eddie Murphy SNL skit when he dressed up to be white and found this magical world that exists only when no black people are around.


FWIW, I have no problem with what you've just said.

It's my observation the people pushing this don't make up the majority of homosexuals and have a very far Left agenda.

Cedarford said...

In my time in the military, I knew several people that were obviously gay in the officer and enlisted ranks.
I also processed paperwork on two guys that were straight that were very afraid of deploying to the Gulf War and claimed to be gay to avoid it. Disgusting.

And at the same time, a year before the Gulf War, dealt with a hardcore Christian fundie and general fuck up that tried a one-man crusade to get a squared away gay guy in my division rousted out of the military because the Fundie had seen him with another guy and entering a Gay Bar! I didn't want to hear it. His sargeant didn't want to hear it.
The Fundie was told to shut up and not say a word about it to anyone in division and not to confront the E-4 he accused in any way -while "it was investigated by us" And told, BTW - to work on improving his own work rather than focus too much on other people. Not his job. His supervisions job. Us.
The "investigation" was never documented, nor the Fundie's coming to us with accusations. The investigation consisted of the division sargeant with me sitting down with the gay tech for a work review due, praising his work and saying what an asset he was..and oh, there was this nosy fellow airman that complained about some irrelevant off-base happenstance where he claimed that he thought you were acting gay..and was told to shut up and do his own job. So to the sargeant it was all a no-nevermind impacting his high regard for having ______ in the division. But always keep in mind there were nosy people, the sargeant said he delivered with a "thumbs up, it is all cool as long as it is discrete" gesture.

Happy ending. The fundie was RIF'd a year after the Gulf War. The gay guy re-enlisted during the Gulf War in Kuwait, with full endorsement from me and others in the division chain of command...

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... According to the career active duty members of my family (those not retired and those yet to enlist, lol) the quality of recruits in general has been going steadily downhill since the early 90's..."

I blame console games turning kids into lardasses.

Although my tongue in cheek comment was my belief that there were few gays in the service to begin with and repeal of DADT wasnt going to result in some mad rush of enlistments. I'm sure those gays currently serving won't suddenly start talking with a lisp or sashshaying while marching in cadence.

My thoughts, at odds with most, were that if you were willing to don the uniform and go under fire, who you were screwing on your own time is irrelevant. I'll just go under the assumption that unwanted advances in the shower would be dealt with just like they were when I was in college. Quickly and violently.

To me this whole hoopla was a lot to do about nothing. If someone is willing to serve let them.

LarsPorsena said...

@AllenS

"Here I am. The vast majority of homos that were discharged, self-identified. That it, they wanted out, and that was a way to get discharged. Now what do they do?

---------
They're going to claim the workplace is 'hostile'.

As NYTNewYorker'' said '"It" will never be over. There will always be "more".

Trashhauler said...

"I believe (and have consistently argued for years) that civilian policymakers should defer to military judgment...."

A nation generally gets the military it wants. If any aspect of that military is counterproductive in combat situations (though that is usually very difficult to discern), it will result in Bad Things Happening.

One argument against the presence of women in close combat units (aside from the physical requirements) has always been that, given the close circumstances, sexual pairings will be inevitable. Jealousy and distrust often result, even if unwarranted. The reasons for everything meaningful - promotions, job assignments, schools, who's going out to get shot at - can be called into question.

We have strong rules against inappropriate friendships, even if platonic. Still, sex remains the most common reason for courts-martial and involuntary separation in all of the Services.

The prohibition against women has been relaxed considerably, but it still exists. Apparently, we have decided that such concerns will not apply to gays.

A nation generally gets the military it wants.

EDH said...

Fred4Pres said...
Even the Lesbian Sirens were less gay than The Furies.

Correction: Even thought they played the role of sirens, they were called the "Lizzies."

Even less subtle there.

Fred4Pres said...

It's my observation the people pushing this don't make up the majority of homosexuals and have a very far Left agenda.

Damn Straight. Okay, maybe I should have said that different. But you are absolutely correct. The more offended the more likely you are a leftist.

Trashhauler said...

