The US Military Feels Pretty and Witty
It should come as no surprise to my regular readers how I feel about DADT being repealed.
For those that have not seen any of my previous opinions on this sort of subject I will explain it briefly.
I support, and applaud this action. Unconditionally, unreservedly, and with the sort of pride in my heart that you can only have when you know that your country has done the right thing.
I support the repeal because it allows good soldiers to remain in service no matter what their sexual orientation is. For instance, it will stop our forces from hemorrhaging Arabic linguists, which is in the same category as musical theater and interior design; an activity that gays are especially good at for some reason. I’m sure that there is a “gag reflex” joke in there somewhere.
I support the repeal because that’s what nearly everybody wants. According to the survey conducted by the Pentagon, the majority of soldiers don’t care if their buddies are gay. A majority of the American population supports the ban’s repeal.
I support the repeal because I believe in the validity of our Constitution. DADT was already ruled unconstitutional. No one has ever presented an argument against gays in the military that wasn’t based on either prejudice or simple individual preference. And the Supreme Court already ruled against passing laws designed for anything other than secular reasons.
I support the repeal because I served with gay soldiers. I know this because for one thing, I am capable of logical reasoning and math. If about one out of ten citizens are gay, it makes sense that a certain amount of the military is gay.
I support the repeal because I think the military is a culture that requires you to be able to rely on your co-workers. To a degree not seen in may other career fields. Being forced to lie about who you are does not help foster the trust necessary to function well.
I support the repeal because I have read enough history to know that gays have been there the whole time. Many elements of modern gay culture were created by the military during WWII, such as the modern concept of gay bars, and drag shows. Order Cialis online from https://www.caladrius.com/order-cialis-cheap-20/ with fast delivery for strong erection.
I support the repeal because I know that being gay isn’t the same thing as being a leering, perverted rapist.
I support the repeal because I know that the sphincters of uptight open bigots are not as irresistibly desirable to homosexuals as many people are afraid of.
I support the repeal because I have known many fine soldiers, airmen, seamen and marines who were gay. After they had been kicked out.
I support the repeal because I have served with several fine soldiers who were functionally out of the closet, to no ill effect. (I’m looking in your direction Mr. “Don’t Ask” vanity plate.)
I support the repeal because I served with a man who, for the sake of his own career denied his true orientation to me despite being a good friend, even though he wasn’t fooling anyone.
I support the repeal because of the soldier who tearfully confessed his orientation to me while on fireguard during basic. I was pretty open about my feelings on the subject even then, and he was scared about having to lie about who he was in order to be allowed to defend the country that he loved more than his own life. And I was the only person he had met in months that acted like that sort of thing wasn’t a big deal.
I support the repeal because there is nothing patriotic about nosing in on what other people are doing with the genitals.
I support the repeal because the sort of people who are so opposed to another way of living that they cannot tolerate any difference, are probably not the sort of people we want having guns in foreign countries where they have different customs, skin colors and sometimes their own languages and holidays.
I support the repeal because I’ve never cared what the guy next to me was into, so long as he had my back when I needed it.
I support the repeal because if I require another man to keep my dumb ass from getting shot, I want him to have a deep and spiritual attachment to said ass.
I support the repeal because every attempt to prevent inclusion in the past has been defeated, so thoroughly that no one even questions the morality of it any more.
I support the repeal because forcing good people to keep dark secrets that can end their career creates an exploitable weakness in our security.
I support the repeal because a retired general asking for a show of hands at political town hall functions he supports does not constitute a valid un-biased counterpoint.
I support the repeal because every argument against it is just so much aggravated bullshit.
I support the repeal because it was the right thing to do.
And I am proud of my country.
Follow
December 21st, 2010 at 3:37 pm
THIS!
Reply
December 21st, 2010 at 3:48 pm
And such a nice, tight ass it is.
