The Marines were the service most opposed to ending the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, but they were the only one of five invited branches of the military to turn up with their recruiting table and chin-up bar at the center Tuesday morning. Although Marines pride themselves on being the most testosterone-fueled of the services, they also ferociously promote their view of themselves as the best. With the law now changed, the Marines appear determined to prove that they will be better than the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard in recruiting gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.
September 21, 2011
"Marines Hit the Ground Running in Seeking Recruits at Gay Center."
The NYT reports:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
91 comments:
Wearing the new rainbow camouflage no doubt. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Social engineering invades the best military on earth.
The Marines will now try and recruit the butchest women they can find. Homo men, not so much.
A 25 year army vet here--I dont have a problem with gays in the military--they have always been there and in the cases I know have always been good soldiers
Prepare to engage the Law of Unintended Consequences!
I am looking forward to Ayman al-Zawahiri's demise and burial in a pigskin by an all lesbian special forces unit.
the ucmj has enough safeguards to deal with both gay and heterosexual activities. Enough already--just my .02
John Henry, yesterday you said:
"Go read the act.
It specifically voids the UCMJ article. More specifically Section 654 of title 10, United States Code"
Can you provide a link?
GOOD! This is not surprising. One stupid law down.. a few hundred more to go. How about the marijuana laws next?
@NYTNewYorker How can you be the "best military" you can be if you exclude a significant percentage of the able bodied candidates based on something like this?
Hooo-rah
Not that it matters, FloridaSteve, but were you in the military?
I'm guessing that the Marines will be fighting for second place until they can come up with a song that's catchier than "In The Navy."
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
the Marines will be fighting for second place until they can come up with a song that's catchier than "In The Navy."
How about this one?
you know its funny - I've seen very littly outside of conservative sites mentioning much less decrying the fact that DADT was Bill Clinton's handiwork. However, its interesting that what little I've seen in that regard gives Clinton a pass as to "Congress wasn't ready for that sort of change yet". I'm also somewhat amused that the same apparently couldn't be said of the Military.
People happily ignore the fact that military is one place where *things change slowly*. Very, very slowly in some regards. I've known people from the military who were for and those who were against DADT or serving with gays. I've not seen anyone though that thought that anything changed quickly in the military.
I know guys that quit the service when they started to allow women to serve in the 80's. Sometime for good reasons, like seperate physical requirements for men and women. Thats changed however.
Slowly.
It's a good mix. Gay guys love the beach. Marines love dying on beaches.
a significant percentage
I am not advocating exclusion of gays from the military, but I don't think 3% of the total population is significant.
Go Marines!
Do you know who else the military discriminates against? Real fat people. Also, people who cannot read or write, not to mention disabled people. People who have no physical stamina can't join the military. Why is this allowed?
AllenS: as near as I can figure you are the only sane person in Wisconsin--thanks for all you do
Roger, I am a man of the earth. No better, or worse than my fellow man.
I would imagine this has more to do with the progressiveness of the local recruiting command versus any overall policy.
That being said, I hope the Marines, and the rest of the Armed Forces, including my beloved Army, embrace the change.
Too bad our college campuses aren't as inclusive as the US Military.
I've gotta say. Yesterday all the people featured in the "Now I can come out!" stories on the news could certainly not have been a surprise to the people they were serving with.
I love the video for In The Navy.
They worked those swing flags on that ship.
In the Navy, you can sail the seven seas.
Disco Lady, lalallalalala.
The one that called his dad from Alabama was fucking hot.
The Marines are the best service branch. The Marines are focused on professionalism. Whether you are gay or not really should not be an issue to that. It is not like such individuals are not already there.
AllenS, the Marines have been recruiting the butchest women they could find for a long time. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Titus, the Navy (not the Marine Corps) would be the service branch best suited for you. You could do a gay Private Benjamin if you will, but you would be a sailor (you get a cute white suit too).
it's one thing not to exclude, but it's another thing entirely to head over to the Blue Oyster with a sign-up sheet.
Fred4Pres said...
The Marines are the best service branch.
Well, Fred, I was an Army paratrooper. After serving I've found a lot of Marines who wanted to go skydiving and jump out of an airplane. I have yet to find an Army veteran who wanted to storm a beach.