Cedarford wrote:

"The Fundie was told to shut up and not say a word about it to anyone in division and not to confront the E-4 he accused in any way -while 'it was investigated by us...'
The investigation consisted of the division sargeant with me sitting down with the gay tech for a work review due, praising his work and saying what an asset he was..and oh, there was this nosy fellow airman that complained ...and was told to shut up and do his own job."

Very interesting. Of course, DADT wasn't in effect until 1993 or so. Given the total prohibition against gays before that time, you and your supervisor were risking your own careers covering for the good gay troop.

Nice that the gay troop could survive into the DADT era and reenlist in time for the second Gulf war. But wasn't that twelve years later? He should have reenlisted two or three times - and been transferred - long before that. And he'd be a senior NCO in his own right. Yet, you were together for all that time and still making endorsements for him? Must be some real homesteading done in your outfit.

Curious George said...

"MadisonMan said...

You assume gays are constantly talking to complete strangers about their sex lives.

I have to wonder about the kind of Gays you hang around with."

Titus?

Simon said...

MadisonMan said...
"'[Simon said] The Church' ¶ A Church."

The Church. See, e.g., Lumen Gentium, no. 8 (2d Vat. Council, 19654); Dominus Iesus nos. 16-17 (CDF, 2000).

Pastafarian said...

MadisonMan said: "You assume gays are constantly talking to complete strangers about their sex lives."

No, MadMan, I assume that they should be just as able to restrain themselves, and avoid talking about sex when they're at work, as the rest of us do.

I don't suffer from the soft bigotry of lowered expectations, causing me to think that every gay man is a shrieking, gossiping ninny, incapable of following the "don't tell" part of DADT.

And if that's the case, why repeal it?

Fred4Pres said...

Eddie Murphy's White Like Me!

Fred4Pres said...

What are you worrying about?

Jason (the commenter) said...

Before we give Obama all the credit/blame, let's remember that a Republican organization started this ball rolling with a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DADT.

Simon said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
"Before we give Obama all the credit/blame, let's remember that a Republican organization started this ball rolling with a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DADT."

I don't know that the LCR suit started the ball rolling, but either way, Congress passed the statute at the instigation of the military, so it's a little brazen for Obama to claim any credit at all. What did he do? Signed the bill? "I didn't obstruct the repeal" is faint praise.

Sabinal said...

for the opinions of an actual gay military dude , check out gaypatriot. He pretty much says he's doing his job, DADT or no DADT

Here is the quote I think fits:
I just Skyped with my boyfriend back in the States and we talked about this whole thing. He’s proud of me, but I’m also proud of him (as all my colleagues are of their families back home). I’m in love with him, we’re quite a pair. And if I wanted to, I could take a picture of us into my office today and put it right on my desk.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from A Forward Operating Location)

Sabinal said...

You know that the US was the last of any western military to allow gays to openly serve, don't you? Even the Israelis allow openly gay members. I heard all of these arguments years ago when Canada allowed gays serve openly.

not to be mean, but BFD

what is it about people (esp fellow libs) and their obsession with keeping up with other countries? We are not insecure adolescents we are the USA. Canada and Europe and Israel do their own thing, we do ours.

Popville said...

Re: > ADDED: Is the right to
> re-enlist really enough for the
> individuals who were discharged?

Yes, enough of this non-stop payback / reparations nonsense. Its time for Americans to get on with being all the American we can be!

Chef Mojo said...

Repealed? About goddamn fuckin' time.

There is no racial or sexual bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or faggots. Here you are all equally worthless. And my orders are to weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps. Do you maggots understand that?


Which is about how I see Gunny Hartman handling all this.

In other words, as of midnight last night, being gay in the military ceased to be an issue for those serving.

Carol_Herman said...

BULLSHIT!

The whole idea that you're married to someone you "love" ... is also a fabrication!

Lots of people loved others ... outside of their marriages ... ON BOTH SIDES! And, they dealt with this.

Marriages, for homosexuals, was called "marrying a beard!"

And, sometimes? That beard was a very fat woman. Married to a good looking man. And, she only played a role!

But then, again, some women were happier "playing the role of wifey" ... than finding out that life left them undesirable. (For "spinster" women ... even before their eggs died.)

One reality check, however, was how often a woman died in labor. So, "not being chosen" ... has plenty of advantages.

The BIGGEST change for the military, however, was the need to accept INCOMPETENT WOMEN AS 4-star generals!

