Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell; It’s the Right Thing to Do

The Spartans were defeated at Thermopylae. But they put up a great fight.

Nevertheless, it's a great idea to repeal most laws Bill Clinton signed.

Yes, you are right to the first point. Herodotus relates how 300 Spartans died to about 20000 Persians. I'll just have these comments be the corrected addendum.

Donald, the Spartans' penchant for homosexuality had nothing to do with the outcome of the battle you mention.

Here's another great military hero who was gay: Alexander the Great who united lands from Greece to Egypt to India.

It is time to repeal DADT. The problem is that we need to make the change carefully, that means starting from the top ensure that the commanding officers get the message and that it gets passed down through the ranks especially to the senior NCOs, whom I suspect will be the most resistant. It may take some harsh disciplinary action to get the point across that harassment will not be tolerated, but we'll get there.

I was in the Marines and I knew several members of the Marines and Navy that were either gay or lesbian. They served their nation with pride and honor and they posed no threat to anyone. It seemed like everyone knew and no body cared. Those political leaders like McCain that are fighting it are simply playing political theater so they can score political points by proving they are conservative.

Sen McCain promised he would back a repeal of DADT if the survey proved it should be. When it did he called the survey flawed because it did not back the view he wanted. For shame for turning your back on the troops like you have.

Sparta soldiers generally had little or no choice in their sexuality. Young boys were sent to the barracks, where older boys & men ... showed them how it worked in Sparta.

Worse, the general homosexualization of Ancient Greek culture was often viewed in a negative light, even at the time.

Neither Sparta nor the old Greeks in general are much of a recommendation for modern gay initiatives.

Might be a good time to start a "soap on a rope" manufacturing company. Get one of those nice fat DOD contracts.

"Irrespective of whether the reason is homophobia or pseudo-religious quackery, DADT must be repealed. It’s the right thing to do."

And that, as far as I am concerned, is the bottom line.

A majority of white soldiers opposed racial integration (some were ok with working with black soldiers, but not sleeping and eating with them), but their bigotry wasn't used as an excuse not to order the integration.

As for Senator McCain, I find it hard to believe that anybody takes anything he says seriously these days.

I agree that gays should be able to serve in the military if they wish. Any affect on morale will be temporary. Some heterosexual servicemen/women may shun them when they are off duty, but that will have little affect on their performance of duties. Some people who fear this change probably have never even considered that even with the change most homosexuals will choose not to join the military.

Having said that, though, I must say that it is not really appropriate to compare racial integration with this issue. Homosexuality is a form of behavior; a person's skin color tells us nothing about his/her behavior. Certain types of behavior certainly are not appropriate for service in the military. I just happen to believe that homosexuality is not a form of behavior that will cause any real problem for the military.

I think the strongest argument for allowing homosexuals in the military is rather simple: If someone is so patriotic that he/she is willing to voluntarily put his life on the line, you should let him/her do so unless he/she has a criminal past.

I disagree with the behavior comment. I believe generally that homosexuality is not a behavior but is a natural outcome of many members of our species (yes, Darwinism, evolution, all that stuff!).
But let's say it is a behavior. Homosexuality still does not tell us anything about a person's behavior. You have committed the Equivocation Fallacy: using the word behavior to mean two separate, and disparate, things within the same argument. The behavior of homosexuality is the homosexuality itself; the behavior of the person of varying skin color is character. The homosexual's behavior, i.e., character, is as completely unknown as the behavior of the person of varying skin color.
The analogy between race and sexual orientation isn't whether they are "similar" forms of behavior, or whether they are behaviors or genetic predispositions; the analogue is the perceived detrimental disruption to an organization, the military. And in this facet we both agree. I also think you agree that this "form of behavior...[no] problem for the military" because your behavioral argument is fallaciously constructed and your more valid point of the behavior (character) supercedes as your primary criterion.

François, I think you are having a simple 'difficulty' with the way the word "behavior" is being used here (and in the Law). In this context, "missionary position coitus" is a "behavior". Typing at a keyboard is a "behavior". The key is, a "behavior" is something that we actually do.

To lust, to covet, fume, worry, resent ... etc, are not "behaviors" - so long as one does not 'follow through' with some form of action, or act.

Your appeal to a distinct ("idiosyncratic") definition & use of the word "behavior" will, in the larger scheme of things (and in pragmatic reality) 'paint you into an untenable corner'.

Dave is offer some accurate & useful perspective here.

"Having said that, though, I must say that it is not really appropriate to compare racial integration with this issue."

I think it's the bigotry involved in both issues that makes the comparison appropriate.

There is 'some' bigotry at work in both issues, but it's been quite awhile since "the bigotry" was 'running the show'.

