Don't ask, don't tell (redux)

[Norman Bernstein]

I wonder if those who think that gays shouldn't serve in the military think any less of this guy... or the sacrifice he made while wearing the uniform, now that he's come out of the closet.





The first U.S. Marine seriously wounded in Iraq, Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, lost his leg when he stepped on a land mine, but today he and his prosthetic leg will march right into one of the most contentious battles in American politics.



Alva will stand with Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., as a bipartisan group of Congress members introduces legislation to overturn the ban on openly gay and lesbian troops serving in the military.



Alva says that losing his leg forced him out of the closet. “It made me realize everything that I had to actually speak up for,” Alva said to ABC News in an exclusive TV interview, “basically the rights and privileges of what I, as an individual, have earned in this country.”


(attribution: ABC News)

[Donn]

I don't think gays should serve in the military, and I don't think any less of Alva.

[BrianW]

Let's not forget, it was Clinton who made them lie about it.

Besides, he served honorably, what's the problem?

[Norman Bernstein]

Let's not forget, it was Clinton who made them lie about it.

I think it would be more correctly said that Clinton made the best of an inventory of only bad choices in giving men like Staff Sgt. Alva the opportunity to serve his country... which says more about Sgt. Alva, and his devotion to his country, than anything else. Clinton didn't make anyone lie (the draft was long over)... instead, he allowed gay people to decide that their devotion to country was more important than their private sexuality.

[Gresham CA]

Dont ask-Dont tell? How about this: It's none of your business-It's none of my business!

[TomF]

Dont ask-Dont tell? How about this: It's none of your business-It's none of my business!"The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

[JimD]

"The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

Trudeau, wasn't it?

[TomF]

Trudeau said it, 1971 IIRC. But the words really belong to his speechwriter of the time ... Martin O'Malley.

[BrianW]

They do, when they're state owned bedrooms, and showers.

[Ethan]

Wasn't "don't ask, don't tell" what resulted from Clinton's promise to remove the prohibition of homosexuals serving in the military?

[Norman Bernstein]

They do, when they're state owned bedrooms, and showers.

And the justification is...

1) Homosexuality is contagious?
2) Gay guys are going to have sex in the showers?

[Ethan]

Honestly, I'm not sure what the right answer is. However, I feel pretty sure that this middle of the road, tacitly agreed upon ignorance by all concerned is not the way to go. I also have a problem with the military being expected to come to resolution on this when society at large can't. What, you want us to fight your wars and be your social experiment lab?

[bamamick]

but I am assuming that if you are caught in the middle of ANY sex act while on duty, within the confines of a military facility (you get the picture), then you will suffer some sort of severe punishment regardless of whether you were doing this with someone of the same sex, the opposite sex, or even just doing it alone. The military is a business in this just like the business that I run.

I can not imagine asking a potential employee whether they are gay or not. For one thing it is not my business. For another thing it is not my business. What difference does it make? What I care about is whether this person is going to do a good job. Is respectful of the company and of the people that they work with.

So I am asking now, what is the big deal here? Did the military (which has known of gays serving in the lines since the beginning of warfare) make this a big deal, or did some sort of lobbying group make this a big deal to further an agenda?

Mickey Lake

[Norman Bernstein]

but I am assuming that if you are caught in the middle of ANY sex act while on duty, within the confines of a military facility (you get the picture), then you will suffer some sort of severe punishment regardless of whether you were doing this with someone of the same sex, the opposite sex, or even just doing it alone. The military is a business in this just like the business that I run.

I can not imagine asking a potential employee whether they are gay or not. For one thing it is not my business. For another thing it is not my business. What difference does it make? What I care about is whether this person is going to do a good job. Is respectful of the company and of the people that they work with.

So I am asking now, what is the big deal here? Did the military (which has known of gays serving in the lines since the beginning of warfare) make this a big deal, or did some sort of lobbying group make this a big deal to further an agenda?

Mickey Lake

You're right on target, Mickey... good post!

[ishmael]

What is wrong with don't ask don't tell? Seems reasonable policy to me. It shouldn't be anyone's bees wax. I suppose homosexual activists protest because the majority culture in the military(as with anywhere because 95 % of people are heterosexual) is heterosexual.

Shut up, get over it, go clean that latrine. I don't want to hear about it.

