Obama Signs DADT Repeal: A Tribute to GOP Senators & Reps

[mugaliens]

Members of the military don't have the same civil rights as civilians...

This is a highly popularized myth, as often repeated inside military channels as it is on the outside. However, it is not true, and all our enumerated rights have been upheld for members in the military, including freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable search and seizure. There are limits, yes, but they're the largely the same as exist when working for a civilian company. If you badmouth the company, you're subject to termination. Same as in the military, with the only twist being if you have an active duty service commitment, they can impose various non-judicial punishments, including confinement to base and forfeiture of pay, until your commitment has finished.

As for revealing secrets, in the civilian world it's simply called "violation of a non-disclosure agreement" or "corporate espionage," either of which can subject you to effects ranging from being on the receiving end of a lawsuit, to violations of various federal laws the results of which can land you in prison.

So, same rights, just different mechanisms in place to protect the rights of the military member, as well as different to which they're subject and must adhere if they'd like to keep their rights. No rights are absolutely, however, neither for members of the military or civilians.

I'm ambivalent about the issue in general: On the one hand, it's good for gays who want to serve in the military, which is nice, but not the point of the military. It also is good because it removes a political hotbutton issue for some people to criticize the US/the military with. On the other hand, it creates some challenging morale/discipline situations, which may even result in it not changing anything for some gays (some still may feel it important to hide their sexuality, regardless of if the law says they don't have to).

It'll take another generation or two before it's a non-issue, just as some segregation issues were still hot buttons back when I joined in the 80s, and as harrassment of females still remains an issue, most notably in the service academies.

 

[Gokul43201]

I remember when Clinton started his Presidency with this - everyone seemed to scratch their heads and wonder what he was doing.

So you even oppose Clinton's move to allow gays to serve at all (under an additional set of restrictive conditions)? If not for that, the US would find itself in the company of the following list of countries who do not allow gays to serve in the military:

• Antigua and Barbuda
• Bangladesh
• Barbados
• Belarus
• Belize
• Botswana
• Brunei
• Cameroon
• Cuba
• Cyprus
• Dominica
• Egypt
• Fiji
• Ghana
• Grenada
• Guyana
• Iran
• Kenya
• Kiribati
• Jamaica
• Lesotho
• Malawi
• Malaysia
• Maldives
• Mozambique
• Namibia
• Nauru
• Nigeria
• North Korea
• Pakistan
• Papua New Guinea
• Saudi Arabia
• Seychelles
• Sierra Leone
• Singapore
• Solomon Islands
• South Korea
• Sri Lanka
• St. Kitts and Nevis
• St. Lucia
• St. Vincent and the Grenadines
• Swaziland
• Syria
• Tanzania
• Tonga
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Tuvalu
• Uganda
• Vanuatu
• Venezuela
• Yemen
• Zambia
• Zimbabwe

 

[WhoWee]

So you are of the opinion that this is a political game driven by Congress (even those members of the Republican Party that voted for the repeal). So, let me rephrase my question: is there anything this Congress has done, that is not, in your opinion, a political game? A simple yes or no would do. (I'll ignore the fact that this repeal has been driven by the administration right from day 1).

Please! It is you that has any desire to paint this as a political game, so don't even try to make this look like I'm leading you on. Any SPECIFIC game you want to talk about - and in this case, one that is off-topic - is entirely of your choosing

Alternatively, you could look at the opposition talking about the expiration of the tax cuts as Obama's tax raise, until of course, the extension passed, and then there was no desire to call them Obama's tax cuts. Cuts both ways. Irrelevant to the thread either way. I can name other things the administration has done that I'd call a game, but that's irrelevant to the question.

Gokul - you asked me an off topic question and I responded. If you have a personal issue with me, please PM or report my response. Otherwise, I'd like to get back on topic.


original quote by Al68
"Interestingly, Barney Frank pointed out that the only difference is that heterosexuals will now have the advantage of knowing which of their potential shower-mates are gay. Now that took me by surprise, coming from him.

But what's bewildering is that Barney Frank, in the same interview, claims that it would be too disruptive to the military to allow men and women to shower together. Why? What would be disruptive about that? "

I really don't think this has ever been about sexual activity. It sounds as though Barney is just pointing out - the same thing. If the attraction wasn't already present, the acknowledgment of preferences isn't going to make any difference.