Reply
December 21st, 2010 at 3:50 pm
It’s funny — I’m the opposite direction. I want DADT expanded to everyone in the military, straight, gay, or asexual. Like guys? Don’t care. Like girls? Don’t care. Don’t want your junk near anyone else’s junk of any variety? Don’t care. Keep it to yourself. Break stuff and blow people up. Satisfy the rest of your emotional needs on your own time, and keep the stories about it off the base.
Honestly, I think this is just trading the “claim I came out to you and get me kicked out of the military” sign on gay people’s backs for “claim I came on to you and get me kicked out of the military” signs. All the “Did Tell” charges are just going to magically morph into sexual harassment charges.
Reply
Diana reply on December 21st, 2010 4:04 pm:
Okay, but what you’re saying is *EQUAL*. Telling people to stay in the closet ONLY because they’re gay (when that has absolutely no bearing on their job performance) is not any less ridiculous than telling people to stay in the closet ONLY because they’re straight.
Telling EVERYBODY to keep their sexual orientation and preferences in the closet because it’s got no bearing on the work we’re doing right here right now is another thing entirely. It’s not even the same conversation.
I agree that people are going to be levelling unfair sexual harassment charges onto gays, and that is probably going to continue until people just GET THE FUCK OVER IT (fckh8.com). However, I respectfully disagree that everyone should keep their personal life completely out of the close-knit community that the military is. When people are on deployments for long periods of time, they’re GOING to talk to their battle buddies and comrades about their families, friends and romantic interests. There’s only so much work you can talk about. And when someone’s writing a letter home, or calling home, or getting a visitor from home, in my opinion it is unreasonable to expect them to hide that.
It’s been scientifically proven that the most outspoken homophobes are actually suppressing their own (quite possibly unconscious) homosexual desires. Coupled with an over-inflated view of their own attractiveness, it’s one of the most arrogantly obnoxious and unattractive behaviours I can contemplate.
Reply
Phelps reply on December 28th, 2010 3:07 pm:
Actually, I expect the rule to be broken constantly. Especially on long deployments. There are tons of rules in every job, including the military, that everyone knows are just words, and the real policy is the opposite. This would quickly become that policy.
When everyone breaks the rule, then no one is going to pursue it, and if it is pursued, it’s obviously a chickenshit prosecution.
Reply
Arcanum reply on December 21st, 2010 5:45 pm:
If this is actually a problem (note: it is *not* a problem in any other country that a, including Canada) then our military has a greater problem of professionalism in general that needs to be addressed.
Reply
Arcanum reply on December 21st, 2010 5:46 pm:
Ooops, that should’ve said “not a problem in any other country that allows homosexuals to serve”.
Reply
December 21st, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Well written Skippy and amen.
Reply
December 21st, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Sadly, my Kryptonite USB stick of pictures will no longer work now.
Reply
December 21st, 2010 at 6:30 pm
I agree with you Skippy. Now one has the right to hang up pictures of Pin-up Boys as well as Pin-up Girls. Your locker/closet door can remain open.
Reply
December 21st, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Wild applause, and wholehearted agreement.
Reply
December 21st, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Preach it, Skippy!
Reply
December 21st, 2010 at 9:01 pm
The fact that DADT was repealed came as no surprise. I say it’s about damned time. What surprises me is that it happened with such little fanfare. It was actually kinda anti-climactic. The issue hit the national stage with a bang, but went out with what seemed like a whimper. Still, good riddance to an absolutely horrible policy. When I had to explain the policy to others, the way I explained it was, “It was the military’s way of accepting gays, without openly doing so.” To me, such a policy was hugely dishonest, and I’m glad to no longer have it in place. Unfortunately, this removes a whole set of jokes that my buddies and I can use against eachother. LOL
Reply
December 21st, 2010 at 9:50 pm
HOOHAH!!!
Reply
December 21st, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Well said! And as someone who has never served out of fear….
I support the repeal because anyone who is brave enough to offer their life for this country so that I can be as chickenshit scared of the idea of holding a gun and fighting a war should have that chance. I don’t care if they’re black, white, straight, gay, or even an alien from Mars. They are writing me, and everyone else not serving, a blank check for their very lives so that the rest of us can live in a free country.