[Bruce Hooke]

The problem is that as I understand it, "don't tell" means not just don't walk up to a fellow soldier and say "hi, my name is Joe and I'm gay," it means you have to very consciously hide who you are, and if the truth slips out risk having your planned career in the military ruined.

So, you don't keep any gay-related literature around for fear that it might be discovered, you keep your mouth shut about your boyfriend when everyone else is talking about their sweetheart (and when someone tries to set you up with a date you find more ways to lie to get out of it, or you go along for the evening just to fit in), you're careful about taking part in any activities off base that might identify you as gay for fear someone might recognize you. Forget about exercising your free speech rights off base to speak up for gay rights. In other words, you lead a double life. Not a fair thing to ask someone to do.

See the thing is homosexuals are not asking for some special right. They are simply asking not to have to live a double life and constantly hide who they really are. Anyone who has a spouse or partner of the opposite sex does things in public with that partner that neither thinks twice about (holding hands, that quick peck on the mouth as you drop them off at the airport, etc.). If you are homosexual you think very hard about doing the same things and in most places you probably simply don't do them for fear that someone might attack you, either verbally or in worse ways.

[ishmael]

It would be interesting to see studies of how openly homosexual service people affected esprit de corp. Some armies have a couple decades experience with it.

Personally, I could care less. I've heard the arguments about how difficult it would be to shower with openly gay men. Horse hockey. I've showered with both men and women who weren't sexual interests, and I've known gay people who I'd trust with my back, along with gay people I wouldn't trust to dig a turnip out of the mud. It would matter not a whit to me, but I'm not typical. Interesting if our military folks weigh in some more.

[PatCox]

I've showered with gay cats.

[Norman Bernstein]

Interesting if our military folks weigh in some more.

Well, from what I've read, the argument of military guys is that 'esprit de corps' would be adversely affected...

...but if they were right about that, it could only be because they are acknowledging that some soldiers have negative opinions of gays, irrespective of whether their homosexual proclivities were acted upon while in the company of other soldiers or not.

It occurs to me that this is precisely the reason why the military was largely segregated during World War II: some soldiers simply wouldn't tolerate the idea of sleeping in the same quarters as blacks, eating mess in the same tent, sharing the same foxhole.

So, it's either a recognition of the practical realities of prejudice... or abject pandering to those prejudices.

It seems to me that if homosexuality itself isn't illegal, then denying homosexuals the right to serve in the military certainly is.... and pandering to prejudice is a despicable thing.

[Bob Smalser]

So I am asking now, what is the big deal here? Did the military (which has known of gays serving in the lines since the beginning of warfare) make this a big deal, or did some sort of lobbying group make this a big deal to further an agenda?

Mickey Lake

We always have had successful gays in the military, and everybody I knew with a service stripe or two under his belt knew it.

If they were guys we wanted standing beside us when the shooting started, and played by the rules, there was rarely a problem. The rules were what you would expect among guys in cohesive groups living close together....no sex in the barracks, no open displays of affection, and no disgracing the uniform.

And even beyond the military....when I was in a rural, conservative public grade school, we had two gay male teachers living together that everyone knew and tolerated because they played by the rules. Lived in another town, were discrete, cared about their pupils, did their jobs well, and were popular assets to the community.

The flip side is that if a soldier didn't merit that kind of trust, or didn't play by the rules, we booted him as quickly as possible so as not to contaminate others. This included anybody disrupting good order and discipline...including both homophobes and gays. Being gay may have been what the discharge paperwork said for speed and convenience, but wasn't the real reason.

Then along come the shrill gay rights groups and a string of ignorant politicians and media pundits, and we have DADT. Big deal. We always had DADT, we just didn't have interlopers messing around with how I ran my outfits. Now that I'm retired and free to speak my mind, you can all go pound sand.

Eric Alva is being medically retired and isn't in a line unit any more...the same rules don't apply. Godspeed and thankyou, Eric. I wish we could have served together, one line soldier to another.

[Norman Bernstein]

Then along come the shrill gay rights groups and a string of ignorant politicians and media pundits, and we have DADT. Big deal. We always had DADT, we just didn't have interlopers messing around with how I ran my outfits. Now that I'm retired and free to speak my mind, you can all go pound sand.

I quite honestly don't recall how it all started.... was it started by the 'shrill gay rights groups' you mentioned? Or was it started by conservative politicians looking to make it a social issue?

