Top uniformed officer: Gay ban should be lifted

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,113
Likes
10,941
Points
113
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100202/D9DK7GBG0.html

Top uniformed officer: Gay ban should be lifted

WASHINGTON (AP) - The military's top uniformed officer on Tuesday made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

The comments by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set the stage for the Defense Department's yearlong study into how the ban can be repealed without causing a major upheaval in the military.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appearing with Mullen before the Armed Services Committee, announced plans to loosen enforcement rules involving the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has been in effect since 1993.

President Barack Obama has called for a repeal of the policy, although he did little in his first year in office to advance that goal. If he succeeds, it would mark the biggest shake up to military personnel policies since President Harry S. Truman's 1948 executive order integrating the services.

"No matter how I look at the issue," Mullen said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." Noting that he was speaking for himself and not for the other service chiefs, Mullen added: "For me, it comes down to integrity - theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

Congress enacted the law that enshrined the "don't ask" policy, which was intended to soften the previous blanket prohibition on gays in the military. "Don't ask" says gays may serve so long as they kept their sexuality private. Gay rights organizations have called that an insult and have said it is a form of discrimination.

Repeal of the ban would require a new law passed by Congress. Gates and Mullen said their efforts are intended to make sure the Pentagon is ready when that time comes.

The hastily called session gave Obama high-level cover on a divisive social issue complicated by the strains on an all-volunteer military force of fighting two wars.

Gates, who says he is a Republican, is the only member of former President George W. Bush's Cabinet whom Obama asked to stay on. He has gained a reputation for candor and caution. Mullen's words were a forceful endorsement from a careful man, but his very appearance, starched uniform and four stars on view, spoke as loudly.

Gates drew unusually pointed and partisan criticism from Republicans on the panel for saying that the review will examine how, not whether, to repeal the ban.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the committee, icily told Gates he was disappointed in his position. In sharp questioning, McCain angrily suggested that the Pentagon was usurping Congress' job in rewriting the law should it choose to do so.

"Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not," McCain said. "But it has been effective."

Mullen looked pained when Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., suggested that Mullen had preordained the outcome of any study of the wisdom of repeal by signaling his own opposition to the ban.

"This is about leadership, and I take that very, very seriously," Mullen replied, tightlipped.

Several other Republicans sided with McCain, warning Mullen and Gates not to pursue a change at a time when the United States is fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and facing a continuing threat of terrorism. Democrats said they would back a change in policy.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and chairman of the committee, said a repeal of the law might be slipped into a broader military policy bill that authorizes defense spending.

Democratic Sen. Mark Udall said his Colorado constituents pride themselves on allowing others to live and let live.
"You don't have to be straight to shoot straight," said Udall, quoting libertarian Barry Goldwater.

Gates suggested that lawmakers keep the intensity of debate in check until the military can get a better handle on how to proceed. To sort out the details, Gates has turned to Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, who leads Army forces in Europe.

"Keep the impact it will have on our forces firmly in mind," the secretary implored lawmakers

Mullen said it was his sense that rank-and-file troops would support the change.

"I have served with homosexuals since 1968," he said in response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "There are a number of things cumulatively that get me to this position."

Ham is a former enlisted infantryman who rose through the ranks to eventually command troops in northern Iraq in 2004 and hold senior positions within the Joint Staff. Recently, he helped conduct an investigation into the shootings by a soldier at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas.

As the Pentagon's top legal counsel, Johnson has played an integral role into the effort to try to close the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
 
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the committee, icily told Gates he was disappointed in his position. In sharp questioning, McCain angrily suggested that the Pentagon was usurping Congress' job in rewriting the law should it choose to do so.

"Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not," McCain said. "But it has been effective."


Mr. McCain, I don't see how you can be on the fence on this one. The president should probably announce that the rule will not be enforced, which is perfectly legit and legal. Not much different than the cops not handing out jaywalking tickets all the time.

I don't see how the policy has been effective in the least. Though there is some merit in your argument that the congress has its job to do, and the separation of powers, etc.

But do the right thing, dammit.

Gay people pay taxes and want to serve their country. Where's the beef, really?
 
McCain is facing strong opposition in his own party for re-election so he is going as far to the right as possible unfortunately.
 
