Posted on 07/07/2008 8:16:52 PM PDT by markomalley
Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.
The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.
"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.
To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.
Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.
Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.
"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.
The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches.
According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.
Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military - Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.
Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.
Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.
"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.
Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."
"Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.
No problem. I often only lurck on Waglebee’s pings, but on this one I felt the need to participate. Keep up the good work.
Thanks!
Give me a break with your flawed conclusions about “normal people”. The normal people I associate EVERYDAY who are in the MILITARY think like I do, they would have a problem with open sodomites.
Also, Guess what, open marriages/swinging/wife swapping is frowned upon too in the military. Do you want the military to start accepting orgies as normal behavior? This is about behavior not perverted “rights”.
“Since sodomy is not illegal in the US what is you proposed postion the military should take that is not already included in their code of conduct?”
The perverted judges that agreed in ‘Lawrence’ gave the military an exemption because they even viewed the service has a good case where “discrimination” of certain kinds of behaviors can occur.
Promotion, sensitivity training the whole works.
Need more “open” high ranking officers/enlisted. And the greasing continues...
Politics would become even more perverted. So take your social engineering and shove it, the military do not want it.
Heterosexual transmission of HIV is only very unlikely female to male. It has been well documented male-to-female. Now, where that male got it, probably fiddling around with a same sex partner but it changes not one iota the fact that there has been significant heterosexual male to female transmission of HIV.
BUT
I’d rather my child have a blood transfusion from a monogamous homosexual who’d had an HIV test six months ago than a bed-hopping heterosexual who’d had an HIV test six months agao any day of the week.
Perhaps before you start saying I am disrespectful and commenting based on emotion, you should look at post 122, from a current military member who agrees with me.
In addition, your point about "you joining me in the shower" is inapposite. In that situation, assuming you are a male, and as I am a heterosexual female, there could be the problem of mutual attraction. The accurate comparison would be whether I would be hesitant to shower in an open bay with a lesbian, and I assure you I would not be as I've been in that situation. People on this board assume that homosexuals are so hypersexualized that they're drooling after folks who aren't interested in them and let me tell you, for the vast majority,it's just not true. You're believing what (1) you see in the media {which is hilarious on this board) and (2) what you're allowed to read on this board.
Amazing how when I post under "Cammie" I get all sorts of knee-jerk reactions about being a female, but several years ago, before a computer and e-mail addy change lost all my password info, I posted under a gender neutral name. Back then, no one alleged that I was emotional. Quite humorous.
I wasn't "lumping anyone" and if it's true that this attitude is "mainstream" it is only because so many have bought into LIES.
This post will probably be used as "proof" that I treat people badly or some such nonsense! :-)
With all do respect oral and anal sex is still against the UCMJ but widely accepted in society since the 60’s, yet we are in 2008 and active duty still can't “officially” brag about how they banged their partner last night.
Point is the US military is not a playground for natural or unnatural sexual relations exploration. Eventually some perverted court, perverted Congress or perverted CIC (Clinton loosened them a bit) will open the flood gates. Until then “the military is definitely not a reflection of society”, just look at the UCMJ or any other restrictions that are placed for service members for that answer. If the military was a true reflection of society the service would be too chaotic and order would be highly disrupted.
Does the courts still threatened to put people in the brig for adultery in todays society (Article 134) ?
Wife took a temporary duty assignment for 3 months (She is an 0-4). First day of class the instructor “reminded” those who are married that you will be prosecuted for adultery (Since it was a long TDA).
So I ask you is the military still a reflection of society especially threatening jail time just for a little nookie on the “outside”?
Who gets to decide what rules are idiotic or not? You? You don’t seem to realize what is or is not idiotic. The military also has regulations on proper cleaning after you eliminate, is that idiotic? Marching in a formation became useless as a battlefield tactic around 1870. Is instruction in drill therefore idiotic?
Simple fact, any sex other than straight monogamous sexual intercourse is a terrific vector for a multitude of diseases. Having members of the unit routinely catching numerous social diseases would be damaging to the cohesion and effectiveness of the unit. The military regulations regarding that are reasonable, whether you like them or not.
I knew a Staff seargeant that got busted in the army for adultery. They hooked him up with 45 days worth of extra duty. He will tell you that he is lucky that was the worst of it.
While I was stationed on Fort Belvoir we had four junior enlisted, all married, that all came up hot for the same social diseases within days of each other. They were all quickly eased out. Nobody cared whether they had set up a swingers club or were buggering each other, they just got handed walking papers.
Shucks, I arrive on the scene too late and all that lingers is troll smell. Waddled out ahead of the zot and back to the comfort of DU I guess.
“Perhaps before you start saying I am disrespectful and commenting based on emotion, you should look at post 122, from a current military member who agrees with me.”
I won’t speak for a member of the Navy, however I don’t think that a navy member can speak for the army. I can tell you that post 122 is not an accurate reflection of the views of lower enlisted members of the army.
“In addition, your point about “you joining me in the shower” is inapposite. In that situation, assuming you are a male, and as I am a heterosexual female, there could be the problem of mutual attraction. The accurate comparison would be whether I would be hesitant to shower in an open bay with a lesbian, and I assure you I would not be as I’ve been in that situation.”
You miss the point. Are you willing to shower with a random heterosexual male? Straight men and gay men are both stimulated by visual images, are you willing to allow a random straight man to be allowed that stimulation of viewing you while taking a shower? That is what you are asking of lower enlisted male soldiers.
“I posted under a gender neutral name. Back then, no one alleged that I was emotional. Quite humorous.”
I didn’t know you back then and I don’t really know you now. I only know what you have typed on this discussion thread and it is pretty clear that you aren’t looking at the entire picture and usually an emotional aspect is what prevents that.
********************
In my experience, homosexuals are very promiscuous, male and female alike.
This line of reasoning is completely false and misleading, and fools only the extremely agenda-driven and naive.
Not by anyone who knows you. :)
Hopefully, but I’ve seen entire threads dedicated to hating me at some of the anti-FReeper sites.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.