[Bob Smalser]

I quite honestly don't recall how it all started.... was it started by the 'shrill gay rights groups' you mentioned? Or was it started by conservative politicians looking to make it a social issue?



Is there some guilt trip that makes this military stuff you know absolutely nothing about such a big deal to you?

[Donn]

Splatter Screen Alert!!!

[Norman Bernstein]

Is there some guilt trip that makes this military stuff you know absolutely nothing about such a big deal to you?

I asked a simple straightforward question, Bob, trying to learn something. Is there some reason you have to turn this specfic thread into an attack mode? I'm trying to be civil about this, and non-confrontational. It really was an innocent question without an agenda... I was looking for your perspective.

[BrianW]

The military is a business in this just like the business that I run.

You provide barracks and community showers, then make it mandatory for your employees to live in them?

[BrianW]

I quite honestly don't recall how it all started.... was it started by the 'shrill gay rights groups' you mentioned? Or was it started by conservative politicians looking to make it a social issue?

Norman,

Allowing gays was a Clinton campaign promise. It failed. This was the best he could get.

Starting to come back now?

[BrianW]

I quite honestly don't recall how it all started.... was it started by the 'shrill gay rights groups' you mentioned? Or was it started by conservative politicians looking to make it a social issue?

Forgot the conservative part...

Why would conservatives, who already had a 'no gays at all' rule bring up the subject? Don't make sense.

A more sensible question would have been...

"Or was it started by liberal politicians looking to make it a social issue?"

[Norman Bernstein]

Forgot the conservative part...

Why would conservatives, who already had a 'no gays at all' rule bring up the subject? Don't make sense.

A more sensible question would have been...

"Or was it started by liberal politicians looking to make it a social issue?"

I asked the question because I honestly don't recall the events that precipitated the Clinton rule. I considered the 'shrill gay rights groups' to be a stand-in for the 'liberal politicians' you mention, so it was intentionally a balanced question.

I don't remember if homosexuality itself, or at least the admission of same, has always been a basis to refuse admission to the military. I imagine that there have always been gays 'in the closet' who have served... but I don't remember what precipitated Clinton's rule... whether it was an attempt to overrule a long-standing exclusion, or to head off an attempt to exclude gays by social conservatives.

Yeah, sure, I often have an agenda... but sometimes, I DO ask an innocent question, fer chrissakes!

[BrianW]

Anyhow, someone above hit the nail on the head...

Don't make the military a social experiment.

As long as the US society does not allow it's boy and girls, young men and women, and even regular adults to shower together in high school, college, or the work place, don't ask the the military to have a policy that allows that.

It's our society's stance that allowing the opposite sex to shower together causes sexual tension. Allowing openly gay people to shower with members of their own gender is exactly the same as allowing people of opposite sex to shower.

When society is ready for it, and practices it, then the military should follow suit.

Now somebody is going to come along and say I'm homophobic, or a wimp. I'd shower with gays, but even better I'd shower with women!!! Gotta change society first.

[Don Olney]

Just think, if the forum had a "Don't Cut, Don't Paste" regulation, some people around here would have already received their discharge papers.

[ishmael]

I respect what Bob said.

Who was it said something to the effect that homosexuals were once a silent minority, and now they won't shut up?

I've written about Lyle before, but he was a gay man, not openly. He was a good friend to me. He was a teacher and a good friend to hundreds of kids. He taught history well, and took kids under his wing. Straight, homosexual, he didn't care, and had no agenda other than fostering kids. He genuinely cared, and worked his heart out to live his ideas.

Nowadays he'd be under suspicion. A single man fostering young men?

While understanding the need to be on alert, I think this loss of intimacy, that had nothing to do with sex, is very tragic. Lyle Wickliffe couldn't do his very important work today.

[Phillip Allen]

I think it would be more correctly said that Clinton made the best of an inventory of only bad choices in giving men like Staff Sgt. Alva the opportunity to serve his country... which says more about Sgt. Alva, and his devotion to his country, than anything else. Clinton didn't make anyone lie (the draft was long over)... instead, he allowed gay people to decide that their devotion to country was more important than their private sexuality.


nice spin Norman...

[Flying Orca]

See the thing is homosexuals are not asking for some special right. They are simply asking not to have to live a double life and constantly hide who they really are.