It's a stupid and ignorant rule. Just because you're out of the closet doesn't mean you aren't required to comport yourself like a soldier. The argument that military personnel is concerned they may be "hit on" by gay members of the military is bullshit.

People are who they are. If they choose to serve, I could give a shit about the rest.
 
do you think they should be allowed to have teh ghey butt secks while serving on duty??
 
do you think they should be allowed to have teh ghey butt secks while serving on duty??

As I understand it, heterosexual sex isn't allowed while on duty. Other than shit dick, what's the difference?
 
Dunno, maybe a bunch of dudes will just be on duty for a long time and then get horny, like they do in prison. With a gay dude there willing to suck some dick, maybe they'll just say "fuck it, a mouth's a mouth."
 
Dunno, maybe a bunch of dudes will just be on duty for a long time and then get horny, like they do in prison. With a gay dude there willing to suck some dick, maybe they'll just say "fuck it, a mouth's a mouth."

If it happens, then it's misconduct. All members who participated should be court martialed. I'm not sure I have the lingo right, but that's the gist of my opinion. If someone who served can clear up the terms I used, I'd appreciate it.
 
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the committee, icily told Gates he was disappointed in his position. In sharp questioning, McCain angrily suggested that the Pentagon was usurping Congress' job in rewriting the law should it choose to do so.

"Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not," McCain said. "But it has been effective."


Mr. McCain, I don't see how you can be on the fence on this one. The president should probably announce that the rule will not be enforced, which is perfectly legit and legal. Not much different than the cops not handing out jaywalking tickets all the time.

I don't see how the policy has been effective in the least. Though there is some merit in your argument that the congress has its job to do, and the separation of powers, etc.

But do the right thing, dammit.

Gay people pay taxes and want to serve their country. Where's the beef, really?

That is what the gays want to know, too!
 
The only question I would have is how they would accommodate privacy. There are co-ed units in the military already, but they don't share showers. There isn't much privacy in the military as is, so I'm wondering how they would adjust to that. Put gay men in with the girls? I don't think it's fair to force straight men to shower with gay men. If you're going to do that, might as well make the showers co-ed. Then it would be an even playing field.... dudes checking out ladies.... ladies checking out dudes.... dudes checking out dudes.... ladies checkin out ladies.... it's all love. :)
 
I've mentioned this before, but we had a gay dude living on our floor in the dorms freshman year and he would just try and sneak peeks at our junk while we were showering. Pretty fucking obvious. really didn't give a fuck, still not as weird as the indian dude who showered with a fucking diaper on.
 
I've mentioned this before, but we had a gay dude living on our floor in the dorms freshman year and he would just try and sneak peeks at our junk while we were showering. Pretty fucking obvious. really didn't give a fuck, still not as weird as the indian dude who showered with a fucking diaper on.

WTF?
 
When I was in the military we had serious problems with gays, to include one who sabotaged a ship. I'm opposed to gays in the military. It weakens morale, deviant behavior as a result of deviant minds... just another problem the military doesn't need.
 
When I was in the military we had serious problems with gays, to include one who sabotaged a ship. I'm opposed to gays in the military. It weakens morale, deviant behavior as a result of deviant minds... just another problem the military doesn't need.

If a straight guy sabotages a ship should all straight guys be banned from service?
 
I wonder if they'll start drawing picture of penises in the bathroom.

seriously, what the fuck is up with that?
 
Great idea!

What color for the uniforms?
 
There's no reason a homosexual person shouldn't serve. The policy of our country is to let women serve, even in the face of staggering arguments and statistics about increases in fraternization, decreases in readiness levels due to "deployment pregnancies", training dollars wasted when single moms need to cross-train into a non-deployable billet, etc. These aren't the norm, either, but being a soldier/sailor/airman/marine is a tough enough job without having gender-related problems.

As far as homosexuals serving, I'm more in line with NateBishop's thinking. The policy of our country is to segregate quarters, facilities and policies based upon gender. Personally, I think it's relatively hypocritical for someone to say that "Whites Only" on a bathroom is bad, but "Women Only" is fine. The only difference b/w a gay sailor and a straight sailor is the manner in which they have sex. Period. Just like the PC answer is that the only difference b/w a female sailor and a male sailor are the anatomical sexual differences. Yet the military segregates quarters and facilities. IMO, if they didn't it would be worse than it already is, but we're talking philosophy here--no one clamoring for this change cares about the practical application of this. And that includes CNO, the President, Members of Congress, etc.