Remember Aboo-Grabe? Remember the female in charge of that?

And, then, the "decider-in-chief" Dubya. Who thought it was everyone else's job to job on their swords and die.

Thank goodness Condi Rice has gone back to being "just a piano player!"

Imagine, if the moron, Dubya, left Colin Powell and Condi Rice in charge!

Richard said...

What?! A post about sex and no Andrew Sullivan link?

John said...

So we can assume that your son is on his way down to the recruiters as we speak?

Or, if he prefers and alternative to the military, there is always the US Air Force.

As for the people who were booted under the UCMJ for homosexual activity (Homosexuality has never been grounds for discharge)I would like to add my dittos to several others.

If they were booted under the previously existing law, there is no reason to let them apply to come back in.

I think it is good that the military is doing that but would have been OK with them not doing it.

It will be interesting to see if any of them do apply to get back in.

John Henry
(Ex Navy)

BarryD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Trashhauler,

What "total prohibition on gays" are you talking about?

It has NEVER, AFAIK, been illegal or against regulation to be gay in the military.

What has always been prohibited was homosexual acts.

Nothing more, nothing less.

A celibate gay had absolutely nothing to fear.

John Henry

BarryD said...

I think it's hilarious if straight members of the military really think that there haven't been gay people in their shared bathrooms all along.

I've known a few gay service members. It would have been a loss to the military had they been "outed". I suspect that the number of gay people in the armed services will not change significantly, but the distractions in their own lives, caused by trying to hide, will be diminished. This should be a net benefit to the military.

Note that the end of DADT doesn't mean that the UCMJ's provisions about fraternization and sex will disappear. It's a remarkably restrictive set of rules, and a lot of it looks really antiquated to average people. But by no means does it allow the barracks to become an orgy, gay or straight.

Chef Mojo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chef Mojo said...

@Richard:

What?! A post about sex and no Andrew Sullivan link?

As of midnight last night, Andy Sullivan became that much more irrelevant, continuing an ongoing trend. It's like watching Andy playing the title role in The Fly, except the cast is all buff, rugby playing English bears rockin' the glutes, and facial hair just so.

I'm sure there's a lesson in this, but damned if I give a shit.

wv: humboly: I dunno, but it sounds English. And gay.

Trashhauler said...

John wrote:

"A celibate gay had absolutely nothing to fear."
__________

Perhaps in a literal legal sense, John. I make no claim that the UCMJ language always conformed with practice. In reality, an exposed gay at the time could and would be removed for any number of reasons. Hence, the formulation of DADT to begin with.

But my larger point with Cedarford was that his whole story seemed very contrived. Stupidly, in fact, since normal Service procedures would have prevented much of what he claimed to have happened.

Robin said...

They send out an email claiming credit for something that was a campaign promise of Obama's that he then once in office failed to actually accomplish.

It took Democrats in Congress to push the issue against Obama's - well at best indifference if not actual obstruction.

Trashhauler said...

BarryD wrote:

"I think it's hilarious if straight members of the military really think that there haven't been gay people in their shared bathrooms all along."
________________

But nobody thinks that, John. Your claim of hilarity seems a bit contrived, almost as if you mean to belittle people.

I think it's convenient that people cannot seem to understand the difference between being okay with a theoretical knowledge that gays have showered with straights and yet being uncomfortable with the actual presence of gays in shower.

Milwaukie guy said...

Besides the growing acceptance of homosexuality in the four decades since Stonewall, I wonder how much fighting alongside allied militaries where gay soldiers served and exposure to the man-boy love culture in Afghanistan led to a collective shrug of the shoulders?

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ken in sc said...

I have said this before but it bares repeating, The problem in the military of open gays will not be with male homosexuals. The problem will be with over-masculine lesbians. I have seen them abuse their authority in ways that men could not get away with. I predict that as they no longer fear being outed, they will harass and intimidate heterosexual females into abusive relationships on a wide scale.

Chef Mojo said...

@ken in sc:

I predict that as they no longer fear being outed, they will harass and intimidate heterosexual females into abusive relationships on a wide scale.

Bullshit.

They no longer have the cover. One of the consequences of the repeal is that abusive gay and lesbian behavior in the ranks will be under greater scrutiny, there no longer being any incentive to turn your eyes away. The punks and dykes can no longer count on silence. This will come under sexual harassment, pure and simple.