Reply
December 21st, 2010 at 11:42 pm
I completely agree, well written and wild applause!
Reply
December 21st, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Now the question is will the UCMJ change along with this? Since DADT has been around it has been ok to be Gay or Lesbian as long as you are not a “practicing” gay or lesbian.
Reply
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:14 am
I do have to wonder who had the nerve to say that it was ok to be gay as long as they stay celibate, and don’t get into any kind of relationship? I think that’s more than a little rediculous.
Reply
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:50 am
Glad to hear the act finally went through. Though I’d personally like a person’s sex life to stay fairly quiet, it shouldn’t keep them from serving.
Reply
December 22nd, 2010 at 2:22 am
DADT has never made any sense. Neither did segregated units under Jim Crow.
Personally, and I know for a fact I’m not alone in this feeling if not the specific sentiment:
I don’t care if you wanna fuck a watermelon; so long as you know which end of the gun goes forward, you’re fit to serve.
Reply
December 22nd, 2010 at 4:10 am
Hear, hear. Some of my best friends on the ship were gay, it does not bother me. Now if we could just get the rest of society to quit worrying about who other people want to have intimate relations with, with the exception of pedophiles, maybe we could get on with worrying about the truly important stuff. The pair of guys/girls next door want to marry? What is wrong with that, it has no bearing on your relationships whatsoever. A local manufacturing plant closing and being shipped overseas? That affects you.
Reply
December 22nd, 2010 at 5:18 am
I honest-to-goodness got a little teary-eyed while reading this. Damn good reasons to support the repeal. Damn good. :)
Reply
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:14 am
“I support the repeal because if I require another man to keep my dumb ass from getting shot, I want him to have a deep and spiritual attachment to said ass.”
I might have to steal this line. With credit, of course.
Reply
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:09 pm
I should also add that I went through AIT with two guys who were just plain flamin. One went on a Wal-Mart expedition and came back with a pink towel, pink washcloth, and pink cell phone. We all knew. I think even the Drills knew. Not a one of us cared. Nor was he turned in when he finally came out of the closet to us. I’d trust him with my life because I saw daily that he had the makings of a good medic. He and I never got along personally, but that’s immaterial. As long as he was capable of doing his job, I didn’t give two shits who he was laying up with on the weekends.
Reply
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Hear, hear and amen.
Reply
December 22nd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
I consider DADT to be a Stop-Gap policy that stayed around too long… it did help in the beginning by giving those that were gay a chance to breathe a bit, but it then stayed around about ten years too long after it should have simply been repealed and gays could go around the military with no heavy cloud over them.
I’m not going to say Bush was a good or a bad president… that is not for discussion here… but in this regard, he failed. He should have killed DADT in his first year.
I’m not going to say Obama is a good or a bad president… that is also not for discussion here… but he got this one right, though he took a year longer to get something done that should have been done long ago.
Reply
Iman Azol reply on January 7th, 2011 2:04 am:
Congress makes laws. The President does not.
So Bush had no power either way.
Reply
AFP reply on January 7th, 2011 3:47 am:
Well, actually the President can and does make laws, they’re called “Executive Decisions”. Basically, anything the President says has the force of law, unless it conflicts with an existing law, if I’m remembering my high school civics class properly. I can’t recall if DADT is an Executive Decision or an actual written and voted on law, though.
Assuming it’s a written-and-voted-on law passed by the legislature, the President can always push to have it overturned, of course, but he doesn’t get to just undo it once it passes without the legislature voting.
Reply
Iman Azol reply on January 7th, 2011 8:58 am:
The UCMJ is Federal law. The entire Article on Sodomy is a problem in this context (and also for straights, which the homophobes conveniently forget).
Executive decisions are limited in scope, and overturning existing Federal law is outside that scope, with good reason.
No previous president “pushed to have it overturned” (Clinton found an unsatisfactory workaround*), so why single out Bush?