And yes, I've had the experience of being the an officer onboard a sub inport when one of our sailors sexually assaulted another sailor in a non-consensual homosexual way. We lost two productive members of the ship (one in the brig for sexual assault, one in the brig for beating the crap out of the guy assaulting him) for the rest of the patrol, which on an already undermanned ship was not good for morale, readiness or mission accomplishment. Sure, that's one small anecdote in a sea of experiences, but this isn't an Ivory Tower Philosophical point. It's a real-life potential problem stemming from a desire for social engineering. And I don't necessarily like that it's being foisted upon the military.
 
And yes, I've had the experience of being the an officer onboard a sub inport when one of our sailors sexually assaulted another sailor in a non-consensual homosexual way. We lost two productive members of the ship (one in the brig for sexual assault, one in the brig for beating the crap out of the guy assaulting him) for the rest of the patrol, which on an already undermanned ship was not good for morale, readiness or mission accomplishment. Sure, that's one small anecdote in a sea of experiences, but this isn't an Ivory Tower Philosophical point. It's a real-life potential problem stemming from a desire for social engineering. And I don't necessarily like that it's being foisted upon the military.

That really doesn't make any sense as point, IMO (whether in practical terms or in Ivory Tower philosophical terms). The problem your anecdote highlights is that it's bad to have criminal personalities (like sexual offenders) in the military. What does that have to do with "social engineering," unless your implication is that homosexuals are particularly prone to criminal behaviour?

Do you also feel allowing women to serve alongside men is "social engineering foisted on the military" due to the possibility of male/female sexual assault?
 
Practicing homosexuality in the military is criminal behavior. From the UCMJ Article 125 (Sodomy):
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.
Same as DUI, bouncing checks, rape/sexual assault and a host of other (sometimes antiquated, like duelling) things. For my anecdote, it wouldn't have changed had it been consensual. Both would've been kicked off the ship for their criminal, homosexual behavior. To be fair, had someone brought a woman on board for heterosexual intercourse, they would've been heavily disciplined as well.

The social engineering aspect comes when politicians/activists/etc state that there should be changes to the military law to allow unsegregated open homosexual acceptance into the military for whatever reason, but not limited to (in the words of Mullen)
“It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” Mullen said. “We have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as institutions,”

First, DADT doesn't make anyone lie, and it's a lie by the CNO to say that it is. No one is permitted to ask, and the homosexual isn't forced to tell. Secondly, open homosexuality is forbidden in our military and has been since the Declaration of Independence. So while a homosexual patriot may want to, say, fly a fighter plane or drive tanks or shoot sniper rifles or cook for soldiers...when the dotted line is signed he/she knows exactly what he/she's getting into.
If their sexuality isn't a workplace issue (as many in here seem to be saying), then why is it even a problem? Answer: It's not, unless the criminal makes it so. The only thing that makes someone homosexual is their method of having sex. Yet there is an element in our society (who I termed the Ivory Tower Philosophers) who think that unsegregated open homosexuality is progressive (in the good way, not the political way) and is a civil right. In the military it isn't and never has been. It's a criminal act. And changing that just b/c there is a minority segment of society that wishes their wishes to be respected at the cost of others is what I'm terming "social engineering". Maybe my definition is off.

Sorry, I thought I made it clear that my personal opinion is that having women in close-quarter live-aboard situations (or in the field) is a bad idea that was "prejudicial to good order and discipline" (military term). Notice, I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to serve. But a) there's segregation in place based solely on sex; b) even with this segregation there are numerous reliefs-of-command, fraternization cases, sexual harassment/assault cases, pregnancies detrimental to readiness and manpower, etc.
My personal opinion is such that close-quarter situations exacerbate problems that a little "personal space" would remedy.
Personally, I don't care if people are having sex however they have sex as long as it's legal. Our government has decided that it's fine to do so, except in the military. In our volunteer military, there's a different (higher?) standard of living that you must live up to to serve honorably. You're more than welcome to not join if you feel you can't do so. And if you'd like to do both, then serve another way: as a firefighter, or policeman, or Department of Corrections Officer, or nurse, or whatever.