Given the NY Times even-handedness on other matters, and the sensibility and non-partisanship they've shown throughout the Obama presidency, I trust the reporting here to be on-point.
As for gays in the military, I'll leave that to the military and the people in it.
As for many of the drivers of this change:
Equality is the name, redistribution for the sake of freedom is the game. Lots of bad policies, bloated bureaucracies, self-interested hustlers, taxes, power hungry ideologues etc have followed...
Not always reasonably.
AllenS, true. Parachuting in is exciting and dangerous. Storming a beach is I am sure scary and not as glamourous.
Then again, I would like to lay on some peaceful beach, with an attractive woman, and drink. But sometimes you have to storm a beach.
Sometimes you have to do things that are both difficult and unpleasant. And usally they call the Marines to do it.
Allen S,
Here is the relevant part:
(1) TITLE 10.—Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United
3 States Code, is amended—
4 (A) by striking section 654; and
5 (B) in the table of sections at the beginning
6 of such chapter, by striking the item relating to
7 section 654.
8 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Upon the effec9
tive date established by subsection (b), section 571 of
10 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
11 Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note) is amended by strik12
ing subsections (b), (c), and (d).
You can read the bill here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr2965eah/pdf/BILLS-111hr2965eah.pdf
John Henry
Moose,
Women have been serving since before the 80's.
the Navy started opening up seagoing ratings to women in '72 (or earlier)
I was a Machinist Mate and resented that women were allowed to enter and be advanced in that rating Since they would not be able to serve aboard ship, they took up shore billets from other MM's and forced the sea/shore rotation time from 8-10 years at sea with 2 years ashore to 10-12 years at sea.
They also took up many of the few ashore billets in the rating, forcing more of those men, when they did get shore duty, to fill more shitty jobs like Master at Arms, Shore Patrol and such.
Finally, since the Navy promotes Navy wide, every time a woman got promoted who had not put in sea time, it meant that a man who had got left back. There was suspicion that promotions were rigged so women got extra points. I don't know if it was true. It was widely believed at the time.
to this day there are still some problems but it all worked out in the end, more or less.
The 70's were a crappy time to be in the Navy. This was one of the reasons.
John Henry
MM1, USN, 67-75
Thank you, John.
Fred said:
Marines have been recruiting the butchest women they could find for a long time.
Back in the day we used to call them BAMs
"Broad Assed Marines"
I had an E-9 woman marine in one of my classes back in the early 00s.
She was not particularly butch, rather feminine in a very buff sort of way. Married, kids and so on.
But absolutely as hard core as any male Marine I ever met. Very well respected by all the male servicemembers in my class.
I would have been proud to serve with her.
John Henry
Back in the late 80's I had a reserve Marine captain working for me. His speciality was beachmaster.
He is the guy who you see strutting around directing unloading of the LSTs and generally directing traffic under fire.
He had a red band and rank insignia around his trouser legs above the ankle.
This was so that all the Marines lying with their heads in the sand could see who this crazy guy was walking around getting shot at.
Good guy. Went active in Gulf I and made major.
I wonder if Marine uniforms will be an attraction to gays? They certainly do have the spiffiest, sharpest, uniforms.
"Look sharp, feel sharp, be sharp"
John Henry
So, gay affirmative action begins.
Back in the 1970s when I was attending the University of Tennessee, we had an All-American linebacker, Jackie Walker, who was gay. I don't recall anyone questioning his testosterone level, especially opposing running backs.
One more comment about the Marines:
In the Army you have a huge percentage of REMFs who are not expected to be ever be fighters.
In the Marines, the motto is "Every Marine a rifleman" (Even the women)
They are all, cooks, clerks, motor pool etc expected to be fighters and train to be fighters.
John Henry
John, I have to agree with you on the Marine uniforms. The worse thing that the Army did was to cancel khaki uniforms. Nothing looked sharper in the Army than heavy starched khaki.
I remember at Ft. Bragg and we'd have a function to do, and we'd break starch, tucked into our spit shined jump boots. When we'd put on our pants, someone would stand behind you and using their fingers and thumbs, put two equal folds in the shirt so there was no extra cloth in the front. We all looked the same. Sharp. Deadly.
I wish I was a young man again.