This, right here, is what it's all about. Sorry your excellent post appears to have been overlooked, Bruce.

[BrianW]

They ARE looking for a special 'right.'

The right to go 180° from society's standard of not allowing opposite sexes to shower and sleep together.

You may wish to debate that standard, but don't ask the military to implement a rule that we don't ask of our local institutions.

[Flying Orca]

They ARE looking for a special 'right.'

The right to go 180° from society's standard of not allowing opposite sexes to shower and sleep together.

You may wish to debate that standard, but don't ask the military to implement a rule that we don't ask of our local institutions.

That's an illogical argument. Sex is a genetically and medically defined thing with fairly clear-cut boundaries in the vast majority of individuals. A male is a male is a male, regardless of whether he likes to get it on with females or with other males. Forcing him into the closet won't get him out of the "male" showers!

Now, if you're suggesting that gays shouldn't shower with straights, when they have done so as long as we've had showers and will continue to do so as long as they're closeted, I'd like to hear your rationale.

[Norman Bernstein]

You may wish to debate that standard, but don't ask the military to implement a rule that we don't ask of our local institutions.

Actually, I'm not aware that we DO ask it of our local institutions. I do believe there are laws that require separate bathroom facilities for men and women... but there are colleges with same-sex dorms that have unisex bathrooms and showers. ( I know that traditionalists cringe at the idea... but my daughter attended one of these schools and lived in one of these environments, and she's told me that the imaginings of wild sex by parents simply were never true).

[Flying Orca]

dorms that have unisex bathrooms and showers

I lived in one of those... and there wasn't all that much wild sex going on. Coulda used more, even. :cool:

[BrianW]

Now, if you're suggesting that gays shouldn't shower with straights, when they have done so as long as we've had showers and will continue to do so as long as they're closeted, I'd like to hear your rationale.

Simple. Attend any sexual harassment training, and you will quickly learn that sexual harassment is a 'perception' issue just as strongly as it's a physical issue.

If an openly gay man 'meat gazes' a straight man in a shower, and the straight man perceives it as sexual, then that qualifies as sexual harassment as taught by the US Dept of Defense. I know, I've sat through enough of their training sessions.

For the same reasons we don't allow men and women to shower together in the military (sexual harassment/tension) we don't allow openly gay people to shower together or with straight people.

[BrianW]

I think this is just part of their 'recruitment' campaign to get heterosexual males interested in homosexuality - "Become a homosexual and shower with women!"

Now what red-blooded hetero male could turn that down! Sign me up!

I've had the very same thought. What hetero male wouldn't tell the recruiter he was gay, if being allowed to shower with women was the result. Afraid though, that 'something may come up' in the shower eventually, and ruin the fun ride. :)

[Bruce Hooke]

We don't allow openly gay people to shower together or with straight people.

We don't? It happens every day in pool and gym locker rooms, high schools, colleges, athletic clubs, and pretty much any other place where people shower together. I have NEVER heard of anything inappropriate happening.

As to the issue of someone looking at another man in a harassing way...if it meets the standards of sexual harassment then deal with it as you would any other case of sexual harassment, but in my experience it never happens.

[BrianW]

We don't? It happens every day in pool and gym locker rooms, high schools, colleges, athletic clubs, and pretty much any other place where people shower together. I have NEVER heard of anything inappropriate happening.

You've never heard of sexual harassment in any of those places?

With the exception of the college, assuming your referring to the dorms, none of those places are 'living quarters'. Military men and women go to all those places too, and abide by the rules there. But we must remember were talking about policies which affect the members in their 'homes.'

In fact, even the college is voluntary.


As to the issue of someone looking at another man in a harassing way...if it meets the standards of sexual harassment then deal with it as you would any other case of sexual harassment

That's what the military needs, a huge case load of sexual harassment in order to satisfy a small percentage of the populations sexual preference.

[Bruce Hooke]

You've never heard of sexual harassment in any of those places?

I've never heard of male-male or female-female sexual harassment happening in any of those places. Maybe I've just missed it, but it certainly does not seem to be common.


That's what the military needs, a huge case load of sexual harassment in order to satisfy a small percentage of the populations sexual preference.

If huge numbers of male-male or female-female sexual harassment cases arose because people were allowed to be open about their sexuality I'd be VERY surprised. It certainly does not seem to be happening in the general population outside the military.

