He’s right about one thing — if they do decide to repeal the law, and they do put open gays in the military, soldiers who cannot defend those gay soldiers should leave the military.
No matter how stupid the choices of the leadership, so long as they are not illegal, soldiers are expected to follow orders. A soldier who cannot obey an order to fight side-by-side with a gay soldier would have to leave the force.
If they do repeal DADT, they should at least include in the repeal a blanket honorable discharge with pension for soldiers who cannot serve with open gays.
On the other hand, he should never have voted to support the actual repeal. Of course, they didn’t need his vote, and either democrat would have voted the same way.
I wonder if they are also going to modify the UCMJ. Seems to me they sort of have to do so.
“No matter how stupid the choices of the leadership, so long as they are not illegal, soldiers are expected to follow orders.”
Define legal???? IF an order is immoral, is it legal????
Now that being said...if I’m sharing a fighting position with a homosexual in hot war zone....at that particular occassion, IF she or he pull their weight (as I would expect from any soldier) I see no reason to not give them the same level of protection I would anyone else (I watch their back and expect the same in return). It when we get back to the barracks that the problems will most likely occur.
Sadly, I trully expect a “Frag a Fag” movement to start occuring in SOME units. Should a homosexual get in an officer position, I don’t think the soldiers will have the same respect (benefit of doubt) given to other junior officers. This will impact moral and readiness. This just isn’t a good idea. The REAl world isn’t as tolerant as hollywood portrays it, or as homophobic either.
Senior Officers and NCOs don’t needed the added combat stress of having to give special protection to openly professed homosexuals to protect them from other soldiers.