More stupid arguing about gays in the military.

Medievalist said:

Looking back at the history of DADT or Executive Order 9981 it doesn't seem to have had positive reactions from those in the various armed forces, ever, in any meaningful way, but it does seem to be driven by Congressional and civilian interests. It's a bizarre history in a number of ways--including the almost last minute way it was passed by Clinton.

I've never understood it, and am now even more puzzled by the reasons behind it.

Click to expand...

That's a good way to describe DADT...I just don't get it. It's puzzling on so many levels. If anyone here has insight as to why it's better to keep sexuality under lock and key in the military, please enlighten me.

I don't believe it was just a random idea hatched from nothing, but I still can't come up with an explanation on my own (other than straight-up discrimination).

Medievalist said:

Looking back at the history of DADT or Executive Order 9981 it doesn't seem to have had positive reactions from those in the various armed forces, ever, in any meaningful way, but it does seem to be driven by Congressional and civilian interests. It's a bizarre history in a number of ways--including the almost last minute way it was passed by Clinton.

I've never understood it, and am now even more puzzled by the reasons behind it.

Click to expand...

I think it goes back to how the military mind works and how Clinton didn't understand it. If he'd have said, "This is it, deal with it", I think they would have been fine with it. But the military mind really doesn't like indecision. They expect their superiors to make and stand behind their decisions.

The weird thing is, that it looks like the initial idea was to protect actively serving people from being persecuted. Seriously!

What's happened is that some reports that he or she suspects an armed services member is queer, and the person is investigated--up to and including private detectives, phone taps, secret cameras, and interviews of associates.

It's crazy. It's generated lots of malicious reports, it's been used to silence rape victims, and it makes no sense on the face of it if you read the EO, and the subsequent versions as DADT exists today.

I'm supposed to write about DADT in a broad historic perspective, and just reading this stuff going back to 1993 has given me a headache, an intellectual buffer overflow error and way too much recursion.

Medievalist said:

What's happened is that some reports that he or she suspects an armed services member is queer, and the person is investigated--up to and including private detectives, phone taps, secret cameras, and interviews of associates.

Click to expand...

What a phenomenal (and disgraceful) waste of money and effort.

I was raised to understand that homosexuality was a willful perversion, then was allowed to have that fever cooled to view it as an unfortunate handicap that had to be thwarted for the protection of the sinners' souls.

Then I actually got out and met people of all sorts and I'm right back to a sneering disdain of willful perversion - and that is the industry of people who make careers and hobbies of scouting out fags and dykes, ostensibly for the greater good. Sick, twisted, and smarmy. I hope that those fine investigators are proud of their divisive, cowardly, and nosy harvests.

Medievalist said:

The weird thing is, that it looks like the initial idea was to protect actively serving people from being persecuted. Seriously!

What's happened is that some reports that he or she suspects an armed services member is queer, and the person is investigated--up to and including private detectives, phone taps, secret cameras, and interviews of associates.

It's crazy. It's generated lots of malicious reports, it's been used to silence rape victims, and it makes no sense on the face of it if you read the EO, and the subsequent versions as DADT exists today.

I'm supposed to write about and just reading this stuff going back to 1993 has given me a headache, an intellectual buffer overflow error and way too much recursion.

Click to expand...

I agree. In much the same way the sodomy laws (some of which have been repealed) operated back in the day, DADT is equally as confusing and ridiculous. Once upon a time, if you suspected your neighbor was gay you could become a Peeping Tom, sneak up to their bedroom window and watch what went on and it would be admissable in court. Why? Because of the perceived 'danger to the community.' DADT is the red-headed stepchild of this kind of narrow-minded perversion, that hysterical do-gooder vibe that allowed people to justify burning books or effigies in people's yard. Now, instead of 'danger to the community' the rallying cry is 'morale among the troops'--like instigating top secret spy missions on a country's own military personnel to see who they're sleeping with isn't damaging enough to the troops' morale.

I've met a lot of ...erm...odd people, and I've yet to meet one who used their genitalia to fire a gun or operate a tank. It occurs to me that, considering this physiological fact, a person's sexual life is private and does not in any way shape or form interfere with a soldier's ability to do their duty to their country.