Keep in mind that even before "don't ask, don't tell" plenty of homosexuals were using those showers at the military. The only difference is that the other people in the shower did not know that Joe over there is gay. If anything, knowing that Joe is gay would reduce the chances of Joe engaging in inappropriate looking because those who are concerned about that sort of thing would undoubtedly keep a closer eye on him, at least for the first month or so until they realized there really was nothing to be worried about.

P.S., When I talked about colleges I was mostly thinking of locker rooms. The colleges I am familiar with do not have shared showers in the dorms. However, it seems to me that if there is anywhere we should be worried about it is high schools, which do often have shared showers and which are pretty nearly required and thus pretty similar to our homes. If anyone is going to be hurt by sexual harassment it is young men and women who are still developing into adults and not yet as confident about themselves as adults are. However, I have never heard of a case of male-male or female-female sexual harassment in a high school locker room that involved a gay man or women looking at or otherwise interacting with someone else of the same sex in an inappropriate way.

[Donn]

..Joe is gay..

:D :D

[Paul Pless]

Joe is gay

I think Joe is going to be very surprised to hear of this.:p
sometimes being sophomoric is oh so much fun

[BrianW]

What military's need is to get over their hyper macho sense of self importance.

I wasn't aware the Canadian military had that problem.

[Donn]

What military's need is to get over their hyper macho sense of self importance.


I agree. We have no need for a macho military. We need sensitive and caring folks, able to relate to the needs of others, while methodically killing the enemy.:rolleyes:

[BrianW]

Keep in mind that even before "don't ask, don't tell" plenty of homosexuals were using those showers at the military. The only difference is that the other people in the shower did not know that Joe over there is gay.

A huge difference, especially given the newer sexual harassment policies.


If anything, knowing that Joe is gay would reduce the chances of Joe engaging in inappropriate looking because those who are concerned about that sort of thing would undoubtedly keep a closer eye on him,

That is a good thing which which party?


at least for the first month or so until they realized there really was nothing to be worried about.

Just how often do you think new people transfer in and out of a military unit? Thinking in civilian terms, and applying that thought process into the military is not appropriate.


P.S., When I talked about colleges I was mostly thinking of locker rooms. The colleges I am familiar with do not have shared showers in the dorms.

They were popular when I was in the Army.


If anyone is going to be hurt by sexual harassment it is young men and women who are still developing into adults and not yet as confident about themselves as adults are.

Like say, the average new recruit?

Well, if we've hammered the shower scene enough, should we move onto sleeping arraignments? :)

[ishmael]

Well, a complex topic, full of emotion. Sexual harassment has become so broadly defined as to become meaningless. To me, if someone is using a position of power to intimidate you into sex, that's sexual harassment. The native play of sex, whether hetero or homo, should be left alone to play itself out. Get to the point where you can't say no or you'll lose your job, or lose promotion, you've got a case for harassment. And it's not cut and dried, but it's much more cut and dried than what we are pretending now. Making a pass at a co-worker, or a fellow rating, is not reason for the lawyers. Sometimes a good slap in the face, or kick in the balls, would settle these matters more cleanly.

P.S. Oh, we're talking about homosexuals. I think because from the time I was wee I've been around homosexual men, the issue is kinda a non issue for me. They were just like everyone else. When I was twelve or thirteen I spent many hours with Lyle. He, as part of his wing, taught me how to paint houses, my first real paying job, and he used his pull to get me work with the school board summers from college. We also spent weekends at his cabin. People knew he was homosexual, but there was no thought of anything untoward happening. A delightful, erudite, man. People knew he was an honorable man. My parents knew him, trusted him, with good reason. He knew I was interested in girls, encouraged it as well as he could.

The fear is a phobia.But, to be honest the current homosexual culture does encourage it. The current culture of sex encourages this.

[Bruce Hooke]

A huge difference, especially given the newer sexual harassment policies.

How is it a huge difference? How would knowing that Joe is gay make Joe more likely to engage in sexual harassment? All it does is make people who are absurdly scared of Joe engaging in sexual harassment uncomfortable. However, our goal here should not be to coddle people's absurd prejudices.


That is a good thing which which party?

I agree that it our generic "Joe" might not like it, but I've never heard gays give this as a reason for not allowing openly gay people to serve in the military. In think the reason is that they know that after the first month (see below) everyone would realize the whole thing is a non-issue.


Just how often do you think new people transfer in and out of a military unit? Thinking in civilian terms, and applying that thought process into the military is not appropriate.

Point taken regarding the rate of transfers. However, I think we can easily modify what I said to address this. After a month or two of showering with people who they knew were openly gay (even if it is not the same person) I think everyone would realize that it is a non-issue.


They were popular when I was in the Army.

I understand. I should have qualified what I said to indicate that I was talking about non-military colleges. I'm not hiding the fact that group showers at one's "home" are not common outside the military. However, I stick to my point that if high school locker rooms should be a much bigger concern, if there were actually something to be concerned about.


Like say, the average new recruit?

I certainly hope your average new recruit is a bit more mature than your average high schools freshman. Furthermore, but the time that new recruit gets to boot camp he presumably will have finished high school and showered hundreds of times with people who were gay, and given where things stand now, likely people who are openly gay.


Well, if we've hammered the shower scene enough, should we move onto sleeping arraignments? :)

Why, as far as I can tell you are getting nowhere with arguing the shower issue. How do you think you are going to do better with sleeping arrangements where, it should be noted, group bunk rooms are even more common in general society than are group showers.

If anything I think we should drop the whole discussion because I think we've beaten it into the ground. I'm not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. We've presented the arguments and anyone who is on the fence can make up their mind.

[ccmanuals]

Believe it or not, the don't ask don't tell, really did make an impact. The difference is that prior to this policy the military could "ask" and if they suspected someone was gay they asked in a "vigorous" fashion. To openly allow gays in the military could be a long way off because of the tradition and culture of the military but It will happen some day. If you recall it took the military many years to accept equality between whites and blacks and male and females.

[ishmael]

When I was a BMO my clerk was as flitty as Tinkerbell. He was the bitch of a very big Infantry Captain who happened to be a ring knocker. Both the clerk and the Captain were damn good guys with a solid work ethic. No problem serving with either of them. The only people who busted on them were the 18 year old mechanics fresh out of high school. Poor clerk died of AIDS. He was a very humorous guy from NYC. Never heard if the Captain contracted AIDS.

That's very cleanly written C223. I like it.

[Bob Smalser]

...Is there some guilt trip that makes this military stuff you know absolutely nothing about such a big deal to you?


... Is there some reason you have to turn this specific thread into an attack mode? I'm trying to be civil about this, and non-confrontational. It really was an innocent question without an agenda... I was looking for your perspective.

Well shucks, I'm just giving you a taste of your own stereotyping, is all. Thought we were all homophobes? Grow thicker skin.

I can't otherwise figure out what your interest is in posting every single thing negative you can find about the military. Hell, there are two threads of yours today alone.

You were so obtuse in your defense of the Kerry-Rangel, military-as-societal-dregs argument in the face of such overwhelming facts otherwise, how could you possibly expect that I wouldn't expect either propaganda or pathological motives?

[BrianW]

However, our goal here should not be to coddle people's absurd prejudices.

Nor should it be to impose a standard not accepted in society on our military.



If anything I think we should drop the whole discussion because I think we've beaten it into the ground. I'm not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. We've presented the arguments and anyone who is on the fence can make up their mind.

Agreed, but I must point out, most who have actually served have voiced an opinion different from those who have not.

[Nicholas Carey]

I quite honestly don't recall how it all started.... was it started by the 'shrill gay rights groups' you mentioned? Or was it started by conservative politicians looking to make it a social issue?"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was the ultimate outcome of Clinton's misbegotten attempt to integrate gays in the armfed forces as pretty much the very first thing he did as president. It raised a firestorm of protest from the congress and the joint chiefs of staff. Clinton finally backed down and DA/DT was the result.

I don't think he understood how to work Washington yet. It took that, the Hillary/Healthcare debacle and a severe spanking in the '94 midterms to get him to figger it out.

What he should have done is probably not bring up the gays in the military deal until he was well established in the office and had street cred. Failing that, he should have felt out the joint chiefs and the congress, sotto voce as it were, and cut a deal on the issue.

But having thrown down like he did on the issue, he really should have had the guts to face down the congress and the joint chiefs, canning any officers -- including the joint chiefs -- that couldn't or wouldn't carry out the orders.

That would have established his street cred. Backing down like he did dug him a huge hole politically. It took him until late in his 1st term to dig his way out of it.

A few court-martials of extreme homophobes would probably have been necessary as well (I believe they did court-martial a few guys during the fracas for publicly bad-mouthing the president).

[Nicholas Carey]

If you recall it took the military many years to accept equality between whites and blacks and male and females.Actually that's not true. The military spend quite a while feazing about it (from 1938 onwards, I believe).

Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981 on 26 July 1948:
WHEREAS it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense:

NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.this executive order also established the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services (the Fahey Committee). This commitee was tasked with figuring out how to carry the President's order out. Their work was done and the committee disbanded by Truman (against the wishes of the Committee members, BTW) in July 1950 -- just two years later.

By October 1953, 95% of black soldiers were serving in integrated units.

That's just 5 years.

For an institution as large as the US military, that's pretty darn quick to accomplish that kind of a social change. And yes, the military whined, but for the most part, they did what they were told.

[Bob Smalser]

For an institution as large as the US military, that's pretty darn quick to accomplish that kind of a social change. And yes, the military whined, but for the most part, they did what they were told.


Yup.

And that kind of ill-advised haste gave us Abu Graib just recently.

Do you have any idea how BG Karpinsky got promoted to her level of incompetence?

[George Roberts]

I agree with BrianW.

You do not require/allow people to shower with those who have a sexual intent toward them.

Straight men shower with straight men. (note the use of the plural.)
Straight women shower with straight women.

A gay man showers with a gay woman. (Note the use of the singular.)

[Bruce Hooke]

Nor should it be to impose a standard not accepted in society on our military.

Except that as I have been pointing out over and over again, there are LOTS of cases in civilian society where we do accept openly gay men showering with straight men, the easiest example being high school locker rooms, which, while not our home is a place where people are pretty much required to be.


Agreed, but I must point out, most who have actually served have voiced an opinion different from those who have not.

That is certainly true, and some deference is certainly due to the people who are actually there doing the job, but not total deference, especially when it comes to a matter of civil rights.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Nor should it be to impose a standard not accepted in society on our military.


I guess this is the point all right.... American society is not very accepting of difference... gays being just one example.

Oh well. Gays are free to marry and be in the military too ... in my country.:)

[ljb5]

Gosh, what a silly argument.

We're talking about people who are expected to be willing to fight and die on command.

Many of these people will lose limbs or be killed.

Compared to that, taking a shower with a gay man is not much of a burden.

[BrianW]

Oh great, another 'I never served' member giving their opinion.

[ljb5]

If the very worst thing they ever experience in the Army is a sideways glance from a gay man, they will be very lucky --- and we'll all be much better off for it.

What difference does it make if I served or not?

You don't have to be a five star general to know that military service often requires people to be put into uncomfortable situations. Being in a room with a naked gay man ain't nowhere near as dangerous as being on foot patrol in enemy territory.

[BrianW]

What difference does it make if I served or not?

The mantra of those who have not served. :)

[rbhawk]

Perhaps for those so concerned about being seen naked by a gay serviceman, the military could issue them a loincloth to be used while showering. A Crotch Burkha, so to speak.

[Norman Bernstein]

Oh great, another 'I never served' member giving their opinion.

I wasn't aware that people who didn't happen to serve in the military aren't permitted to express an opinion about the issue.

Thank you for setting me straight. From now on, I'll automatically presume that whatever you and Bob Smalser have to say on a related subject is equivalent to words from God, and I'll never make another comment about a military issue again....

...and you think you're patriots, don't ya.

[ccmanuals]

For an institution as large as the US military, that's pretty darn quick to accomplish that kind of a social change. And yes, the military whined, but for the most part, they did what they were told.

Nicolas, we saw real segration in the military between Blacks and Whites starting with the Civil War and through WWI and WWII. It took Harry Truman to sign a law saying stop. Not sure how that comes out to be "quick"?

[Bruce Hooke]

I think the quick part was the elapsed time between when the order to desegregate was made the time it was reasonably complete. Given how long it took to desegregate the public schools, and much later that happened, I think the military does deserve compliments on this point. I also don't think we can really blame the military for all the years it was not segregated, or at least the military does not deserve any more blame than the rest of society, which was also largely segregated during that time.

[paladin]

Whyizzitt?...........I went into the Air Farce...er...Force......made it through basic and skool and first extended overseas isolated assignment...came back to conus.......an E-3 and an E-6 were "caught" in the act......E-3 gets canned....E-6 loses no rank and gets reassigned (1964)........
Fast forward...(1978)......Iceland...Navy Lt. (female) lives next door to me in the BOQ.....Has a live in E-4 (female) and the relationship is well known on the base.....time to rotate.....Lt. gets assignment to Puerto Rico, E-4 gets canned.......
These are just a couple out of a half dozen or so instances that I am aware of.....Howcome senior staff dunno get canned?....

[ishmael]

Back to homosexuals in the military. When I had a sauna(Gawd I wish I had a sauna again, it was great. Wood fired, hard by a brook.) the neighbors moved away for a bit and had to rent their house. They rented it to a gay couple. I, being neighborly, invited them over one night when I had the sauna going. We all got buck ass naked together. No one had an issue with it. Did they look at me, and me at them? Of course. We don't see our fellows stripped to their birthday suits very often. Did they admire me, lust for me? Oh, I kinda hope so, it's good to feel attractive.

I know it's more complex when you're dealing with 18 year olds, but com'on folks, we can be adults. Maybe it's the Scandinavian influence in NE, but people don't get all worked about mixed nudity around here.

[LeeG]

Yup.

And that kind of ill-advised haste gave us Abu Graib just recently.

Do you have any idea how BG Karpinsky got promoted to her level of incompetence?


Do you think a competant commander would have made the difference given the flood of prisoners, some unscreened and the multiple groups running interrogations screwing up command of the prison?

Seems to me her appointment illustrates the lack of priority given to a post invasion environment where the prisons were emptied five months before by Saddam.

I'm guessing you are saying she got preferential treatment and gamed the system to her professional advantage, which is my understanding. But putting Abu Ghraib all on her is pushing the argument, someone thought she was good enough just as someone thought hiring 20yr old AEI interns to develop reconstruction policy made sense. Weak links will break first but if the chain is not big enough to begin with then the argument is moot.

[BrianW]

I wasn't aware that people who didn't happen to serve in the military aren't permitted to express an opinion about the issue.

Show me were I said they had no right to comment.


Thank you for setting me straight.

Not a problem, but I doubt you've changed your mind.


From now on, I'll automatically presume that whatever you and Bob Smalser have to say on a related subject is equivalent to words from God, and I'll never make another comment about a military issue again....

I smell Bre'r Rabbit.


...and you think you're patriots, don't ya.

More than you, less than many.

[John of Phoenix]

I served with a few gays over the years and knew it only once. Never had a problem.

I served with a couple of pothead pilots over the years and we got them grounded till their hitches were up and out they went.

I served with a few hot blooded women and had nothing but trouble. Fun while it lasted though. ;)

When it's all said and done, gays and women should have the unmitigated right to kill and be killed just like any other red blooded American willing to put up with the US military.

[ljb5]

Oh great, another 'I never served' member giving their opinion.

Okay, Brian -- I'll yield to your authority on the subject.

Since you're such a great expert, you should easily be able to answer a simple question:


Which exposes the troops to greater danger and hardship? Going on patrol without sufficient training, body armor or supplies in an urban warzone where the enemy cannot be distinguished from the local population. Taking a shower with a man who has volunteered to serve his country and does so honorably and capably and may have some homosexual tendencies

A person doesn't have to serve in the army to know the difference between an IED and a lustful glance.

[Tylerdurden]

I served with gays in the Navy and everyone knew it on my ship.
The problem I had was that they had to form a clique to look out for one another. The total rednecks found out real quick not to mess with them or they had problems.(Screwed up paycheck or bad travel orders etc.)
I would have prefer that it wasn't an issue because it could have prevented a lot of tension.
We were all there to fight the ship and what someone wants to do in their free time is none of my business. The homophobes created most of the problems and it was funny that the Master Chief who created most of the misery was caught with a chicken boy in San Juan. Seems like that most everywhere in society that the homophobes are just so repressed that they have to strike out.

"it ain't nobody's business if you do" Good motto for all the busy bodies to get a grip on.

[Tylerdurden]

I don't think gays should serve in the military, and I don't think any less of Alva.

Still a little confused about your feelings Donn? Its okay.
I understand coming out can be hard on a marriage.
We won't say a thing.