I'm from a hard-core, deep-woods, ultra-country logging family (Forks, Washington). Through the 1970s, there was no visible sign of gays at our family reunions ... though there were 'rumors'. I'm going to say pushing 30 years ago, my mom 'reached out' to her cousin, a lovely little blond gal, who even then had been the long-term partner of a wonderful & magnificent African American woman.

We now have a motley collection of alternative-gender members who show up at the reunions - who are 'out' - and probably a couple who are still (and presumably will remain) 'in'.

This is a big weakness of 'the bigotry cry'; than millions of families have done as mine has, over the last 2-3 decades.

Bigotry is still around, alright ... but ya know, it really ain't a shadow of its former self.

I don't think the gay advocacy effort is benefited as much as it's muddied, by trying to link it to racial integration.

"Bigotry is still around, alright ... but ya know, it really ain't a shadow of its former self."

Well, it's enough of a shadow that there's still an official DADT policy. A policy that some people are attempting to justify because, among other things, apparently 60% of combat Marines say "they would not be able to trust an openly gay colleague." Sure looks like bigotry to me. And once again, I think the comparison to racial integration is quite appropriate. And unmuddied.

"The key is, a "behavior" is something that we actually do."

So if homosexuality is a form of behavior, how exactly does one do homosexuality?

The military (Congress) modified the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) in the 1990s ... partly in conjunction with encoding DADT, but also in an effort to make the language it used 'gender neutral'.

They ran into a couple snags, though; one was male-male sodomy (anal intercourse). It was a complication, because previous to the reforms of the '90s, the standing injunction against sodomy was already gender-neutral, and could in theory be applied to married (male-female) couples. People were warning in earlier decades, that if they liked to get experimental in the bedroom, not to be talking about it.

The classic phrase employed (repeatedly) in the UCMJ (and burned indelibly into the brains of millions of veterans ;), is:

"Penetration, however slight ...", followed by several different qualifying phrases, the most memorable of which is; "... is sufficient to complete the offense."

The second snag they ran into, was specifying female-on-male sexual assaults, in the desired gender-neutral language.

You do know, don't you Wil, that members upon joining the military, are no longer protected by (or subject to) the U.S. Constitution?

In the context we are addressing here, the behavior(s)-of-interest are anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus, between service members of the same sex.

(At a quick glance, it looks like the 1990s era reforms broadened "penetration" object from the basic penis or tongue, to include fingers, other parts of the anatomy, and other inanimate objects used as substitutes for such means of penetration.)

"Behavior", in this area of discussion, and in courts of law concerning these matters, refers to what we call in normal conversation, acts, or actions.

This in not the 'attitude' 'behavior' that our teacher at school or our mother at home complains about.

"In the context we are addressing here, the behavior(s)-of-interest are anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus, between service members of the same sex. "

Yep, that looks like a bigoted, and completely inappropriate and inadequate definition, at least in the context I'm interested in. But thanks for letting me know where you're coming from.

But that "penetration, however slight" part definitely reminds me of the "one drop" standard used to define blackness for the purposes of racial discrimination.

"You do know, don't you Wil, that members upon joining the military, are no longer protected by (or subject to) the U.S. Constitution?"

I'm not sure what it has to do with anything I've said here, but no, I don't know that. In fact, that's probably the nuttiest thing I've read all day. But to be fair, it's still early.

The Constitution, in Article One, Section 8, gives Congress authority over the military. They then created a body of law that applies to folks in uniform ... who by & large cannot say, "Well, the Constitution guarantees me this & that". Military personnel can't use the Constitution, the way civilians would.

Instead, they have to use the special law that Congress created to control the military. That's the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ.

To know what military people are up against in the legal sense, and to know what kind of options they might have, you have to look at the UCMJ ... the Constitution doesn't apply, as it does for civilians.

It matters, because it works differently than things normally do, under the Constitution.

For example, under the Constitution, someone tries to tell you how you can and cannot have sex, you curl your lip at them, snort, toss your head, and flip them the bird.

Under the UCMJ, the law goes on at some boring length, and plenty of explicit detail, about the kinds of sex that are not allowed. Some of it corresponds to civilian law - you can't rape people - but other parts of it pertain to sex practices that in the civilian world are considered 'nobody's business but your own'. Not under the UCMJ, though.

If DADT is dropped, gays will be able to join, but the military will still tell them when, where, and what kind of sex they can have, and if they decided not pay attention to the rules, they'll be in trouble.

"Military personnel can't use the Constitution, the way civilians would."

That's true, but it's not the same thing as being "no longer protected by (or subject to) the U.S. Constitution".

"It matters, because it works differently than things normally do, under the Constitution."

Ah okay, I see where you're coming from now. If, in addition to the repeal of DADT, there are parts of the UCMJ need to be dealt with, then hopefully they will be. And while we're at it, it probably wouldn't hurt to address some laws that pertain to sexuality and sex practices in the civilian world, too.

