AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is Not Going to be Repealed

Good discussion of Congress’ “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for the US military going on in the posts and comments at This Ain’t Hell:

Gays in the Military: A Pox on the Radicals of Both Sides

More News on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Unanswered Questions About Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

“The Sniper” makes a good argument for why the Democrats are simply playing games with this whole issue and playing the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) community for fools:

DADT is not going to be repealed and I’ll tell you why: this will get pushed back for a vote until more Republicans come into office and then the blame for its failure can be laid squarely at the feet of the GOP. The Dems had a super-majority and the most liberal President since, well, ever to sign it off and they didn’t do anything about it. Why? Because if they do that, then Teh Gheys don’t need them anymore and they’ll start looking at the financials instead of civil rights when it comes time to vote… and we know they don’t want that. The LGBT community is getting played and they don’t even realize it.

Read through the rest of the discussion in the comments at those links above. Great arguments given for both sides of the issue and many good questions asked. Most notably:

Lets go over some of the questions that nobody in the Obama administration or Congress has addressed in regards to repealing DADT:

1. Will there be seperate barracks, berthing, and living quarters for homosexuals?
With the Army and Marine Corps having expanded over the past three years and with the Navy changing its policies on living on ship while in port, there is a severe shortage of housing for both single and married military personnel. Not to mention that on naval vessels there is already limited berthing spaces for sailors/Marines. Mandating that homosexuals have their own living quarters (like some colleges and universities do) will require new construction of barracks and a complete rearrangement and reconfiguring of hundreds of naval vessels. On the other hand, allowing homosexuals to live with heterosexuals, will cause a whole different set of headaches for military commanders.

2. Will homosexuals be allowed to serve in combat arms units?
Women are forbidden by Congress to serve in combat arms units (infantry, arty, tanks, etc.). Some of the same issues surrounding women serving in combat units are present in the debate over gays serving openly in these same units.

3. Will people discharged under DADT be allowed to reenlist/recommission in the military if the policy is repealed?
I don’t know how many people who were discharged under DADT would want to reenter the military, but there are even more questions that need to be answered if they are allowed to reenter. Will they retain their same rank/billet regardless how long they have been out? Will they get retroactive promotions?

4. If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, will the military recognize and award benefits to gay marriages or civil unions?

5. Will each service be allowed to craft its own policies regarding homosexuals?
Each service has its own operational needs and missions. Will the DoD have an across the board policy or like with women will each service be given some degree of freedom to craft its own policies?

And finally…

6. How much money is repealing DADT going to cost?
Everytime the military changes a policy, it costs money. A major policy change like this one is going to cost that Defense Department a lot of money to implement, the amount depends a lot on the answers to the questions that I have posed. Thats money that can be spent on things like body armor, new vehicles, new guns, or any number of things that are important to an effective military.

ALSO SEE: TRUMAN, OBAMA, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS

An excerpt:

Leaving aside your opinion on DADT — and we’ve had some spirited debates here on Blackfive about the policy — here’s what we know, or believe that we know:

1) President Obama believes DADT is unjust.
2) Most of the gay community wants to see DADT repealed.
3) The gay community overwhelmingly supported President Obama. President Clinton enacted DADT by Executive Order.
4) According to at least some experts on military law, President Obama can end DADT without Congress’ approval, or at the least he can issue the Executive Order like Truman did, and wait for the courts to overturn it, or for Congress to pass a law that restores it.

But that’s not what he’s doing.

The only conclusion I can draw from all of this is that President Obama is a weak and callow man. He can end DADT with the stroke of a pen, yet he understands there is no percentage in it for him when he can shift the heat to Congress. Apparently, Rahm Emmanuel had a Come to Jesus meeting with him back in January of last year, and explained that Hollywood homosexuals aren’t about to vote for Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. So I guess the bigger questions are, what does it say about a President who doesn’t do what he believes to be the right thing? And if I was in the military, knowing that he doesn’t consider the military a friend, how would I feel about a Commander in Chief who treats his political allies this badly? I guess what I’m saying is that I’d watch my back, if I was one of you active duty guys.