 

[WhoWee]

So you even oppose Clinton's move to allow gays to serve at all (under an additional set of restrictive conditions)? If not for that, the US would find itself in the company of the following list of countries who do not allow gays to serve in the military:

• Antigua and Barbuda
• Bangladesh
• Barbados
• Belarus
• Belize
• Botswana
• Brunei
• Cameroon
• Cuba
• Cyprus
• Dominica
• Egypt
• Fiji
• Ghana
• Grenada
• Guyana
• Iran
• Kenya
• Kiribati
• Jamaica
• Lesotho
• Malawi
• Malaysia
• Maldives
• Mozambique
• Namibia
• Nauru
• Nigeria
• North Korea
• Pakistan
• Papua New Guinea
• Saudi Arabia
• Seychelles
• Sierra Leone
• Singapore
• Solomon Islands
• South Korea
• Sri Lanka
• St. Kitts and Nevis
• St. Lucia
• St. Vincent and the Grenadines
• Swaziland
• Syria
• Tanzania
• Tonga
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Tuvalu
• Uganda
• Vanuatu
• Venezuela
• Yemen
• Zambia
• Zimbabwe

As I recall, this was the FIRST item Clinton addressed in his Presidency. THAT was why people scratched their heads - not the policy itself.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul - you asked me an off topic question and I responded.

Yes, I admit I asked you a seemingly off-topic question. But you responded to an even more off-topic question - one that I never asked. Nevertheless, I'm willing to accept responsibility for the digression, and am happy to drop the issue.

 

[drankin]

That's fine. My point is that there are already procedures in place to deal with these things. Unless you're expressing the opinion that gay men have no self control whatsoever, and if allowed to serve openly, will just spend the whole time having sex and not doing their job.

I'm sure there will be cases, but it won't be the major problem you make it out to be.

I'm expressing that young MEN, regardless of sexual preference, have issues with self control when combining hormones/adrenaline in a close combat environment and mixing in people they are sexually attracted to. LOL, throw a few women into a place like the Restrepo outpost and a new level of drama would be had. Why wouldn't it be the same with openly gay men? Men are men.

 

[drankin]

And I acknowledge that other countries already have this dynamic in their armed services. I just hadn't thought through it until now.

 

[Proton Soup]

Showering together (gay or not) is famously traumatic for kids, but I've never heard of any discussion of introducing a gay/stright element -- probably because few teenage boys know if they are gay!

where did you get that idea?

 

[Perspicacity]

I think in the line of fire, a person really doesn't care whether his or her partner is a homosexual or a heterosexual, they just want someone who will stand by them until the end really or someone who has their back.

You're wrong. People under fire really do care, which is why the negative response by actual combat troops was basically double that of the military as a whole.

http://www.stripes.com/news/opponents-seize-on-combat-troops-concerns-about-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-repeal-1.127146"

 

[NobodySpecial]

You're wrong. People under fire really do care, which is why the negative response by actual combat troops was basically double that of the military as a whole

It would be interesting to know what proportion of white troops in WWII objected to serving with blacks.

 

[Perspicacity]

It would be interesting to know what proportion of white troops in WWII objected to serving with blacks.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with gay troops serving openly, I just don't think that we should all pretend that it isn't going to matter. I think overall it won't really affect our war-fighting capabilities, but a small unit in a combat branch is a particularly unwelcoming place for someone who doesn't fit the group dynamic. I encountered it myself, being the lone atheist in a squad of born-again Christians. I was never able to fully trust a good number of my comrades, and I'm sure many gay soldiers will have the same problem.

Which is why if I knew any gay men who wanted to join the military in a combat field, I'd ask him how particularly brave he's feeling.

Oh and as an answer to your question, I believe it was much greater. While I was looking for a source for my last post, I ran across a few blogs that commented on this, but as they weren't mainstream sources, I won't link them here.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Kenneth C. Royall, Secretary of the Army at the time:

"Specifically the Army is not an instrument for social evolution. It is not the Army’s job either to favor or to impede the social doctrines, no matter how progressive they may be"

"In war it is even more important that they have confidence both in their leaders and in the men that are to fight by their sides. Effective comradeship in battle calls for a warm and close personal relationship within a unit…

In this connection we must remember that a large part of the volunteers in the Army are Southerners – usually a larger proportion than from any other part of the country. Whether properly or not, it is a well known fact that close personal association with Negroes is distasteful to large percentage of Southern whites."