I could point out that LBJ, JFK, FDR and Wilson never tried to change it, damned Democrats.
It looks like enough time passed that everyone in serviced accepted the fact of DADT–that gays were serving. The logical next step is to allow them to remove the mask (they are not required to be out. They may be if they choose). Congress did so. It wouldn’t have been politically viable during the major offensives of the War. It is so now.
*The Executive is charged with enforcing the laws. Adjusting enforcement so that no pre-emptive enforcement is done (not asking, not telling, only prosecuting when actual evidence is presented) is a fair use of that power. Nor did Bush reverse this policy.
AFP reply on January 7th, 2011 9:06 am:
George W. Bush gets singled out because it’s cool to pick on him (well, there are a number of legitimate reasons to complain about him, but I’ve noticed that about 90% of the stuff on the internet are people giving him crap because it’s the cool thing to do, like with this Justin Bieber kid that every Black Ops fan on Youtube seems to have a hate-on for.)
Diana reply on January 7th, 2011 1:36 pm:
Iman, while I agree with you that Bush gets blamed for things he had little to no control over, he also doesn’t get blamed enough for the things that he DID have control over.
DADT, I don’t necessarily think, is one of those things. However, it’s not that it wouldn’t have been politically viable during the major offensives of the war, it’s that the Republicans think that gays are not human.
December 22nd, 2010 at 5:33 pm
What he said.
Further, I have great confidence that the vast majority of the men and women in uniform will shrug, say “okay”, and get on with the business of protecting the country. Every other military has discovered this is a much smaller deal than expected, and I don’t expect ours to be any less capable.
I’ll just say “Thank you,” and move on.
Reply
December 24th, 2010 at 12:02 am
Are all linguists gay? just curious since that’s the anecdote that’s always thrown out. My only beef (beeves?) with the repeal? I’m dreading the new PowerPoint classes/training, the “history month” observances (what month are they going to get?), the going overboard the other way until everybody learns to live with it and having to learn new invectives to avoid EO complaints ;-)
Reply
December 25th, 2010 at 1:14 am
Word, Skippy.
Reply
December 25th, 2010 at 3:28 am
Skippy
That is the best defence of common sense I’ve read in a long time.
Merry Christmas
T.
Captcha: Shariah Berati – What was that about Arabic Linguists?
Reply
December 27th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Skippy, very well written. I have never served and have no desire to do so (I’ve never held a gun in my life and have a thing about people yelling at me) but I support the repeal because if someone wants to protect this country, then they should be allowed to regardless of who they choose to love.
No one should ever be outcast because of who they love.
Reply
December 27th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Hear, freaking HEAR!
Speaking as one who would desperately love to serve but is unable to (Congenital heart defect. Fucking heart murmur keeping me out), in Aus we had legislation passed in 1992 lifting a ban on gays serving openly in our defense forces.
On the same page, complaints regarding sexual orientation issues comprise less than 5% of the total complaints received by the ADF of incidents of sexual harassment, bullying, and other forms of sexual misconduct. Of 1,400 calls received by an anonymous “Advice Line” maintained by the ADF to help personnel and commanders manage potential misconduct issues since this service was initiated in August 1998, only 17 calls (1.21%) have related to sexual orientation issues.
Current debates in Australia related to the policy change are now focused on extending equal benefits to the partners of gay servicemembers, rather than on the policy itself. To the degree that harassment issues continue to exist in the ADF, most observers believe that problems faced by women soldiers are MORE serious than those faced by gay personnel.
Since 1 January 2009 same-sex couples have had the same access to military retirement pensions and superannuation as opposite-sex couples. THIS is progress. It’s just a shame that politicians can’t be as open minded as the ADF when it come to civil rights. *sigh*
Oh, and for the record (even though I don’t have to say it) I am pro rights even though I’m not that way orientated. I have way to many friends that are to be such a closed minded bigot.