Make that before you would button your pants, and not put your pants on.
Maybe you couldn't do that now, because, you know, that person might be having impure thoughts.
Allen,
Could not agree with you more.
The Army Camos are not bad looking but they wear them everywhere. I never see a troop in uniform anymore other than that.
Having said that, the new Navy uniforms with the blue cammies (So if you fall over the side you can't be seen) are the absolute pits.
Sailors hate them.
In 71 the Navy developed a new gabardine work uniform that was issued to all boots. The old dungaree pants/Chambray shirt work uniform was no longer authorized.
In 2004, when Roosevelt Roads closed, I still saw half the sailors walking around in the old dungarees work uniform.
the Navy never could get the fleet to accept the gabs. The new cammies they are forcing sailors to wear. Unauthorized dungarees are no longer tolerated.
John Henry
John, maybe the gays could be in charge of uniforms. Developing something maybe butch looking, not, you know, ...
Some of the Corps brass want the Marines to be a separate branch, so this is one way of polishing the Demos' apple.
FloridaSteve said...
@NYTNewYorker How can you be the "best military" you can be if you exclude a significant percentage of the able bodied candidates based on something like this?
For the same reason they don't have co-ed barracks.
AllenS said...
Fred4Pres said...
The Marines are the best service branch.
Well, Fred, I was an Army paratrooper. After serving I've found a lot of Marines who wanted to go skydiving and jump out of an airplane. I have yet to find an Army veteran who wanted to storm a beach.
A lesson learned after Salerno and Omaha Beach in Europe, Attu and Biak in the Pacific.
John said...
One more comment about the Marines:
In the Army you have a huge percentage of REMFs who are not expected to be ever be fighters.
In the Marines, the motto is "Every Marine a rifleman" (Even the women)
No, the Navy provides the REMFs for the Marines. If the Corps ever became a separate branch, that would go away.
It certainly has the possibility of making the Wog beauty contest a lot more interesting during the equator crossing Shellback initiations.
It seems like this new policy will require recruiters to "Pre Judge" potential enlistees based on preconceived notions of what they think being gay is.
Unless they intend to require some sort of demonstrated ability as proof.
An Unintended Consequence of Marine Recruiting
Marines get shitty second half equipment and less pay than the other branches, yet do not complain when the most unpleasant tasks are given to them. Because they involve fighting. Heck, it is what they do. Fight.
richard mcenroe, funny. Of course Afghanis have a big gay thing going (always have).
“It’s like a little family,” he said. “We get mad at each other, we joke with each other, but we don’t let anybody else make fun of us.”
So true.
I love that it was the Marines who showed their moral courage by setting up at the center. Awesome.
An interesting fact to note is that it was only women that showed their interest - the Marines have never had any trouble recruiting lesbians, if anyone had any doubt about that. Straight and gay women Marines have long existed side by side.
I think it would be most interesting to find out how many gays there are in the services. I can't think of any gay male Marines in the news. Have there been any?
Semper Fi Devil Dogs!
Most Marines who know "John, the Marine Captain" realize there's a reason John doesn't go out with girls. No biggie.
Most Marines (below the grades entrusted with keeping pols happy) will be less enthused to serve with "John, the homosexual-Marine."
Marines thrive by being 100 percent Marines. Leadership promoting hyphenated Marines of any sort is no leadership at all.
This will in the long run prove to be a non event. Maybe a few more gays will serve, but the military will not be severely impacted.
Fred4pres
How do the Marines get less pay than other branches?
They are under the uniform pay scales with are uniform for all branches.
Unless something changed on last night's midwatch?
John Henry
The Marine Corps (not 'Corpse' Mr President) was the most vocal service opposing the end of DADT.
What the Marines are doing now is completely consistent with ancient military tradition.
In the Military it is your duty to voice your honest opinion and provide an honest recommendation to any proposed policy suggested by your chain of command.
Once the chain of command makes a final decision and issues an actual legal order it becomes the military members duty to do his or her best to fully support and implement the command decision.
Once a decision is made, military members and units must put aside their individual objections to the decision. To engage in foot dragging is at best highly unprofessional and is very close to outright sabotage.
You can still bitch about the decision at the bar, but you have to leave your bitching there.