And look! It didn't take me a freaking year to figure that out. All this proposal is is a bullshit waste of time and money so the administration and the top military brass can continue to shove their discrimintory and prejudicial policies out of the public eye and hopefully whitewash their inability to follow through on their obligations to American soldiers and their civil rights.

Medievalist said:

I've never understood it, and am now even more puzzled by the reasons behind it.

Click to expand...

It was entirely political -- Clinton promised during his campaign to allow gays in the military, as I remember, but didn't want to give the right wing an opportunity to derail other agendas by talking about how he forced the military to accept queers. Most of the brass was not in favor of allowing gays to serve at that time.

But he didn't want them thrown out, either. So it was a compromise to keep part of his promise without running into political trouble.

Remember, in 1993 anti gay bias in society was stronger and more acceptable than is is today.

Roger J Carlson said:

True, but that does not negate the fact that any major policy change takes time to implement.

Click to expand...

A policy change may take time to implement, but that depends on the policy. In this case, with a stroke of a pen, any current actions to discharge someone is stopped. Beyond that, there's no implementing a negative action (discharging), the military just quits doing what it's doing (discharging, investigating, that type of thing).

*And thanks for pointing out my error: you're right about it being Gates, not only the Army*

rugcat said:

It was entirely political -- Clinton promised during his campaign to allow gays in the military, as I remember, but didn't want to give the right wing an opportunity to derail other agendas by talking about how he forced the military to accept queers. Most of the brass was not in favor of allowing gays to serve at that time.

Click to expand...

Except that it began at least as early as 1988, with a suggestion from various high ranking military folk to revise the sodomy clause in the uniform code.

And that initial group was genuinely bi-partisan, with military, civilian and activist members and a common agenda. Some time between then and 1990 it started to derail.

Badly.

Medievalist said:

Except that it began at least as early as 1988, with a suggestion from various high ranking military folk to revise the sodomy clause in the uniform code.

And that initial group was genuinely bi-partisan, with military, civilian and activist members and a common agenda. Some time between then and 1990 it started to derail.

Badly.

Click to expand...

So this is another example of Bill Clinton's fabulous leadership, compared to that of Barack Obama, right?

caw

blacbird said:

So this is another example of Bill Clinton's fabulous leadership, compared to that of Barack Obama, right?

caw

Click to expand...

Meh. I stopped likin' 'em after Jefferson, mostly.

Spent hours looking at stats from, presumably, the same office but *every one presents them differently*.

Dead languages are hella easier

Sorry I've been away so long guys,

My quick two cents as a former military member.

Gays in the military was never an issue in my unit, we had a couple of lesbians and one gay guy that EVERYONE knew about but no one said anything because we all felt that they had every right to die for their country like the rest of us.

The main problem with gays in the military are not found in its military members, but rather in all the political and socio-political agencies that are tied to the military.

The religious right is an extremely powerful force in this country and in pretty much every red state you need their support to get elected. And in fact, in most states they are not to be taken lightly as they 'can' be the determining factor in a politician's election.

So, is it any wonder that no party wants to touch this issue? It is political suicide for most politicians and that trickles down and impacts the military leadership who (guess what) take their orders from the civilian politicians.

THe year study as near as I can tell, is to give enough time to work some behind the scenes deals with those opposed to gays in the military as well as possibly accumulate ammo for whatever decision is reached whether positive or negative.

In a nutshell, don't blame the military on this issue. Blame the civilian leadership and the politics.

By and large, most military members are fine with gays in the military.

dgiharris said:

In a nutshell, don't blame the military on this issue. Blame the civilian leadership and the politics.

Click to expand...

Great post, Mel. And I've always suspected as much.

dgiharris said:

In a nutshell, don't blame the military on this issue. Blame the civilian leadership and the politics.

Click to expand...

So this is yet another case where our nominal leaders are hopelessly out of touch with the mainstream and are retarding social progress with their antiquated restrictions? Why am I not surprised?

Another example of Locke 1, Hobbes 0, rob.

And yes, blac, I went there. Get over it.

StephanieFox said:

If we allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, straight members will live with them, get to know them, find out that they aren't the scary ogres they thought and will return home not hating gays.

Click to expand...