This seems to be a good summation of the history of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT)”. It is how I understand it to have come into being, anyway:

Brett said…
Erm… I think everyone is a bit confused on the issue. Or maybe I am. Here’s my understanding: Prior to 1994, the US Military had a Policy of discharging homosexuals from the military. For the most part, they actively enforced that policy (ie, thoroughly investigating reports and accusations of said behavior). Then President Clinton came along, with his promise to end the policy. But… he didn’t.

Then, in 1994, Congress passed a bill that included as a rider an amendment to the UCMJ that made it ‘illegal’ to be a homosexual and in the military (and President Clinton signed it). So whereas it was simply DoD Policy before, it was now Law (USC T10:654). President Clinton responded by issuing a directive to the DoD not to actively investigate suspected homosexuals. ie, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. If you keep reasonably quiet about it, and you otherwise perform your duties satisfactorily, no one will look into it. On the other hand, if you come bouncing into headquarters wearing a “I’m here, I’m Queer, Get used to it!” shirt, you’re going to be discharged.

So… President Obama’s promise to allow gays in the military openly was a big ol pile of crap. He doesn’t have the authority to do so. He can tell the military to not enforce the law, which is basically what President Clinton did, but he can’t simply make the law go away. The law needs to be changed by Congress.

Or so I understand. Correct me if I need correcting.

ALSO SEE: DADT Review to Take a Year; Prospects for Repeal Slim

A good reply in the comments:

I served in the Marine Corps with gays and had no problem with them. That was in Viet Nam and it was live and let live. But those were the conditions that made survival the only thing you cared about. Here is a list of my cons on repeal of DADT

1. Men/women in authority positions take a lover in the same company they lead. Favoritism? You betcha.

2. In your face taunting by extreme gays like everyone in San Francisco has seen will not go unchallenged in the military. This will be as uniting as Obama is.

3. Any of you ever had a roommate bring home the bacon while you were sleeping in the other bed in the same room? Fun ain’t it? Lots of noises and unpleasant things for you to listen to instead of sleeping.

4. Imagine you are in the showers and two or more gays start to play soap-a-dope? It might be funny one time but not every time you go to the head or showers. Talk about making life even worse than it need be.

5. A mean Sgt. makes life hard for a grunt during basic training and it turns out that the grunt is gay. Does he act like a man and do the extra crap or does he call the ACLU?

6. You are really in the shit where dying is a real possibility in a foxhole with your assigned buddy when the fan is hit. He realizes that this might be it and leaves the hole you share and heads to the hole where his true love is. Military discipline?

7.You are a straight man and ask the general if you can shower with the lezzies since you know they are not interested in you and no sexual problems will arise.What are the odds that he will say “Hell Yes” to make you feel more accepted?

8. As mentioned above what if two of these guys/gals decide to get married while in basic or after training where they have to serve in the same unit? If the military did not recognise the marriage they could then serve as man and man in the field where the problems would be limitless.

There many more areas of difficulty that can be presented that will kill morale. Some have tried to equate it with blacks in the military. That is so faulty on so many fronts to be considered a serious comparison. The only way to go on this is to make sexuality in the military a non issue and DADT does that.

Posted by: inspectorudy at February 02, 2010 11:58 PM

ALSO SEE: Poking the DADT Bear

An excerpt:

This isn’t a policy that forces people to lie, it’s a policy that forces people to follow the rules. Is everyone forgetting that before DADT gays were forbidden to serve? DADT was an effective, moderate compromise – but the gay community doesn’t want to compromise. And that’s why they shouldn’t have a voice in the discussion. They won’t quit until there’s a digital-camouflage-patterned feather boa in the 670-1.

[ … ] I just think it’s damn awful that Gates and Mullins can see the evils of DADT, but they’re absolutely blind to the threat that Nidal Hassan posed to military members.

So what do I think of DADT? I could care less – both sides are being disingenuous. I feel the same way about gays that feel about women in combat – if they can make the standard and follow the rules, they’re welcome. But gays haven’t proven to me they can follow the rules. My objection isn’t moral – I just don’t think they can behave themselves and I certainly don’t believe that the repeal of DADT is the solution to all of our manpower problems.