"If, in addition to the repeal of DADT, there are parts of the UCMJ need to be dealt with, then hopefully they will be."

Yes, you're getting the picture now.

A typical aircraft carrier has about 5,000 people on it. There will be a stand rule, that personnel will not have sex on board the ship. No sex, period, end of discussion. When the ship is sent to some far-away place, it will as a rule be gone for many months. During that time, nobody is supposed to have sex with anybody else, which the exception of rare opportunities to go ashore.

Of those 5,000 guys (and a few gals), say 10% are gay. (If you think the number could be 20%, I won't argue.) So there might be 500 men on board, who are interested in men. The 4,500 straight guys, couldn't care less about any of the other 5,000 males. The 13 females on board are totally unavailable, pragmatically, and it would illegal to have sex with one of them, if by a freak of luck you were in a position to do so.

The rub is, those 500 gays are ready, willing & actively interested in doing something that is totally natural to them, and for which there is a huge abundance of opportunity. Do NOT get caught.

This aircraft scenario applies to most of the situations that service members find themselves in, all around the world. This is the situation at almost all of the bases in Iraq, and Afghanistan. No sex, as a matter of law.

Not a big problem, for straight guys, 'cause there isn't anything available that they're interested in, anyway. For guys who aren't straight, this is going to be a tough situation. In some ways, tougher than it is now.

Because, the military has total control over everone's sex life, totally legally, and there is no reason at all to think that is going to change, if DADT is ended.

"Because, the military has total control over everone's sex life, totally legally, and there is no reason at all to think that is going to change, if DADT is ended. "

No, there's no reason to think that is going to change just because DADT is repealed, but I don't think it provides much of an excuse not to repeal such an obviously discriminatory policy.

If anything, I think it would be nice if the repeal of DADT, rather than being seen as a final goal, is just the start of additional reform of out-dated military policies. Including any discriminatory policies that result in (assuming your numbers are reasonably accurate) only 13 females serving on an aircraft carrier with a crew of 5000.

You nail a couple good 'touch-stones' here.

Although there is a pretty 'worked-up' desire on the part of Liberals & Co. to 'slay' the 'reviled' DADT beast ... there really isn't a mirror opposition on the part of the military & conservatives, to defend DADT as something that they clutch to their bosom.

After all, DADT is just a piece of fluff; noise, interjected into a long-running 'conversation', by Bill Clinton. This ain't the Pentagon's baby! ;)

So while opponents have a big 'need' to see DADT ended, Conservatives & military don't have a big need to save or preserve it. This modification to the UCMJ wasn't authored by them, but by some politician who couldn't even keep his penis in his pants, at the office.

This differential interest in DADT is somewhat like Enviros & Co showing up (maybe with politicians) to reintroduce wolves into some deep-rural part of the country. Rural folks object less to the damn wolves, than they do to the carpetbagging Liberal forces overrunning legitimate local authority, in order to carry a football across a political line.

The Pentagon, the military as a whole, is a favorite target for some political interests. DADT is just the football of the day, in a long-running campaign.
=====

The number of women serving on deployed ships remains small. I see little blips from time to time, cluing me that their presence on this-or-that large ship is "very" if not "vanishingly" small.

Yes, the general failure to incorporate meaningful numbers of women into a number of 'real' military roles, is an important clue & sign.

The Navy has 'hurt' males for many decades now, by keeping a larger portion of women on the overall personnel books (letting them claim greater 'integration'), than they can successfully integrate into shipboard billets. As a result, women tend to fill available shore-billets, and men are shorted on the opportunity to rotate out of active ship deployment, and spend a stretch of time on shore (with their families).

The Navy - and Navy men - have bent over backwards, trying to make this work. It has proven to have very intractable limitations.

The same general pattern of 'limitations' have arisen in combat. It is a Holy Grail of sorts, from some points of view, that real combat be fully integrated. Like with the Navy, the willingness to try - and keep trying - has really been there, and nobody appears to be giving up. But the realities have been uncooperative.

For example, our top General in the Middle East not long ago was caught backpedaling on 'pregnancy rotations'. It is actually an offense for deployed women soldiers to become pregnant. There are supposed to be legal consequences for this. (In most situations, they, like the men, are also usually not supposed to be having sex, either.)

But it turned out, the women showing up pregnant in the war theater were being quietly rotated back to the US. That's bad news. It's demoralizing. And it means that units have to be restructured so that women are not filling roles that must be filled.

Because some women have been breaking the rules that apply to everyone, and then getting away with it when they're caught. Actually, in some cases it's worse than that, since some of these gals are deliberately getting pregnant, in order to escape from the war zone (tho it's always hard to prove "intent" in court).

It's essentially "malingering". And the General let them get away with it, after he had warned explicitly that they would be prosecuted. Bummer, downer, etc.