The chain of command gave the Marines an order. When you give a Marine a legal order he or she will say 'hoorah!' and charge up the hill to implement it. Even if they didn't like it. No surprise there. That's how they roll.
As Barry Goldwater said, "All that matters is they shoot straight."
Which means if you really want to serve you can serve. If you have some other adgenda, go hang out at the capitol in Madison.
agenda. My bad.
The next change to the military will be granting same sex spouses of military members the full benefits and privileges currently granted to heterosexual spouses.
I don't think the press and the academic community realize that that same sex miitary spouses can now exist, but are second class members of the military family.
Once the left wakes up to this fact, it should give the military haters in academia enough ammo to continue to hate ROTC without actually admitting the they really just hate the military.
And what about gender benders? The list goes on.
Marines will love them some Chelsea boys.
Jim Howard said...
The next change to the military will be granting same sex spouses of military members the full benefits and privileges currently granted to heterosexual spouses.
Lobbying for that has already started.
The death of a thousand cuts.
The next change to the military will be granting same sex spouses of military members the full benefits and privileges currently granted to heterosexual spouses.
When homosexual 'partners' begin getting such benefits, you can bet straights who prefer to be unmarried domestic partners will demand the same - and rightly so.
The military culture strongly supports marriage and traditional families. That culture's fixing to take a beating.
Or the Marine recruiter decided not to be a jerk about being invited to do recruiting.
I love hearing pathetic dead-enders whine.
Don't Ask Don't Tell is dead.
Finally, it will be legal to walk up to a Marine and ask if he sucks cock.
Not necessarily wise, but legal.
The next change to the military will be granting same sex spouses of military members the full benefits and privileges currently granted to heterosexual spouses.
I see that coming. Personally I am all for cutting all those spousal benefits to nothing. Why not, we need to cut spending.
Dutch Canuck, as they say a good lawyer knows the answer to a question before he asks it. I think that advice applies to that hypothetical question to a Marine.
70 posts Late here Allen but no I'm not military. I come from a strong military family though.
UCMJ article 125:
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
Good for them. And too bad for the other branches.
Personally I am all for cutting all those spousal benefits to nothing. Why not, we need to cut spending.
Why not? I've been dragged all over two different countries, uprooting every couple of years for a decade now. It's nearly impossible to find good career positions in most of the towns anywhere near a military base. But, I don't get to relocate for better job prospects. The military decides where I get to live. And, even if I manage to find a decent job, I don't get to keep it long enough to accrue reasonable benefits. I've been a single parent through four deployments (so far) and countless training schools and other "short" geographical separations. (Two months is "short" for me. Has your wife ever had to hold down the fort for that long?) I'm going to stop there, but my list of accomplishments that no normal spouse has to do goes on much longer.
I deserve the few spousal benefits that the military provides me. I have earned them. That's why not.
And while we're at it, I would deserve those benefits regardless of my sexual orientation.
Why should unmarried troops subsidize your family's lifestyle? Why not take the cash we're currently paying for, say, the difference between BAH Type I and Type II, and distribute it among all servicemembers, married and unmarried alike? Same for the subsidized portion of TRICARE premiums.
No one is saying that military spouses don't make sacrifices, and, outside of maybe nursing and federal employment, those career sacrifices are significant. However, those benefits hurt single servicemembers with no children, because spousal benefits eat up limited dollars that would otherwise be available to fund pay increases across the board.
Jennifer, you are correct. I was being more facetious than anything (and I was really referring to social security and other such entitlements that can have a spousal benefit). I see where the gay marriage thing is going on that and while you can make the agrument that there is a societial benefit for encouraging families. Should we be financing same sex or male/female couples without kids?
Shouldn't we give the same benefits we give to male female couples with underaged kids to same sex couples with kids?
As for military relocation, I would agree, assistance should be provided to one's household you are seeking to relocate (it should not be conditioned on the gender of the couple). Otherwise people will not re-enlist.
That may hurt single soldiers without children, but the military benefits overall with mature and stable members. And those same single soldiers benefit from having the option to marry and start a family if they choose to without having to give up their careers. Provided of course that they are heterosexual.
Yes, fred4pres, we absolutely should provide family benefits to families regardless of their sexual orientation. In my opinion.