EDIT: There's a lot of rambling there...it's what I get for trying to cover all the perceived bases in the argument all at once.
 
Practicing homosexuality in the military is criminal behavior. From the UCMJ Article 125 (Sodomy)

Practicing sex, straight or gay, in the military is criminal behaviour, I believe. That doesn't change my point at all. Your anecdote about how someone forced sex on another simply points to a defective personality, it's not a telling point about how homosexuals living in close quarters with others aboard a ship is a problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Practicing sex, straight or gay, in the military is criminal behaviour, I believe. That doesn't change my point at all.


Wrong. Sodomy is criminal (Article 125). Rape and carnal knowledge is criminal (Article 120). Conduct Unbecoming and Officer and Gentleman (Article 133) is criminal. You're "in uniform" and subject to the UCMJ 24/7 in the military. So, going into the nearest city on shore liberty and hooking up with someone at a bar is not criminal...unless you're committing one of the criminal acts above. Having sex on the ship of any type is illegal, but that falls under "disobeying an order from the Commanding Officer" rather than a UCMJ specific article.

My anecdote was a specific example utilized to refute the "they won't do anything to you" crowd. It's very specialized, and maybe that was the one situation out of a billion where that would've happened. But it did. this isn't just an academic exercise.

Maybe it's tough for civilians to understand, and I sympathize with that. That's kind of why I'm trying to explain myself as fully as I can here.
 
Practicing homosexuality in the military is criminal behavior. From the UCMJ Article 125 (Sodomy):
Same as DUI, bouncing checks, rape/sexual assault and a host of other (sometimes antiquated, like duelling) things. For my anecdote, it wouldn't have changed had it been consensual. Both would've been kicked off the ship for their criminal, homosexual behavior. To be fair, had someone brought a woman on board for heterosexual intercourse, they would've been heavily disciplined as well.

The social engineering aspect comes when politicians/activists/etc state that there should be changes to the military law to allow unsegregated open homosexual acceptance into the military for whatever reason, but not limited to (in the words of Mullen)

First, DADT doesn't make anyone lie, and it's a lie by the CNO to say that it is. No one is permitted to ask, and the homosexual isn't forced to tell. Secondly, open homosexuality is forbidden in our military and has been since the Declaration of Independence. So while a homosexual patriot may want to, say, fly a fighter plane or drive tanks or shoot sniper rifles or cook for soldiers...when the dotted line is signed he/she knows exactly what he/she's getting into.
If their sexuality isn't a workplace issue (as many in here seem to be saying), then why is it even a problem? Answer: It's not, unless the criminal makes it so. The only thing that makes someone homosexual is their method of having sex. Yet there is an element in our society (who I termed the Ivory Tower Philosophers) who think that unsegregated open homosexuality is progressive (in the good way, not the political way) and is a civil right. In the military it isn't and never has been. It's a criminal act. And changing that just b/c there is a minority segment of society that wishes their wishes to be respected at the cost of others is what I'm terming "social engineering". Maybe my definition is off.

Sorry, I thought I made it clear that my personal opinion is that having women in close-quarter live-aboard situations (or in the field) is a bad idea that was "prejudicial to good order and discipline" (military term). Notice, I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to serve. But a) there's segregation in place based solely on sex; b) even with this segregation there are numerous reliefs-of-command, fraternization cases, sexual harassment/assault cases, pregnancies detrimental to readiness and manpower, etc.
My personal opinion is such that close-quarter situations exacerbate problems that a little "personal space" would remedy.
Personally, I don't care if people are having sex however they have sex as long as it's legal. Our government has decided that it's fine to do so, except in the military. In our volunteer military, there's a different (higher?) standard of living that you must live up to to serve honorably. You're more than welcome to not join if you feel you can't do so. And if you'd like to do both, then serve another way: as a firefighter, or policeman, or Department of Corrections Officer, or nurse, or whatever.

EDIT: There's a lot of rambling there...it's what I get for trying to cover all the perceived bases in the argument all at once.

There may be a higher standard, and certainly anyone who's straight or homosexual knows it ahead of time.

What your post demonstrates is that there's a double standard for those who are homosexual that isn't fair or good for anyone (including the military).

Long standing discrimination practices don't excuse continuing them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top