I think the broader vision of a 'kinder, gentler' military is a game for people who are adapted to gazing at a far-away horizon. Things do change, but the pace is slow, the steps are small, and one needs to get satisfaction from the very-long view.

Our military is explicitly NOT supposed to lead or define our Nation ... or our culture. We subjugate the military: formally, under the law, and we like it that way. We expect it to be our dog: we say 'sit', it Sits. We say 'bark', it Barks. We send it into screeching LA freeway traffic to attack an armed killer ... it will damn well do it, and then be completely happy with a pat on the head & an attaboy. If it survives.

That's the reality, and "we" don't want it any different.

The military does change ... but they follow the country. It is emphatically not their job or their place, to blaze brave new trails into a better future, and then lead or cajole the rest of nation into following them to it.

Absolutely not.

The civilian status of gays remains very much 'up in the air', and that's putting it a bit kindly. Activism is asking the military to take a leadership role on gay issues, which have not been ironed out & stabilized in the civilian world, nor tested at the Supreme Court.

It's called Catch-22. :)

@Ted Very edifying. I hear what you are saying, that sex causes some problems in certain situations and must not be allowed to interfere with the conduct of people in potentially life-threatening positions. But I don't see how the dripping temptation of bare-bodied muscular men in the tropics on a boat with stifling heat and total boredom for days on end will suddenly erode homosexuals' discipline of their conscupiscence afterDADT is repealed! We all agree: homosexuals are in the military right now. And all the brilliant points you bring out, I am persuaded about the possible deleterious effects of sex in the military, but formally (and informally) banning gays from serving in the military is not conducive to that point.
A Catch-22 is what DADT is. Repealing it will get rid of this hypocrisy. And the military did perform activism by taking a leadership role on color issues. And it will most likely continue to do so in the future.

"A Catch-22 is what DADT is." Quite true,
François! :)

But it is a nominally 'kinder & gentler' conundrum than the one that confronted them, previously.

"And the military did perform activism by taking a leadership role on color issues."

Some bona fide leadership was taken, under duress during World War II, although most of these examples involved massive segregation. Still, they did give African Americans a real role, before civilians were doing so.

However, the 'actual' and 'real' racial integration of the services was delayed some while thereafter ... while Civilian Authority (the byword for Military Policy) 'caught up' a bit.

The deservedly famous recourse to the use of Blacks in the Military, came under the dire specter of Global Armed Conflict ... in which it was unclear for some time that we had the capacity to prevail. We had a Life & Death need of those Blacks ... so the military was given the go-ahead, the 'lead' ... "Hell, man, I don't care who you use to get it done, just do it!"

"... the dripping temptation of bare-bodied muscular men ..."

Ah yes ... but no. Bare-bodied muscular heterosexual men are largely (very largely) immune to the charms of homosexual men. Gays are more likely to get in trouble, among themselves.

As it stands today (and in the 'modern' past), we think that gays are 'well' if not 'heavily' represented in especially certain of the Services, such as the Navy, the Marines, and my experienced guess will be, most any elite & prestigious role into which one can insert himself by his own efforts.

(Many military roles are managed in ways that leave the individual with virtually no control over his placement ... but elite roles are often an exception.)

Under the 'old system' (and I think that 'the reality' under DADT is pretty much a pragmatic continuation of the pre-DADT reality), it appears that gays functioned quite highly, and with notably high 'discipline'.

Outside the new recruits and 'general-run' low-level enlistees - who always have a relatively high trouble & attrition rate - gays seemed to settle in and avoid trouble and win advancement significantly better than straights.

It is important to appreciate that this pattern - adapt, commit & advance - is a major Holy Grail of modern corporate, volunteer military services. It has to be realized, that the fact that homosexual sex was illegal (and that being homosexual had to be treated as Classified Information) will widely be seen within military circles & culture, as a key ingredient in a 'recipe' that has yielded large numbers of exceptional service members ... who, obtw, happen to be gay.

Rest assured, the military is well aware how valuable well-adapted but secretly gay career professionals are, within their institution. It is of great importance to them, not to stress or destabilize these existing personnel, and they don't want to be deprive of an ongoing supply of such desirable material, in the future.

It will be a (one) concern, that without the challenge of deciding to tackle the military, even knowing that one's orientation & lifestyle involves violations and potential 'exposure', the gay people who begin putting on the uniform may begin to include too many 'light-weights' ... or more charitably, folks who have just ended up in the wrong place, for themselves. (Crudely; you gotta have your frickin' balls, to do what these gay guys do, and you had better have your sh*t all in one sock.)

Just as a woman in the war zone can always 'end up pregnant', and cover the overt offense with sympathetic 'cover stories' - "I was so distressed at the death of our platoon-mate. I was just so lonely and tired ... I'm so sorry!", so to gays will have a built-in temptation.

