My Representative presents an argument in favor of repeal, which betrays a basic misunderstanding of the character of military service. He says, “The private, legal sexual conduct of military personnel off duty and off base, whether homosexual or heterosexual, should not be of interest to the Pentagon leadership. The bottom line is that an individual’s performance in uniform is what should count. Sexual contact on base is already governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) - the judicial code that all military personnel are subject to”.
Yet military operations are not conducted in garrison, and offer no opportunities for off duty or private time. The current law recognizes maintaining high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion requires extraordinary restrictions. All military organizations exist to serve operating military personnel, locked in small task oriented units, forward deploy, and continuously face extraordinary stress if not actual combat. At the pointy end of the spear, they face environments characterized by sacrificial, primitive and intimate relations. Such environments are inherently chaotic and brittle, and can only be overcome by a totalitarian leadership unimaginable in pacific situations faced by the REMFS.
Now OldDeckHand can probably translate REMFS for you, but the private discussion option should be used.
That's right. I say this all the time, but the reasons for not allowing homosexuals to serve openly really has nothing to do with the depravity of the personal sexual endeavors. The reason is segregation - IOW, we will now lose entirely the ability to segregate people from each other who are predisposed to engage in sexual contact.
Why is that bad? It's bad because sexual relations between two adults - even if consensual - forever changes the relationship dynamic. We will have people that will die, and missions that won't get accomplished solely because two "bitches" are involved in a lover's spat. It's that simple.
For this reason, and only this reason, is it worth risking our own national security to placate the desires of an tiny fraction of society. I think the answer is plainly, NO.
Retain Mike,
Your representative must be something else...Here's few points that came to my mind (and probably yours also): 1) No distinction is made with regards to on or off base or on or off duty sexual conduct by the UCMJ. A military member is never really "off duty". 2) It's more than just the individual member's performance, their impact on the team is also of vital concern. 3)To help enforce the UCMJ and other rules, men's and women's quarters are segregated. Considering 14th Amendment equal protection rights, how can your representative not contemplate providing similar protection against sexual misconduct by members of the same sex? 4) Maybe your congress "person" might want to also discuss the rates of sexual misconduct by homosexuals versus heterosexuals.
Sadly, it's very clear your congress critter has, at best, a limited understanding of the UMCJ, does not care about the welfare of other service members and/or has no idea what he's doing.