Reply
December 27th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Thank you, Skippy. I could not have said it better and I do tend to be linguistically agile and forthright. But most of all I support the repeal in the honor and the memory of all the women and men who survived the intolerance for so long a time. Vietnam seems like such a long time ago, but it is still my yesterday and the very brave women I served with are still my friends and they accepted me as I am, incorrigibly hooked on testosterone. Their orientation seemed only to make them more supportive of anyone with a bent. Two of those women are the reason I survived my three year contact with some shreds of sanity left intact. (We won’t mention that it was totally insane of me to enter the military to begin with, knowing my left seeking brain – ‘Why can’t I talk back to the lieutenant? He’s wrong!!!’) But we made it. By Athena, we made it! And I’ve got a good conduct medal to prove it. BWAHAHahahahaha!
Reply
skippy reply on December 28th, 2010 8:38 pm:
So you had a bad officer tell you to do something, and discovered you were a girl that can’t say no?
Reply
AdoAnnie reply on December 28th, 2010 9:56 pm:
Oh, I’ve most always been a girl who liked saying yes, it was not having a choice in the matter that majorly pissed me off. And the arrogance of that extra chevron or scrambled egg, telling me that whether I like it or not, whether it was stupid or not, whether it was ethical or not, they were god and I most certainly was not. Rank makes assholes out of some people. It also makes them deaf, noisy and blind. I bit my tongue for 3 yrs then went and tore my recruiter a new one. It felt SO DAMN GOOD. And still got a good conduct medal, I don’t think they have a very high criteria for giving those things away. ;-)
Reply
jmireles reply on December 30th, 2010 4:51 pm:
The Good Conduct Medal is awarded simply for not getting arrested for anything. At least that’s how easy it seems to me.
December 28th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Yeah, can’t say no. Exactly.
The real pisser is that it’s been 35 yrs since I got my honorable and look how much it still gets to me that I couldn’t even laugh the first time around that you are the first and I do mean FIRST person who has ever made the connection to my screen name. I’ve been using that screen name for going on 15 yrs and somebody finally says, ‘you’re just a girl who can’t say no.” My congratulations on being a trivial pursuit genius.
Reply
December 29th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Said it far better than I ever could have. Well done, Skippy.
Reply
December 31st, 2010 at 3:26 am
Ok I hate to be the guy with the ugly opinion but I am very upset that this policy has been repealed, not because I have a problem working with gays or having them cover my arse…but because I get deployed and when I do the army tends to ignore anything I say is wrong with the living arrangement in my PCB( a hanger like building with 20-30 people living in it) that being said my issue is that if I wanted to be in a small building for a year with people having anal sex I would have robbed a bank so I could goto prison. I dont think they will attack me or anything but I do not wish to have it in my face like that. I am sure ill get statements about how that wont happen but the army doesnt give a shit if it bothers me any other time why will it now? They will not think about the fact that people will have to live in the same area until it becomes a big issue. And in the legal profession, I get information. It seems that there have already been unfortunate statements to soldiers that “they” will not get their own billeting(read “homes”).
Reply
December 31st, 2010 at 10:21 am
I’m guessing one of two things to be the case here.
In your unit people are fucking and jerking off and otherwise conducting all of their sexual business in front of each other. Which is why you are assuming that any gay soldiers you work will be doing their thing while you are in the room trying to sleep. I would suggest that if this is the case your unit has bigger problems.
Otherwise I suspect that you feel that gays are for some reason less likely to be discreet about their sex lives than everyone else is. I mean, you already have gay soldiers present. They are probably already getting it on. Now they can’t get kicked out for being gay. That’s all that changed. They didn’t get permission to have buttsex on your bunk.