The simple, blunt reality is, sex among deployed personnel absolutely will remain flatly illegal, during prolonged periods of time. Will gays who are recruited under a liberated, post-DADT policy continue to display the admirable discipline which we think has characterized their fraternity for a long time?

I agree. DADT discriminates and that is not legal.

Will ending DADT really be a big improvement for gays, in the military? How so?

Is DADT really the explanation for gay dissatisfaction in the military?

I think some folks are put the idea of ending DADT on an awful high pedestal. "When gays can serve openly in uniform ... oh gosh - just imagine!". Yeah well ... I'm a little concerned that expectations may be too much in the realm of the 'imagination'.

I imagine that it will be flatly illegal for service members to have sex with each other, under most of the conditions in which they spend most of their time.

I imagine it will an energetically prosecuted offense, to make another service member feel in any way uncomfortable, in a sexual way - even unintentionally. Just as it is now taboo for a man to make a female feel uncomfortable . Gays in barracks, on ships and on bases, will have to be very careful, how they go about 'checking out' or 'feeling out' another service member ... because if someone is uncomfortable about the way someone else is coming on to them, there could well be (likely will be) serious repercussions.

DADT is obviously a compromised situation. Before DADT, however, gay sex was formally against the law ... but notice that "being" gay was not dealt with in the law, and one's gender orientation was not a matter that get him in trouble, legally. You could be prosecuted for engaging in specific sex-acts (as could married male-female people!), but there was no mechanism for punishing people for their "nature". Only for their "actions".

There is a very good chance that gays & gay-allies are buying into a 'bill of goods' about DADT and the potential benefits of overturning it. It may turn out that they're being 'had' ... and in the end Liberals and gay advocacy will find themselves losing in ways they hadn't thought through properly, beforehand.

"'Being' gay was not dealt with in the law."
This is an erroneous assertion. It was against the law and one would be discharged on grounds of homosexuality pre DADT. After DADT homosexuality could only be investigated if it were an auxiliary offense begun under disallowable behavior. The intent of repealing DADT is to get rid of all this absurdity about homosexuality being a reason for discharge. And our taboo with sodomy (not the inclusion of animals part) is a bit tiresome too.
I believe there was a "mechanism for punishing people for their 'nature'": Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 37, § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html (I appreciate Wikipedia for allowing me to find it so quickly.)

Yes, you found the right page. Just beneath the title is a section (a) Findings.

Follow the numbered findings under (a), down to #13.

"(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service. "

"Conduct" in this context has the meaning of "act", or action; sometimes also called 'behavior'.

Additional clarification is found in Finding #15.

"(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. "

Following Finding #15, we see (b) Policy.

"(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations: "

Now, skip down to (b)(2):

"(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts. "

Read (2) carefully, bearing in mind the policy set forth in (b). Read it a couple times, if necessary! ;)

You will find, upon accurate reading, that even a person who has declared themselves a homosexual, in violation of DADT, is exempt from the policy ("shall be separated"), "[if] he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts."

In legal fact, even under DADT, one can still serve in the military as an open gay, if he/she is willing to abstain from homosexual acts.

One's gay "nature" is not what's against the law: rather it is clearly the "act" of homosexual sex that is the violation.

"One's gay "nature" is not what's against the law: rather it is clearly the "act" of homosexual sex that is the violation. "

Unless one's gay "nature" is used to define one as a person who has a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

@Ted (b)(2) is exactly where I was drawn to. I read it carefully and here is what I read. First, (b)"A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if"...(b)(2)"the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect."
Therefore, it is perfectly legal to remove someone on the basis of self-profession. And, I'm very suspicious that it has many times over.
Second, the caveat (b)(2)"unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, " is an auxiliary phrase and requires that a person has to defend themselves not on the act but on the profession.
See my other reply up above.

Yes, certainly: most people who 'come out', under DADT, will end up being discharged simply for being homosexual. Rather than for any proven "act".

But the proviso is there, for one to say, "Yes, I'm gay, but I have gone lengthy periods without a partner, and I will faithfully forgo illegal sex acts for the duration of my service", and to get official approval to continue in uniform, even as an open gay. Under DADT.

What is going on here, of course, is that there is an assumption (normally correct) that homosexuality is equivalent to illegal sex-behaviors. Although pragmatically that is a useful and generally accurate rule ... it is technically (i.e., legally) false. *And that is precisely why the auxiliary phrase is there.*

What is also going on here, is that upon the advent of DADT, gay people suddenly had the potential to create an 'easy out'. One can claim; "I ... I didn't really know who I was ... I was still a, a virgin! I didn't mean to lie or deceive ... I was just still so young! But now I know, and I don't want to be dishonest".