And there’s more important shit going on in the world that our military should be worried about than having our Secretary of Defense and his staff sitting in front of John Kerry telling him how much they approve of sodomy in the ranks. But that’s just me.

Good comment left in response to this post at Blackfive: DADT- TIME FOR IT TO GO

Deltabravo said…

All the arguments about twisted emotions (much bible fuelled no doubt) and the horror of having to stand in a shower in some proximity to a gay feller sound like serious moral panic nonsense to me. UJ is right that if someone starts slapping comrades’ bottoms with a towel then they’re going to end up in a world of pain!

Sparkly, do you know how our military works? Let’s take your scenario: Towel slapping –> world of pain. Does it end there with towel slapper learning a painful lesson and refraining from ever doing it again?

No.

Judging by how the male/female debacle has gone in our military, towel slapper will go whinging to his CO about how his civil rights were violated. How he was misinterpreted. How he was discriminated against. He becomes a victim of a “hate crime.”

Towel slappees get rounded up and they become the ones in trouble for their forceful discouragement of towel slapper’s courting ritual. Sensitivity sessions are mandated for everyone within a 20-mile radius of the beatdown, taking away valuable time from more worthwhile training. Anti-towel-slapping sentiments become the “new racism” and promotions are affected.

Soon everyone has to celebrate Towel Slapper Awareness Week. If you rebuff a towel slapper who is looking at you funny you can be charged with creating a “hostile work environment.” Speech becomes targeted. No more calling someone who can’t do his pushups a “nancy boy.” Such verbiage becomes “hate speech.”

It’s a slippery slope. We’ve seen it with women and men and fraternization problems. In the U.S. the towel slapping community is known for being “in your face” about it all. They really aren’t content to live and let live. Their sexual identity is the first and foremost thing they want to proclaim about themselves. They want to force everyone else to agree with them that what they do is a good thing. Which for biological and theological and bacteriological reasons, I just can’t bring myself to do.

And while you guys are all talking about its implications for men in SF units,etc. let me just say as a female I can see a world of problems that being able to out oneself can have with women in the military. There is an entirely different set of dynamics that goes with THAT which can cause severe problems in the ranks. Put your lesbian fantasies aside. The reality is a little bit different. Women deal with each other differently than they deal with men, and if you add open homosexuality to the mix, it can bring a lot of unwanted drama into the picture.

DADT forces people to keep a lid on things and at least maintain the semblance of order and discipline. I see a whole order of unintended consequences coming from its repeal.

February 03, 2010 at 09:21 AM

Another good comment left in reply to this post to which I linked above:

Anyway, DADT was working fine, I see no reason a soldier would need to announce his sexual orientation one way or the other. Nobody’s rights are being denied here, gays can serve as long as the keep their preferences to themselves.

The brotherhood of the military can be damaged by having openly gay men serving. It is based on a non-sexual bonding that is completely different from that you would feel towards a partner. If 2 gay men are in a unit and are also lovers, I would see this as having an adverse affect on cohesion. As others have said, there is a reason that men and women do not shower together. It is a known fact that the Nimitz was turned into the love boat because of men and women becoming too close. Female soldiers were getting knocked up and morale was damaged.

The other problem is we are in 2 wars, this is not the time to be engaging in social experiments with the military. The last poll I read from the men themselves is 60% were opposed to gays serving openly and 10% they would not re-enlist. If these numbers are even close the truth I say leave it alone. The gay agenda is far more extensive as well, don’t think that DADT ending will pacify them for long. There will be another series of demands right after that. It is left-wing politically motivated grievance group that has gone well beyond mere civil rights. Remember the Kevin Jennings situation, he proclaimed that he only wants gay people treated fairly, but the real record shows he wants to impose his ideology on others. He has nothing to do with the military but there are others like him.