Most of the accounts I've heard say this is mostly true now.

I mean, if you don't hate gays, who are you gonna hate*?

*Canadians?

Click to expand...

I love it when someone answers themselves.

StephanieFox said:

And here's another thing:

If we allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, straight members will live with them, get to know them, find out that they aren't the scary ogres they thought and will return home not hating gays. That might lead to gay marriage and worse. I mean, if you don't hate gays, who are you gonna hate*?

*Canadians?

Click to expand...

I'm used to being hated so go ahead.

For the record, I *love* Canadians~

StephanieFox said:

And here's another thing:

If we allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, straight members will live with them, get to know them, find out that they aren't the scary ogres they thought and will return home not hating gays. That might lead to gay marriage and worse.

Click to expand...

I'd say that you'd be right in most cases. It happened with racial integration of the military - people fought against it, but it happened, and the quality of soldiers has not changed in any way.

There still are people who join the military having never known someone of another race, and they are generally forced to work together. Many of them will leave with a more open mind, some will retain their beliefs tempered by good/bad examples they have met, and some will exercise their right to be bigots with little to no thought about it.

Elaine Margarett said:

For the record, I *love* Canadians~

Click to expand...

For the record, I loved a Canadian once... but the statute of limitations has expired, so I can talk about it now.

Don said:

For the record, I loved a Canadian once... but the statute of limitations has expired, so I can talk about it now.

Click to expand...

You made love to a Canadian statue?

I hope it wasn't a mountie...

statute... statute... Get the wax outa your ears.

*mosies off humming Dr. Hook's "She's Only Sixteen."

MattW said:

You made love to a Canadian statue?

I hope it wasn't a mountie...

Click to expand...

Isn't that why they call them The Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Speaking of Canada, here is a brief history of the relationship between Canada's military and its gay & lesbian members:

Quote:
In 1976, the Canadian Forces issued Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 19-20, which allowed members suspected of being homosexual to be investigated and then subsequently released.<sup class="Template-Fact" title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from August 2009" style="white-space: nowrap;"></sup>


This order was repealed in 1992, after a challenge by then CF Member Michelle Douglas, thereby allowing gay, lesbian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexualbisexual and transgender people to serve in the Canadian Forces free from harassment and discrimination.

<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_policy_in_the_Canadian_military#cite_note-1</sup>
A series of provincial and territorial court decisions beginning in 2003 ruled in favour of the legality of gay marriage, and a national law to that effect was passed by Canada's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Canadaparliament in 2005 by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_MartinPaul Martin Liberal government.

In May 2005, Canada's first military gay wedding took place at Nova Scotia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_GreenwoodCanadian Forces Base Greenwood. Officials described the ceremony as low-key but touching. A similar wedding has since taken place between two male http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Mounted_PoliceRoyal Canadian Mounted Police officers. Today, the Canadian Forces recognizes same-sex marital and common-law unions, and affords them the same benefits offered to all married or common-law serving members.

Woof said:

Isn't that why they call them The Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Speaking of Canada, here is a brief history of the relationship between Canada's military and its gay & lesbian members:

Quote:
In 1976, the Canadian Forces issued Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 19-20, which allowed members suspected of being homosexual to be investigated and then subsequently released.<SUP class=Template-Fact title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from August 2009" style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap"></SUP>


This order was repealed in 1992, after a challenge by then CF Member Michelle Douglas, thereby allowing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to serve in the Canadian Forces free from harassment and discrimination.

<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-1></SUP>
A series of provincial and territorial court decisions beginning in 2003 ruled in favour of the legality of gay marriage, and a national law to that effect was passed by Canada's parliament in 2005 by the Paul Martin Liberal government.

In May 2005, Canada's first military gay wedding took place at Nova Scotia's Canadian Forces Base Greenwood. Officials described the ceremony as low-key but touching. A similar wedding has since taken place between two male Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers. Today, the Canadian Forces recognizes same-sex marital and common-law unions, and affords them the same benefits offered to all married or common-law serving members.

Click to expand...

Shit, you think that's something? I met a Canadian soldier, who had the army pay all costs for her gender reassignment (except breast enhancement--which a friend paid for). We had the same surgeon, as a matter of fact.