"So, son, you think you will continue to have these unlawful sexual relations?" "Sir! I can only be true to myself! It would be impossible not to be who I am!" "Well ... you have a good record, and we'd like to keep you." "I'd love to stay in the Navy, sir, but I'm afraid I'm really in the wrong place." "Very well, son. I'm sorry you have to go. Go luck."

The truth is, many first-time recruits deeply regret enlisting. So many would take a nominally low-cost exit, that the Services have to guard rather strenuously against such things. DADT is not intended to be a cheap out ... but there are rather ready means to modify it to work that way.

Anyone is free to look at a particular piece of legal code ... and see it as an activist. "This is rotten! It obviously X, Y, Z, and several other disgusting things!". But in fact, it is the judges & lawyers (and Congressional Representatives) who make the call on what these things mean.

In fact, if a gay promises to abstain from the "acts", they can be allowed to serve. In reality, "homosexuality" is used as a pragmatic 'indicator' for the "acts" that are actually the object of the codified rules.

Think about it. How do you prove you are gay? Spent six months and 50 grand on an analyst's couch? The way we pragmatically determining homosexuality, is to blandly listen to someone say, "I'm gay". Legally, that means nothing. So, we turn to our buddy, unzip his trousers, and slurp up his dong. "Any questions, Your Honor?". "No further questions".

It's "the act" that counts. "Homosexuality" is flimsy window-dressing.

I am sure George Wallace thought it was right to stand in front of a school and deny Negro students access.
I am sure "Bull" Connor thought he was doing the right thing when he put the hoses and the dogs on black protestors marching for equal rights.
I am sure McCain and his lot think they are doing God's work too.

If DADT is repealed, the DI's in boot camp will have to change their cadence. I can see it now:

I don't know but I've been told
Eskimo penis is mighty cold

Guy's, what I have read in the above comments kinda amuses me in as much as almost every comment speaks in the "if" prospect of DADT. As if to say, that there will surly be homosexuals in the military if the DADT policy is abolished.

If, I remember our not to distant past, the DADT executive order was instituted by the Clinton administration in 1995 because homosexuals were known to be serving in all branches of the U.S. military, which was a crime in it's self. This being, since to be homosexual automatically barred a person from serving in any branch of the military under and by the MCOJ. Which can only be discribed as being an oxymoron contradiction of reality, inasmuch as such executive order did nothing to change the fact there was homosexuals serving within the military. The order only gave those who were homosexual and serving in the military a vague cover under which they would be allowed to serve.

Therefore to assume that if the DADT policy is abolished, it will be the cause of homosexuals beginning to serve in the military is also a contradiction inasmuch as homosexuals have been serving in the U.S. military since it's days of conscript soliders being inducted into the Continental Army under the order of the Continental Congress of 1773. To believe otherwise, is to blind yourself to reality.

Frankly, I don't understand what all the back and forth arguing, debating and concern is about, when it is documented fact that nothing will change other than a certain segment of military personnel will no longer be required to live a lie. Does anyone actually think that it will cause some drastic overhaul of the military and it's MCOJ or that those homosexuals who are now serving, will suddenly begin running through the base barracks and ship gangways shouting, I'm Homosexual, I'm Homosexual, Good God Almighty, I'm Homosexual. I think not.

Fellow Commentators, let's be realistic in our thinking, homosexuals are just like you and I. They are Americans who have loving families, hopes, dreams and personal goals. But even more so, those to which the DADT policy concerns, are now our country's protectors against aggression from our enemies. As such, should they not have the same rights and privilages as you or I, to live their private lives without fear of retribution, should someone come to know of what sexual orientation they may be.

This whole homophobic discourse is stupid and hopefully it will soon pass into the annals of history for future generations to wonder and marvel at it's total absurdity.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hannakar and Happy Holidays to All and to All a Good Night.

I think there is reason for caution, if DADT is (as appears) about to be ended.

I think there are hefty factors at stake, for the military, for the gays, and for the Liberals & activists who have pushed for ending DADT - as a political football.

It's a good idea to consider, that the gays who have always been in the military, are typically Conservatives, themselves. After all, the military is overall a strongly conservative culture. Often, they like the military more than the typical recruit when they go in, do better all-round, and become very desirable career people.

Much the same applies, to civilian gays. If 5-10% of the population is gay, then there are 15-30 million gay Americans ... but I don't 'see' more than a small portion of that figure. I think the reason is that many, even an overwhelming majority, choose to keep their orientation private. That's a significant detail.

Yet 'out' gays claim the spotlight, and claim to be spokespeople for all gays. In addition, these particular players are overwhelmingly allied with Liberal interests. It is crucial for the military to work with the gay folks who have embraced the services, and not to give undue weight to 3rd parties who are not part of the situation, but rather seem more interested in 'gays in the military', as a political cause.