Reply
January 2nd, 2011 at 3:17 pm
My deployment was a bit of a mix. Usually, folks just found private places like bunkers, and some fabled spot near the flightline I kept hearing about. Occasionally though, I’d come across something so wrong, it was worth noting. Like the time I walked past a window, and saw a pair of hand prints in the dust. Then stumbled across a used condom laying in the sand, ten yards later. I also heard about a few of the females in my unit gettin it on, while their roomies were tryin to sleep. I think it’s safe to assume that gays won’t be any different. Perhaps you should start sleeping with ear plugs in…in a bunker…near the flightline…
Reply
AdoAnnie reply on January 2nd, 2011 5:29 pm:
Had to laugh, doesn’t sound any different than when I was in 35 yrs ago. Young, healthy people pumped full of adrenalin and hormones are going to find a way to act like humans. I was fortunate enough to be stationed in an area where there were cheap hotels and cheaper hooches. Most people had enough pocket change to take it off compound, but there was the occasional tussle in the showers or the bunks. Life flourishes in the midst of war and chaos. I think that’s actually a good thing.
Reply
jmireles reply on January 4th, 2011 1:06 pm:
In the words of a SGT. I deployed with, when he found out that General Order 1A prhibited service members from drinking, having sex, and viewing porn, while in theater: “Asking soldiers to not drink and f**k is like trying to empty the ocean with a bucket.”
Reply
M578Jockey reply on January 5th, 2011 9:11 am:
Wasn’t it Patton who said that a soldier that won’t f*ck won’t fight?
Captcha: reamrods any – I guess it’s a good thing DADT has been repealed.
Susan reply on January 6th, 2011 1:57 am:
I’ve never been in the military…but I thought you weren’t supposed to give an order you know won’t be obeyed?
jmireles reply on January 6th, 2011 5:09 pm:
Eh. Some moralistic, PC, politician came up with the idea. Since we’re technically guests of the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, we were expected to abide by as many of their laws as possible. Don’t wanna offend our hosts. Now, all American service members are prohibited from consuming alcohol, viewing or possessing porn, or having sex, while we’re in theater. That means nothing but sexual frustration while in Iraq or Afghanistan. My tour went that way, but that’s because I was neither available, nor attempting to get an Industrial Strength STD. Well, I followed the no sex and no alcohol portion of the order…I suspect though they knew they couldn’t stop us in either case. They allowed us to be able to purchase our own internet service, and the PX was always well-stocked in condoms. Kind of a mixed message.
Iman Azol reply on January 7th, 2011 2:10 am:
I had a gigabyte of porn, masturbated whenever the billet was empty. Vicki’s Secret catalogs got left in the latrine all the time. A friend of mine photoed two chicks he knew having their first lesbian get-on just for me, and sent me the pics. That was almost as hot as being there, and much needed relief.
January 3rd, 2011 at 10:04 am
I’m not really a Christian anymore (when your 60-year father who’s a minister divorces your mom to hook up with a girl 39 years younger than he is because “god told him to”, you tend to lose your faith), but I’m not really into the Atheist scene yet, so here’s the closest congratulatory exclamation I can come up with:
Amen! Preach it, Brother Skippy!
Yeah, I’m in uniform, and I support the repeal of DADT. As one opposer of the repeal asked me: “what if some gay-boy is whacking off in the shower, staring at your butt?” My reply: “that’s not a homosexual act, that’s sexual harassment no matter what your orientation is, and the government still protects me against such acts.” In a similar vein of the comment made above – if you’re having sex and it’s not in a private area, that can be viewed as harassment, no matter who’s having the sex (2 guys, 2 women, or even a guy and a girl).
Reply
January 3rd, 2011 at 4:42 pm
skippy, you are full of WIN!
I never really got it either. When I was in AIT we had a couple guys who were gay, one of whom was so out even our DS would make jokes. They’ve always been there. Sparta’s military was arguably the most homosexual in history, and also the most effective and feared fighting force ever seen.
Reply
January 4th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
I thought that Skippy might want to give this some airtime, but was worried my e-mail would get caught in the spam filter. Enjoy: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/04/california.cross/index.html?iref=NS1
Dave
Reply
January 5th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
I had the vaguest form of a BLEACH reference as a compliment for Skippy…but then I realized that with all the phallic imagery, perhaps that wouldn’t be the best idea! ;)
Wonderfully written and worded, and full of the serious humor I’ve come to expect from blogs like this! Oh, and the “I support the repeal…attachment to said ass.” quote is one of my favorites now.
