Gays and generals / Top brass torpedo 'don't ask, don't tell'

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Tuesday, December 16, 2003 | editorial

[SJSAMPLE]

Somewhat like the "bachelor" uncle?
Seriously, though. Military life is very hard on relationships and families. I've never heard anyone openly suspect a single officer just because he hadn't married. Usually, there's known behavior that starts those things off. Sort of like a 1LT in my battalion in Germany ...

[breakem]

LOL. I just don't like the total hatred displayed by some here. I think folks are individuals with individual rights and responsibilities. The agenda is not all wrong, some of the rights stuff is overdue for my money. The stuff about education and kids is worth a fight.

[Mr. Lucky]

Would you want to re-phrase #35?

[antiRepublicrat]

The moment you used out the word 'homophobe', you lost all credibility.

Why? He seemed to have quite a fear of contact with or professional involvement with homosexuals with no facts to back it up.

[NutCrackerBoy]

No, I'm not pro-homosexual, but I'm not against them either. I don't care about their status as homosexuals as long as they don't push it in my face (figuratively or literally).

Well said, antiRepublicrat. I think people should have an adult, tolerant approach to discreet gayness in the military and everywhere else. But I do not support complete openness. Even though Don't ask, Don't tell feels harsh, it is a compromise I can live with.

[SJSAMPLE]

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a DOD directive.
The USMC is under the same obligations to obey that directive as every other service component.

BTW, the USMC has its own particular troubles with this issue, so please don't try to exempt them from this situation.

[hardhead]

How about the 'Pink Berets'?

[jsbankston]

So many jokes. So little time.

While you make jokes about gays in the military, homosexual men and women in the armed services are risking and giving their lives today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[sit-rep]

Women in Admin...

Gays get point...

[CWW]

Must have been a "rear" admiral.

[antiRepublicrat]

But I do not support complete openness.

Thanks.

But I do, if the soldier wants to. I also support chaptering any gay soldier who acts like he's in a "gay days" parade to the detriment of order in the unit. I think "discreet" is the word no matter was sex or sexual orientation you are.

The only thing I'm worried about with gays openly serving is that there would be a whole bunch more time wasted on PC classes for the soldiers as is currently done with male-female sexual harassment. They were told it once in basic, and should remember it from then on or face the consequences.

[KEVLAR]

Because it is misused by those who do have an agenda to label any who oppose them. Kind of like calling anyone who opposes reparations or race based hiring/admissions policies racist.
Dislike, maybe, fear, no.
You can call me a homophobe when homosexuality is virulently infectious and transmitted through the air.

[antiRepublicrat]

I apologized for using what has apparently become a politically charged word.

You can call me a homophobe when homosexuality is virulently infectious and transmitted through the air.

Then it wouldn't be a phobia, but a rational fear of possible infection.

[SirAllen]

Knowingly letting homosexuals stay in the military is akin to letting men and women share the same showers and sleeping quarters.

As soon as it's known that a homosexual is among men, their moral will go way down. They don't want to worry about a man they share close space with looking at them sexually. It's like letting a pedophile teach children. Sure, they could make good teachers but as soon as they act on their "feelings" bad things happen.

[CholeraJoe]

I want to hear what experienced military people say about homosexuals in the military.

OK. Retired USAF officer here. I knew of three under my command. One was HIV positive so could not be separated except medically. Once he discovered he couldn't be booted out, he was flaming.

Two others were involved in a gay sex ring on base and were separated. One was a good troop, one wasn't.

I'm certain there were many more who did their jobs competently and kept their sexuality to themselves.

[JCEccles]

I am an attorney (and a retired Air Force JAG). I don't agree that Lawrence v. Texas will be the death knell of the military's policy of discharging men and women who demonstrate or declare homosexual tendencies. I'd be interested in hearing why you believe differently.

The effect of the decision on military criminal law prohibiting sodomy is one thing. The adverse impact of openly demonstrated or avowed homosexual behavior on good order and discipline is quite another. The most Lawrence v. Texas does is decriminalize one kind of homosexual behavior conducted in private.

In the post-Lawrence v. Texas scheme of things, homosexual orientation is perhaps more akin to a weight and fitness limitation. It is not unlawful in the military to be overweight, but it is a basis for discharge.

Anecdote-based protests to the effect that one personally knows homosexual or overweight soldiers who are superb soldiers are meaningless and unpersuasive. The impact is measured on the aggregate--not from the particular.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Clear policy is needed in any military or employment situation if individuals are to be dismissed for openly demonstrated or avowed homosexual behavior (I got that phrase from JCEccles post #56). "Discreet" is a virtue that I'm afraid is not easily discriminable from its absence.

[aristeides]

Marc Mitscher was a four-star admiral.

[Greenback_dollar]

The only ex-homosexuals are heterosexuals who wanted to try dancing on the other side of the fence.

[Thud]

Indiscipline from the reaction of biased personnel not belonging to the stigmatized group to the presence of stigmatized personnel is not a valid basis for official discrimination. Racial integration of the services during the Truman Administration established that.