There is also probably a range of '3rd options' available to both politicians & the military, to reach some alternative compromise that does not simply vaporize DADT, but also does not defend it to the death, either.

The military & conservatives are relative strong on this last point, and Liberals are relatively weak, since few people have any strong emotional investment in DADT per se, while Liberals & activists have (unfortunately, I think) invested undue expectations & hopes, in ending DADT ... most of which I think will not materialize as they envision.

"a certain segment of military personnel will no longer be required to live a lie." That is the crux for me. Allowing people who are already in the military to be in the military legally is the point.

Those who are more successful and accomplish in their military role, tend strongly to need & get a Security Clearance, in order to learn and know information which they must keep secret, and to be able to participate in activities which must remain secret.

It is an essential & common element of more-satisfying military roles, that one be able to keep secrets. Not only throughout their time of service, but afterward in civilian life as well.

The military goes to lengths to provide & strength the skills that support secret-keep. Millions of veterans get out of the service with massive loads of secret information and secret experiences locked in their heads. They get married to a woman they trust & share with. They raise kids, send them to college, and become grandfathers. They age, decline, die, and are buried with their secrets.

I'll share an unclassified 'secret' with you; no small number of military personnel hold and keep secrets which are a lot more weighty & costly to bear, than the fact that one is gay and falsely represents himself to his military peers.

Ted Clayton,

Your fears are unfounded since all military personnel are governed under and by the COMJ. As such, each inductee, once graduating from "boot camp" has been fully instructed in the "Code of Military Justice", and therefore knows his/her place within the command as well as his/her required apparence,duties and responsibilities as is spelled out under those spectic rules.The military is structured in such a manner, that those who are unable to make the adjustment from civilian attitude and life to militaries more governed lifestyle are quickly weeded out and qiven a discharge from active service. Those who remain are without a doubt true professionals and to second guess their ability to conduct themselves in an adult manner is to say, at the very least, disrespectful and unappreciative for the duty which our country calls upon them to perform.

You can't honestly believe that the abolishment of DADT will mean that gays serving in the military will start acting in some inappropriate manner. Come-on, the military is a highly trained and disciplned institution and those who serve in the military do not, would not and can not allow their private lives to become a distraction and/or to in some abstract way to interfere in their day to day duties and responsibilities. They are not children, they are responsible adults. Were they not, they would not be serving in a job capacity that puts their very lives on the line on a daily basis. The gay men and women serving within the military are no less than their fellow brothers in arms, i.e. American heros who are charged with the responsibility of protecting our country and it's citizens. Those men and women deserve the right to live their private lives with dignity and the respect of all Americans.

The assumption that somehow gays in the military, once DADT is abolished, are in some negative way going to either change the current apparence of military and/or become some sort of problem to those with whom they serve, is simply unrealistic and quite frankly, is nothing less than homophobic thinking.

Thank you for writing an opposing comment.

Merry Christmas to all.

I agree, Scott, that our military people receive quality training, that they meet standards that many civilians never become aware even exist.

But do they "... deserve the right to live their private lives..."?

As a military person, the dependence of others upon us means that what in civilian life would be our private 'business', ought not be unknown, cannot be. It becomes too important, that we be as 'known' to our peers, our superior officers, our command and the Service as a whole, as humanly possible.

And beyond that factor, lies the pragmatic & legal reality, that privacy is both unaffordable & unavailable, within the conditions that the military trains people for, and places them in.

It is a fully-acknowledged fact, that as service members, we are both in theory & in practice stripped of our privacy. We do not have private quarters. The time during which we sleep is an assigned activity; sleeping is not 'down time' that is 'our own'. We are ordered to sleep, at the discretion & convenience of the Command and our Superiors, and they can & do modify those orders, 'as needed'.

To put on the uniform, we strip out of our privacy. Gays will not be exempted ... even when they can openly serve.

Once again, you are using the John McCain goal post scenario, inasmuch as you will always be finding something more to clear out of the way before DADT can be abolished, essentuailly moving the goal post another ten yards further away.

I served in the U.S. Army from 1960-1963 with 2 years and 5 months of that time being spent outside of a small town, Straubin, Germany as a frontline signal corp unit on the border with Czechoslovakia. A border which was constantly under heavly armed scrutiny by both the Soviet forces as well as our forces. In our cadre of military personnel, there were those among us who had highly secret clearances with a mulitude of secret weapons, encrypted communications and constant surveillance by secret means which were apart of their daily duties. Each solider in our unit having his own job and expertise in surveillance and communications while serving on the border. Our unit had surveillance duty of 3 months shifts on the border at a time, with 3 months post duty, etc. etc.

The homosexual soliders serving with us, some of which we knew of and some of which we suspected to be homosexual but had no reason to question, served their duty time just as professionally and honorably as we heterosexual soliders did. Their capability to do their assigned duties never came into question.