"and unwise from the standpoint of national defense – to require any substantial proportion of white soldiers to serve under Negro officers or particularly under Negro non-commissioned officers."

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/documents/pdf/4-17.pdf

I wonder how they feel about a black commander in chief.

 

[mheslep]

This is a highly popularized myth, as often repeated inside military channels as it is on the outside. However, it is not true, and all our enumerated rights have been upheld for members in the military, including freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable search and seizure. There are limits, yes, but they're the largely the same as exist when working for a civilian company. If you badmouth the company, you're subject to termination. Same as in the military, with the only twist being if you have an active duty service commitment, they can impose various non-judicial punishments, including confinement to base and forfeiture of pay, until your commitment has finished.

Which is very clearly not the same set of civil protections enjoyed by civilians. Russ is correct. In the military, not only is one subject to termination, one also can be compelled by force to cease and desist from, for example, wearing a **** Obama/Bush/Clinton t-shirt under certain circumstances. http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/army_bloggers" , and mail going to and fro has been censored forever; none of that kind of blanket speech interference is permissible in the civilian world. Armed services members have protection under the UCMJ which differs from civilian law.

 

[drankin]

Kenneth C. Royall, Secretary of the Army at the time:

"Specifically the Army is not an instrument for social evolution. It is not the Army’s job either to favor or to impede the social doctrines, no matter how progressive they may be"

"In war it is even more important that they have confidence both in their leaders and in the men that are to fight by their sides. Effective comradeship in battle calls for a warm and close personal relationship within a unit…

In this connection we must remember that a large part of the volunteers in the Army are Southerners – usually a larger proportion than from any other part of the country. Whether properly or not, it is a well known fact that close personal association with Negroes is distasteful to large percentage of Southern whites."

"and unwise from the standpoint of national defense – to require any substantial proportion of white soldiers to serve under Negro officers or particularly under Negro non-commissioned officers."

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/documents/pdf/4-17.pdf

I wonder how they feel about a black commander in chief.

But, now we are talking about something that isn't about race. Doesn't matter what your skin color is. Blacks, for example, tend to be more anti-gay than whites, IMO based on the vote in California.

It's not the same thing. Sexual preference crosses all racial differences. It's not comparable.

 

[NobodySpecial]

But, now we are talking about something that isn't about race. Doesn't matter what your skin color is. Blacks, for example, tend to be more anti-gay than whites, IMO based on the vote in California.

It's not the same thing. Sexual preference crosses all racial differences. It's not comparable.

It's exactly the same.

I'm not racist - BUT we can't expect southern soldiers to take orders from negros.
I'm not against gays - BUT it's bad for morale
I'm not sexist - BUT women soldiers aren't really strong enough
I'm not against muslim/catholic/jewish soldiers - BUT they are a security risk

 

[mheslep]

There's nothing new about it if you look at militaries around the world that allow gays to serve openly:See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service

For a politically charged issue such as this I think Wiki is a particularly poor reference, especially near a major US legislative decision on the subject. Many of the countries listed have no references. Quickly googling, I see by by contrast for Italy:

Italy:Arcigay, the gay and lesbian rights organization in Italy, responded by saying the legally there is no precedent of barring gays and lesbians from the military, but in reality this is not necessarily the case. If the presence of a gay service member disrupts military discipline, it appears they can be dismissed. Also, a law exists in Italy that allows gay people to avoid military service based on their homosexuality

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/CountriesWithoutBan.pdf

Also, at least a few of the national military forces in that list are little more than heavily armed police forces, which have no intention of sending troops for six month deployments deep in hostile territory ala http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/movies/20restrepo.html/?_r=1"

 

[mheslep]

In a comprehensive review of interviews with all known experts on homosexuality in the IDF in 2004, [after a decade of allowing gays to serve openly] researchers were not able to find any data suggesting that Israel’s decision to lift its gay ban undermined operational effectiveness, combat readiness, unit cohesion or morale. In this security-conscious country where the military is considered to be essential to the continued existence of the nation, the decision to include sexual minorities has not harmed IDF effectiveness. In addition, while no official statistics are available for harassment rates of sexual minorities in the IDF, scholars, military officials and representatives of gay organizations alike assert that vicious harassment is rare.