One rule. One standard for command. There will always be assholes and nimrods in positions of authority, gay and straight. Now, they'll all be judged on the same standard.

Cedarford said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
We'll probably need to increase defense spending a couple hundred billion to accomodate the new wave of enlistees that should be coming any minute now.
================
Har har har. Overall, I think gays are a little bit less likely than straights to join up...and the sort of Lefty screaming drama queen that wanted gays in the military and the military off campus a hell of a lot less likely. Dykes are a different matter. I expect more to join than the odds of a straight female in the pop joining.

As for the never-ever-served liberals and progressive Jews over at the NY Times expecting a flood of gay SEALS and gay Marines and gay Linguists hammering at the doors of recruiting stations...nope. I don't think there is any pent-up demand in the gay community to join up, now that they can.
(All the gays that wanted to and were just discrete normal middle of the road gays - already are in).

===================
Trashauler - "Given the total prohibition against gays before that time, you and your supervisor were risking your own careers covering for the good gay troop."

Hardly. Command had its priorities way back then...some utterly incomprehensible to me to this day and defying any rational explaination - as I reflect back. But they weren't keen on losing people on cheap stuff unless you were talking about the "strategic side" of the show.
So the only thing to do was do the "SGT Schultz and Colonel Klink" bit without being so clueless as "klink" was that you encouraged drug use and other stuff to be blatant. Essentially - willing to overlook unless it couldn't be overlooked...

And no one really calls the Iraq mess the 2nd Gulf War. That stains the success of the 1st one.

The Drill SGT said...

a few semi-random comments:

1. @ken in sc said...

a while ago I made a comment about being married to an Army Lawyer (Colonel). You asked and implied about fraternization issues. I am not sure you saw my reply so here goes. I was a private, I was a Sergeant. I was an Officer. When Captain DrillSGT dated Captain Laywer (later married her), I had date of rank on her by a long shot. OTOH, 1LT DrillSgt dated a Captain Lawyer and a Captain Doctor, but neither was in my chain of command :)

2. Note that once discharged, you have 90 days to reenlist at your previous rank, beyond that, the default is serious grade reduction.

3. I'll say what others have implied above: DADT is gone, but the UCMJ remains EXACTLY the same. All homosexual acts are still effectively seriuous felonies.

You can be homosexual now in the military, you can not perform a homosexual act. You also can't commit adultery, etc...

4. This was one act. The nex t act is the lobbying for benefits.

5. The game will be played by postulating that some large number of gays must be in the military, but since most don't go OUT, and very few out gays therefore get promoted, there must continue to be discrimination. Thus requiring affirmative action, quota granting, and quota tracking....

all that is not forbidden, must be encouraged...

rp said...

As someone asked, let's see who re-enlists. If a service member announced to a physician that he or she was gay, we were instructed to ask neutrally, "Why are you telling me this?" For at least some service members, publicly making a big deal out of sexual preference was in order to get an "easy out" discharge -- a type of almost instant discharge that was not available to other service members.

Simon said...

Sabinal said...
"what is it about people (esp fellow libs) and their obsession with keeping up with other countries? We are not insecure adolescents we are the USA. Canada and Europe and Israel do their own thing, we do ours."

Yep yep. And they aren't even consistent: If we're supposed to be in step with the world community, see how a liberal reacts to bringing our abortion laws into conformance with the practice of other countries. Wear kevlar!

John said...

Drill Sgt,

Go read the act.

It specifically voids the UCMJ article. More specifically Section 654 of title 10, United States Code

Homosexual acts by military members are now legal. Generally, I suppose there could be a restriction on sex, hetero or homo, on the mess decks.

John Henry

John Henry

The Drill SGT said...

wow

AllenS said...

John said...
It specifically voids the UCMJ article. More specifically Section 654 of title 10, United States Code

I was not aware of that. Good grief, what's next, letting enlisted personnel get away with not saluting officers?

The Drill SGT said...

Interesting.

with the deletion of article 125 Sodomy. You lose the ability to directly punish Male on Male Rape, since the actual rape article, 120, assumes the victims are female.

also, the 134 adultery text seems now slanted more against hetros', since gays are seldom married :)