(Woo! I get the title!)
Reply
January 6th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Unfortunately AZ is still stuck with senators McCain and Kyl. Some things never change.
Reply
AdoAnnie reply on January 6th, 2011 8:34 pm:
Same here with Cornyn and Hutchinson. It “might cause distraction and inefficiency” as if heterosexuality doesn’t! While in South Korea I used to see the guys lined up every Monday morning for the STD clinic to get their pills and shots. Now THAT was distracting and inefficient to military operation. “Where is PFC Barns this morning?” “Clinic, sir.” “Again? That boy’s dick is going to fall off if he doesn’t take care where he sticks it!”
Reply
January 7th, 2011 at 2:12 am
Social evilty and “distraction” was cited as reason to keep blacks and women out, too.
You’d think they’d come up with a new lie.
Reply
January 7th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
i support equality for gays and women in the military, i’m just not sure if DADT is doing what i want it to do – which is to allow gays to serve openly. this is primarily a problem of not understanding how the legal interactions between the UCMJ, President Executive Orders, and the Repeal will work, not any specific issue with the idea itself.
but i suppose all in all, the actual effect is more important than the theoretical effect. if the Repeal works as a step towards gays being able to serve openly, then yay! if not, then boo.
hopefully, it’s very much YAY! i’m just reserving judgment until i see actual policy changes written up.
-bs
Reply
July 8th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
I have never had a problem with homosexuals. They’ve never had a problem with me. It just doesn’t make any difference to me. As long as your nice to me, I’m going to be the same to you. Churches say its immoral, but which is more immoral, saying someone is bad, dirty, disgraceful. Or just having a different sexual preference.
Reply
August 16th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Hallelujah, Skippy, and a resounding Amen from this Buddhist! Heck, I might send this to all my friends. But the thing is, repeal isn’t all that needs to be done.
See, repealing it is all well and good, but as it stands, a DADT-less military is a friggin’ bear trap unless a little more legislation gets passed. Obama still needs to sign an executive order adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of “things a servicemember may not be harrassed for” so that anybody who does get harassed can do something about it besides hit back. And there still needs to be equal marriage rights that will do more than just allow gays and lesbians to sign marriage certificates: things like recognizing the marriage in a legal fashion enough that two married servicemembers of any orientation will be shipping out to the same continents, and that the civilian spouse of a military gay will get the housing benefits, and the whole health/life insurance thing, and so on and so forth. But y’know, baby steps. /sarcasm
The thing is, DADT actually did allow gay people to serve in the military, so long as they hid/shunned/handwaved their gayness. Because stop and think: without DADT and without the legal protections? Say hello to the renewal of the military once again having no legal problems with questioning and harassing gay servicemembers.
Yeah. So. Lot of work still needs to be done. But repealing it is definitely, definitely a good first step in the right direction.
Reply
August 16th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
I agree Jet, the military never seems to think these things through to their logical outcome, or if they do, they wait for someone to file suit or raise Cain first. I worked as a Human Relations NCO back in the mid ’70s when women were finally allowed to stay in the military while pregnant. There was a woman on our compound (Hialeah, Pusan, S. Korea) who was pregnant and I had to go all the way up to the head HR Officer in Seoul to keep the woman’s commander from shipping her back to the states “for her own good.” She was allowed to stay and finish her tour, but as the time got closer we (6 of us women who shared a BEQ) realized, that the mother had nothing to welcome the baby (blankets, bottles, diapers, etc., very long list), but non married enlisted members were not allowed to buy baby items (we might sell them on the black-market). So we had to go all the way back up to Major HR Officer again to get special dispensation for unmarried mom to have a family code added to her PX card.
I don’t know how women in the states were handling this at the time, but there was no updated reg of any kind to cover the situation. Thirty-five years ago and I hope things have improved and I truly hope it doesn’t take that long for gender neutral family regs to be written.
Reply