Remember, I am speaking of a time when people having such sexual preferences and orientation were ostrazied by 99% of the civilian population. However, we as professional soldiers had no problem whatsoever serving in a cold war area and situation which was a possible powder keg, ready to explode at any minute. As it almost did, when the East German and Soviet governments decided to build the so-called "Berlin Wall" a manuver which put us on war alert around the clock, with all leaves and passes canceled. The war alert lasted for quite some time depending on where you were stationed within Germany. My unit stayed on full battle alert for eleven months before receiving the order to stand down. Never during that time did it even cross my mind that we would somehow be less of a battle ready unit or more vunerable to aggression by the Soviet Union forces because there were homosexuals serving among us.

Thankfully, neither side resorted to military aggression during this cold war escalation and tension. However, it did lenghten my tour of overseas duty from it's original 18 months to 31 months, which was not what I had ever invisioned as happening.

To correct your statement concerning there being no "free time". All military personnel are afforded the time to be themselves both on and away from their assigned post. Sexual relation are never apart of a soliders life while on duty or on military post/base. However, after dismissal from daily duties, all non essential personnel are free to leave their post. As such ,they have a somewhat restricted private life which they can live. Although this private time comes with a certain amount of known responsibilities and personal attitudes. Such time is neither scrutinized nor interfered with by commanding or subordinate officers. Military personnel have never been expected to be "celibate while serving within the military, just to be respectable in your private life and to conform to the COMJ rules and regulations.

In todays society, we come into contact with people who are homosexual in every segment of our daily lives. The same is true within the military and its varied cadre of personnel. It is my feeling that to penalize any American for his/her sexual orientation is simply in it's self nothing less than un-American. Inasmuch as this is suppose to be the "Home of the Free". To me, that very phrase gives us all the right to choose our partners and live our lives free from intrusion by the prying eyes of our neighbors and fellow countrymen.

You can keep the McCain syndrome going, but, moving the goal post will not change fact !!!

Happy Holidays to All

Scott, you say on the one hand:

"Sexual relation are never apart of a soliders life while on duty or on military post/base."

But then you soon say:

"Military personnel have never been expected to be "celibate while serving within the military, just to be respectable in your private life and to conform to the COMJ rules and regulations."

Actually, people are placed within contexts for months at a time, 24x7 without relief, in which it will be a violation to have sex.

Thanks for sharing a glimpse of your unusual & interesting military experience!

It is true - to the point of being 'legendary' - that small, isolated units (such as you appear to have served in) have traditionally been allowed to 'deviate' from Service norms (to maintain Morale, and promote an Esprit de Corps). I think usually such irregularity is a good thing ... but it has been known to lead to tragedy. 'Deviated' unit standards helped unravel the Viet Nam conflict, and they are threatening to have a similar effect in Afghanistan.

As a nuclear power plant operator and submariner (early 1970s), I fully agree with the point that normal discipline standards can be & are relaxed, at certain (crucial, intense) times & places, especially for small units facing unusual challenges. And, that idiosyncrasies of others within such units, including but not limited to homosexuality, are indeed overlooked/accepted in a very egalitarian way.

However, such relaxation should be, and normally is, restricted to clearly defined contexts, and it should be and normally is ended, as soon as feasible ("Alright you people: Time to suck it up here!" "Aww..." "No - you heard me!" "Okaayyy..." Grins & knowing glances, all-round).

When it becomes too much taken for granted that we will 'just wing it', then we are open for painful, expensive mistakes ... with repercussions potentially up to the National and even Global level.

My reference to MCOJ was the part that forbids "Fraternazation and/or show of effection" by the military, for another person in public unless married. Otherwise, the military does not oversee nor closely scrutinize a soliders private life away from post while off duty. A scenario which occurs everyday after 4 pm. At which time members of the military are free to come and go as they please. Those having attained the non commisioned rank of E5 or higher can live off post in private housing and those of Officers rank can live either off post in private housing or if married, on post in base family housing or if single, in Bachelor Officer Quarters (BOQ) post housing .

.

After all that has been written, even the most obstinent opposer must by now realize that Homosexuals are actually known to their fellow brothers in arms within all branchs of military service. The fact that they are homosexual only becomes a problem when homophobics decide to make an official complaint. Otherwise, they are just like all other service personnel.

Now I ask, Please, and without a whole lot of written dialog, explain why you are so afraid of and in opposition to homosexuals serving openly within the military. Please have something to say other than, suspicion of what you fear might occur.

"... without a whole lot of written dialog, explain why you are so afraid of and in opposition to homosexuals serving openly... "

We're just going to have to wait & see how it plays out, Scott.

Ted,

Thanks, for what I would consider to have been a good civil debate.

Scott

Thanks, Scott! Hope to see you around, and enjoy the Holidays! :) Ted