Couldn't we have predicted this months ago? Military personnel have opinions just like everybody else, but at the heart of what they do is follow the rules. Now that the rules say that openly gay people can serve, I'm not the least bit surprised that the Marines are trying to find the best of the bunch.
Well, if we did away with the BAH differential between Type I and Type II, and paid everyone the same basic allowance for housing, then military members can still get married, and still stay in the service. They will simply make up the difference out of basic pay, like, well, everyone else in the country.
Nobody is quitting their career at Amalagamated, Inc., because the boss doesn't pay extra to employees just for turning in a marriage certificate, and nobody is putting off getting married just because the stockholders at Amalgamated, Inc., pay extra to people just for turning in a marriage certificate.
Why do you hate single servicemembers, Jennifer? Why? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY???? :-D
Palladian said...
I love hearing pathetic dead-enders whine.
Did you interpret my comments to mean dead-enders whine?
When some of us comment about our time in the service, and express concern that maybe this isn't a good idea, seriously, does that constitue a whine?
Would you like to tell all of us about your time in the service, and how this isn't going to impact unit cohesion.
"Would you like to tell all of us about your time in the service, and how this isn't going to impact unit cohesion."
Allen, I spent five years serving aboard a Trident missile submarine. There were roughly 160 men aboard a confined space for approximately 3 months at a time. We didn't hit foreign ports and only hit the domestic ones in the last 2-3 weeks of the patrol, and only for a few days. So we were cooped up together almost the whole time. All men. If any place should have unit cohesion suffer by having gay men aboard, it's that.
I served during DADT. We had at least 5 men aboard who were pretty much known to be gay. They didn't tell anyone, but they lived their lives when we were in port and had their relationships and went about their business. Not a one of the other men aboard (myself included) would have hesitated to lay down our lives for any of them if it came to that. And the reverse is true. They were professional, dependable and vital to our deterrent mission.
I was one of the Yeoman for the boat. Whenever DADT was amended with some new cockamamie thing like, "Don't pursue" or "Don't harass," we would have to train the crew on the change. One time, I was discussing one of the new "don'ts" and someone in the back yelled out, "how about don't give a shit???" Everyone in the room laughed and many applauded. I saw a few of the men who were gay get a nudge or a pat on the back from their fellow sailors.
This issue is moot. The fleet, and I'm guessing the rest of the military, has largely moved on. As the anxiety about the end of DADT fades and more and more brave service men and women start coming out, it will be less and less shocking and people who are pessimistic and still serving will come to understand that a person can be gay and still be a hero. Patriotic, able-bodied Americans want to serve their country. It's simply un-American to deny them that opportunity because some people they're working with think they have cooties.
Having seen it first hand, I trust in the professionalism of our military more than that. So should you.
I just want to re-direct the language here. The military does not provide family benefits because it wants to be nice to people, to provide freebies.
It wants to retain its warriors, and keep them ready to go, and effective when called up. One way We the People do this is by granting various assistance to the families left behind.
So the current method selected, is to provide a baseline benefit to all military families, and additional combat pay for those in harm's way.
Our military is not in the providing benefits to families business. That it does it is a force readiness choice, not a mission. Military family benefits are not rights, and they are not permanent obligations that We The People owe to our warriors.
So when you talk about changing family benefits, you also have to talk about the changes in force readiness. Fairness is an effect, not an objective.
Fred4Pres said...
As Barry Goldwater said, "All that matters is they shoot straight."
===========
Goldwater was often a moron. As an AF General, he should know that the actual "triggermen", the people shooting - are far less important than the whole organization working cohesively.
------------
My own thoughts are that with male homosexuals a minute part of the population(2%), with many that are honestly a little too prissy and effeminant to be a good fit in the military (more than gen pop, but less than a majority) - there will be no significant "rush" of male homosexuals to sign up.
No real pent up demand, as those gays that wanted to serve and were pretty indistinguishable from any other man - have done so since the volunteer military was established.
Dykes though, are a whole different matter. I can see a lot more butches coming in, staying in, and I predict the integration problem will have challenges mainly from straight young females going into specialities that have supervision dominated by lesbian NCOs.