Posted by: Ken Royall at February 03, 2010 11:20 AM

One issue on which I am still confused is how, if homosexuals will now serve openly, fraternization will be organized. Men and women are kept separate due to the obvious sexual attraction/interaction. The problem with homosexual/heterosexual interaction, though, is that there’s no possible way to separate everyone adequately based on sexual attraction/interaction. Keeping things all female/all male will then have open homosexuals with heterosexuals. There is no possible way that every single homosexual can guarantee that (1) they won’t ‘admire’ their fellow same-sex military members while living with them and (2) they won’t hit on their fellow same-sex military members. People can talk about “professionalism” of the military member all they want, it simply doesn’t exist except regarding one’s MOS. With regards to social interaction and issues (adultery, promiscuous sex, drunkenness, underage drinking, etc), there is as much lack of discipline as in the civilian world. And that’s just between men and women. If that’s already a problem causing headaches, why would they want to add to it by allowing homosexuals to openly fraternize?

That said, the military can’t separate homosexuals into their own units or anything, because that would simply be akin to having women and men in the same units. So what is the solution… make sure each unit only has one homosexual in it? Seems pretty ridiculous. Or will they simply just make the entire military co-ed, since apparently ‘sexual orientation’ and sexual attraction don’t matter anymore?

It just seems like a huge, unnecessary mess. Why mess with something that seems to work just fine. Homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military to their hearts’ desires, so long as they don’t allow their sexuality to interfere with their duties to the military.

I will say that Gabriel Malor brings up a good point here in that homosexuals can’t have the comfort of any romantic partners to keep them inspired as everyone else can.

I agree that a person’s sex life isn’t the most professional topic of conversation and that “throwing” one’s sex life in the faces of others is detrimental for disciple. But DADT goes much further than merely maintaining discipline. Not only is a gay soldier prohibited (as he should be, mind you) from doing those things you note you do not like: “throwing their sexuality out in the open for the shock value” and purposely hitting on straights. He is also prohibited from things so simple and non-disruptive as keeping a picture of a boyfriend or even referring to a boyfriend in casual conversation, two things that straight soldiers do routinely with respect to their girlfriends, fiances, and wives. A gay soldier can’t even kiss a boyfriend goodbye at the airport like a straight one can his girlfriend without fear of DADT.

More than that, under DADT gays in the military are prohibited from marrying their boyfriends in the states where gay marriage is lawful. Can you imagine the outcry if straight soldiers were prohibited from marrying?

I agree with you that disruptive behavior, routinely characterized as “flaunting it”, must be sharply prohibited for the sake of discipline. But things like phone calls to a lover, letters and photographs from loved ones, simply holding hands with a boyfriend if he comes to visit on or near base, are not “flaunting it.”

Those are valid points and could be determined to be “discriminatory”. But the fact is that the military is discriminatory by nature. Rules are set for what is in the best interest of the military to perform to its best ability. Rules are not set in place to make people feel good. I think anyone who has gone through any military branch’s boot camp realizes that a soldier’s ‘feelings’ are last on the priority list.

That said, I don’t have all the answers.  We also have to remember that this is not a homosexual/gay movement, this is a GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) movement.  We also need to remember that this not about homosexuals having the ‘right’ to serve in the military.  (1) No one has a ‘right’ to serve, they have to meet certain standards set by the military and (2) homosexuals can already serve (so long as they are not ‘out’).  This movement is about ‘normalizing’ the GLBT lifestyle.  The GLBT movement has already tried to do this through redefining marriage and has failed in every vote across the country.  Since they failed there, now they are taking their movement to the military.  Their agenda has nothing to do with what is in the best interests of the US military, but rather what is in the best interests of pushing their GLBT agenda forward.  In other words, they are using the military for political purposes.  People need to remember that overall agenda when discussing this issue.

Good question: “So exactly what about homosexuality has changed since 1993? Do openly gay soldiers all of a sudden not damage ‘morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion’?”

I refer you to U.S. Code: Title 10 Subtitle A Part II Chapter 37 § 654

Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

Excerpts:

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

(3) … it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that … the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

(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.

(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

And the pièce de résistance:

(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.

Advertisements

February 2, 2010 , 12:55PM - Posted by | Barack Obama, Democrats, Don't Ask Don't Tell, GLBT Movement, Homosexual Movement, Liberalism, Military

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: