Reply With Quote
As an active duty soldier (USAF), I have no problem with this. I've known people that were gay in the military, closeted and 'semi'-open. There's no reason to think that a gay soldier will be any less professional than a straight one.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008...ask-dont-tell/
Military Veterans Push for Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
President-elect Barack Obama faces a political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration
AP
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The move by the military veterans confronts the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama with a thorny political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration.
"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.
While Obama has expressed support for repeal, he said during the presidential campaign that he would not do so on his own -- an indication that he would tread carefully to prevent the issue from becoming a drag on his agenda. Obama said he would instead work with military leaders to build consensus on removing the ban on openly gay service members.
"Although I have consistently said I would repeal 'don't ask, don't tell,' I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be," Obama said in a September interview with the Philadelphia Gay News.
Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama's transition team, declined comment.
The issue of gays in the military became a flash point early in the Clinton administration as Clinton tried to fulfill a campaign promise to end the military's ban on gays. His efforts created the current compromise policy -- ending the ban but prohibiting active-duty service members from openly acknowledging they are gay.
But it came at a political cost. The resulting debate divided service members and veterans, put Democrats on the defensive and provided cannon fodder for social conservatives and Republican critics who questioned Clinton's patriotism and standing with the military.
Retired Adm. Charles Larson, a four-star admiral and two-time superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy who signed the statement with 104 other retired admirals and generals, said in an interview that he believed Clinton's approach was flawed because he rushed to change military culture.
Larson said he hoped Obama would take more time to work with the Pentagon. Joining Larson among the signatories was Clifford Alexander, Army secretary under former President Jimmy Carter.
"There are a lot of issues they'll have to work out, and I think they'll have to prioritize," Larson said, noting that the new administration will immediately face combat-readiness issues and budget concerns. "But I hope this would be one of the priority issues in the personnel area."
The list of 104 former officers who signed the statement appears to signal growing support for resolving the status of gays in the military. Last year, 28 former generals and admirals signed a similar statement.
Larson, who has a gay daughter he says has broadened his thinking on the subject, believes a generational shift in at udes toward sexuality has created a climate where a repeal is not only workable, but also an important step for keeping talented personnel in the military.
"I know a lot of young people now -- even people in the area of having commands of ships and squadrons -- and they are much more tolerant, and they believe, as I do, that we have enough regulations on the books to enforce proper standards of human behavior," Larson said.
The officers' statement points to data showing there are about 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States, and about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military.
The military discharged about 12,340 people between 1994 and 2007 for violating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a military watchdog group. The number peaked in 2001 at 1,273, but began dropping off sharply after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Last year, 627 military personnel were discharged under the policy.
Political observers say that even though the issue may not be as controversial as it was when Clinton addressed it, it's impossible to forget what happened then.
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said Obama is unlikely to tackle the issue early on. Sabato said he expects Obama to focus on economic recovery and avoid risking the spark of a distracting "brush fire" controversy at the outset.
"I can't imagine that he will do this right in the beginning, given the Clinton precedent," Sabato said.
Aaron Belkin, who has studied the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as director of the Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara and organized the officers' statement, said how Obama addresses the issue will be the first test for the new president on gay rights.
"Everyone is going to be interested to see how he responds," Belkin said.
Where is Xray on this?
As an active duty soldier (USAF), I have no problem with this. I've known people that were gay in the military, closeted and 'semi'-open. There's no reason to think that a gay soldier will be any less professional than a straight one.
But they might be thinking of you when they have those evil and deviant homsexual thoughts... If gay marriage is as big a threat threat to heterosexual marriage, can you fathom what gayness will do to the military?
I shudder at the thought of gay bars on military bases..
I think the policy is a huge slap in the face to those members of our armed forces who are sexual and willing to put their life on the line regardless of how crappy their country treats them.
My hubby says the same thing. He's worked with several closeted gay airmen and has never had any incidents in which any of them have been less hard-working or professional than their straight counterparts.
I only wish those of you advocating allowing gays to openly serve would closely look at the pros and cons. I would agree they should be ably to serve if you can find a way to mitigate the problems.
Such as?
Bigots serving who would actively torment open gays?
So, it is better that military persons be discharged for being open about their sexuality than expelling those who display bigotry and violence against their fellow soldiers?
That is a pretty good one.
Thus, the "Dont Ask, Dont Tell" policy in a nuts .
Yay, maintenance of the status quo. Always popular and always viable. And rarely right.
I agree this approach is better, but for those of you who have served, you do remember the mentality of 17-22 year old males being taught to kill, right? Not exactly the most understanding and compassionate group.
We don't shelter minority soldiers from racism or female soldiers from sexism. Those issues are dealt with whenever it's necessary. I don't think purging anti-gay sentiment within the Military is a prerequisite to allowing gays to serve openly.
I agree. I just think it will be quite the culture shock to the system and the number of problems will be high at first.
Well, of course it isn't possible to purge the sentiment. No thought-police yet exist. However, outward actions ARE dealt with and that is all that can be expected.
I never said it was right or that it should stay the same. But take lakaluva for example. Bull or not, guy said him and his boys were going to have some "friendly fire" victims (or some such) in the Prop 8 thread.
Reality is far stranger than fiction.
There is usually a settling-in time with any change, but part of being an adult is enduring growing pains. When future Americans look back on what is hopefully our last major civil rights struggle, I wonder if they'll be able to put things into perspective. I admit I can't quite fathom the logic to gay opposition these days.
In a society that is devaluing marriage more and more each day - to the point where celebrities have publicity marriages - there is a group of people who revere the practice so much that they want to commit themselves to it, and who would doubtless value it more than those who now take it for granted. Yet, those who would claim to hold the highest piety on the topic are those most violently opposed to exclusion.
In a point in time when the public trust in the use of military personnel has driven recruitment numbers to near-dangerous levels and forced the lowering of admittance standards, there is a group of people who wish to openly declare their patriotism and serve their country to the best of their ability. Yet they are scorned most by those who claim loudest that defense is the the country's number one priority.
Tolkien couldn't follow this plot.
Exactly what I was thinking. My career field was a combat, male only career field. Different mentality from the rest of the Air Force, and I could totally see that sort of thing happening.
I got in lakaluva ass for that comment as well in that thread. Made me sick just to think of someone doing something like that in that situation. Some people are just pieces of .
lakaluva is a troll who says whatever gets the biggest reaction. The amount of investigation that goes into friendly fire is intensive, and while it may not all get out for public consumption, military courts have a lot more teeth than civilian courts and they would not take such actions lightly. Casualties may well happen and they would be tragic, but there's no reason to believe they'd be widespread. At any rate, if the gay soldiers willing to serve are ready to take that chance, then who are we to nanny them?
I understand that it is difficult and that the existing American Military culture is likely not comprised of the "compassionate and tolerant" in large numbers.
But, you have to draw the line at SOME point in time. If you have ever been to the Prairie Provinces in Canada, you would realize that it's not generally a bastion of open-mindedness and gay-tolerance, but Canada's military seems to be doing okay with its "open-sexuality" policy.
Otherwise you enable the culture to continue and stay just as ingrained.
And for lakaluva - either he likes exaggerative trolling, or he is one ed up little mind.
I think you guys are not giving our servicemen and women enough credit. Seriously, the whole "we're protecting you from yourself" schtick going on in this thread would really insult me if I were a member of the service.
Well, if I am not mistaken, from reading the threads, a fair number of the posters are ex-military.
Bingo.
So basicaly you want to protect people who will be discriminated against, or potentially harmed for being gay, that's noble of you. But what over rules your desire for protection is their desire for acknowledgement.
To choose what's right for these people shouldn't be your place, especially when others receive and are able to obtain what they desire. They are accustomed to persecution and incidences of extreme violence, the more commonplace their lifestyle is accepted, the more these incidents will decrease.
The only 2 posters tied directly to the military in this thread both said they'd like to see the policy repealed or that their loved ones expressed that feeling. You can bring up that troll lakaluva, but I"m not taking him seriously for one second.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