Also in the NYT:
Amorous Squid Seeks Partner: Any Sex Will Do
That sailor didn't waste any time.
I know of a couple of units that have been, at different times, taken over by a "lesbian mafia," complete with transfers of lesbians to the lesbian by a lesbian friendly contact in Personnel Command. Women have been transferred from other units to do "make work" jobs and to be sex partners to lesbians, all the way up to the rank of Sergeant Major and at least one major I'm familiar with.
This all happened during a shooting war in Iraq, in country, but also in Europe.
Sadomasochistic lebian orgies, young women trading sexual favors for favorable evaluation reports. Or being threatened with unfavorable ones if they didn't put out.
You name it, it was happening. I have no reason to believe it isn't still happening, but it was happening as recently as 2005-06.
This has nothing to do with people "moving on." This is an entirely predictable result of putting young people in harm's way with not enough to do and the constant threat of death from an errant mortar round, if nothing else.
Florida Gator said...
I am looking forward to Ayman al-Zawahiri's demise and burial in a pigskin by an all lesbian special forces unit.
================
Puerile boy-teen talk reflecting a pulp media fascination with "kick-ass pretend female warriors".
Well if 5'1' Summer Glau and 110 lb Keira Knightly prove a single woman can kick the asses of 20 huge fast muscular warriors surrounding them - surely that is reality!!"
As for demoralizing Islamoids, knowing a mighty chick is behind the weapons control console 40,000 feet up - A reporter for Lebanon Star, embedded with a Taliban unit, asked that question.
"Some Americans believe that you and your fighters are demoralized knowing that there are American female bomber pilots killing your forces"
The Taliban leader and his men shrugged...
So a female pushes a button from perfect safety 5 kilometers above us. What does that mean in Allah's eyes? A coward or a child can do the same. We dispatched our own women and children out to blood them...to finish off captured or wounded Russians with knives, garden hoes. At times, especially if they were taking their time about it - the maddened infidel being dispatched by Allah's will - would find the strength to kill or harm. Sometimes we would let the child or woman shoot the Russian with our weapons for a change in how we dispatch the enemy...it pleased them, it pleased us. Women and children carry our ammunition into battle. Many died from Russian fire. They plant mines. Our Believing women and children naturally have more bravery and courage than the American female infidel striking us from perfect safety.
So at boot camp, they'll train the females to run while scissoring.
Hey, they complained until they got it. Now show up and sign up and defend the country. But don't expect to be treated like a new, special kind of Marine.
http://ltdanchoi.com/ A famous gay activist/West Point graduate.
from LA Times 9/21/11: In California, former Marine Capt. Kristen Kavanaugh, 31, hopes to join the Navy four years after she left the Marines. She had served in Iraq, but could no longer stand the pressure of hiding her sexuality.
"The turning point was Iraq," said Kavanaugh, now a graduate student at USC. "Everyone else could call their loved one and talk openly. I had to guard my words and only talk in general terms. It was awful having to live like that."
Seems like the most negative opinions here are from people who don't know a single gay or lesbian but are sure they know all about them.
Roz,
Why would you assume that those opposed to this policy change don't know a single gay or lesbian? I know scores of them without exaggerating.
Really, you have nothing whatsoever to base that assertion on. Wishful thinking on your part.
WV: mingl
Jason, the difference is that Amalgamated, Inc. isn't likely to place undue burdens on the potential spouses of its employees. It doesn't require potential spouses of its employees to follow its rules. And its employees are welcome and able to quit and find New and Improved Amalgamated, Inc.'s at any time that their employment does place unmanageable burdens on their families. None of that is true in the military.
Again, the military benefits from career soldiers and family stability. It is not in its best interest to cater to none but the single soldier.
And BAH is the least of it. The single biggest benefit to military families is the healthcare. Crappy though it is. The difference between housing allowance with and without is small, overseas at least.
I see your whyyyyyyyyyy do you hate the single soldier and raise you a thiiiiink of the chiiiildren. ;)
^with and without dependents*
Jim, I went to Viet Nam on a boat, the USS General William Weigel (AP-117). Maybe it's a Navy thing.
You say: We had at least 5 men aboard who were pretty much known to be gay. They didn't tell anyone
So, you really don't know if they were gay or not. Correct?
Post a Comment