Here's another somewhat alarming view from http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP285.pdf" on the lead up to 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:

Some of the political and military elites in Israel have reached the conclusion that Israel is beyond the era of wars. It had enough military might and superiority to deter others from declaring war against her; these would also be sufficient to send a painful reminder to anyone who seemed to be undeterred; since Israel did not intend to initiate a war, the conclusion was that the main challenge facing the land forces would be low intensity asymmetrical conflicts.

Israel can indulge in such thinking (foolishly IMO) in part because of the defense umbrella afforded by the US. The US can not afford to do the same.

 

[WhoWee]

If a gay person wanted to serve in the military previously, they joined and didn't tell anyone.
The change moving forward, if a gay person wants to serve in the military, they will join and now have the option of telling if they prefer. Everyone seems to be focused on this aspect - which is fine.

However, in previous years the officers and soldiers serving with the gay service person could not ask if they were gay - and now they can inquire?

If this is the case, how has the gay serviceperson gained anything?

It seems this could create uncomfortable situations whereby straight (or gay) soldiers might be able to selectively question persons that don't fit the norm and could lead to unintended consequences.

Does anyone know if my understanding (that asking will be permitted) is correct?

 

[drankin]

It's exactly the same.

I'm not racist - BUT we can't expect southern soldiers to take orders from negros.
I'm not against gays - BUT it's bad for morale
I'm not sexist - BUT women soldiers aren't really strong enough
I'm not against muslim/catholic/jewish soldiers - BUT they are a security risk

?

Exactly the same?? You didn't post anything compelliing.

It is a fact that homosexuals and heterosexuals are what they are regardless of race. Sexuality has nothing to do with race. Unless you are suggesting otherwise.

Being against/for something does not make it exactly the same as something else. You are generalizing attitudes as if an emotion is the subject. It is not.

You talk about women not being strong enough, you think that is the reason they aren't on the front lines?

 

[Perspicacity]

Kenneth C. Royall, Secretary of the Army at the time:

"Specifically the Army is not an instrument for social evolution. It is not the Army’s job either to favor or to impede the social doctrines, no matter how progressive they may be"

"In war it is even more important that they have confidence both in their leaders and in the men that are to fight by their sides. Effective comradeship in battle calls for a warm and close personal relationship within a unit…

In this connection we must remember that a large part of the volunteers in the Army are Southerners – usually a larger proportion than from any other part of the country. Whether properly or not, it is a well known fact that close personal association with Negroes is distasteful to large percentage of Southern whites."

"and unwise from the standpoint of national defense – to require any substantial proportion of white soldiers to serve under Negro officers or particularly under Negro non-commissioned officers."

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/documents/pdf/4-17.pdf

I wonder how they feel about a black commander in chief.

What point are you trying to make?

I agree that gay's should be able to serve, I just prefer that the argument be entirely rights based. Even if it is bad for morale or unit cohesion, the military serves our society, not the other way around. That means the military should accommodate the prevailing culture of civilian America.

What I do object to are blatantly false statements meant to support the argument. Gays will definitely become an issue amongst combat units. There will be incidents that will affect many lives, even possibly cause deaths. But all this will have to be accepted.

It's the same things with women in the military. I've heard that they make good pilots and such, but I know from personal experience that they are a burden on ground operations. It doesn't matter though—our civilian society has determined that it is important that woman have a right to serve, so then the military must allow them.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Exactly the same?? You didn't post anything compelliing.

I'm saying that the excuses about morale/other troops acceptance are exactly the same arguments that were made against desegregation and could be made against having women or muslims in the Afghanistan.

It is a fact that homosexuals and heterosexuals are what they are regardless of race. Sexuality has nothing to do with race. Unless you are suggesting otherwise.

Other people oppose them because they are different - exactly as they opposed people for their skin color.
The arguments are word-word the same. They all begin with the "of course it's not me .. but you can't expect the ordinary soldiers to accept them."

You talk about women not being strong enough, you think that is the reason they aren't on the front lines?

No I think it's the excuse used because troops don't like the idea that they might be good at it and politicians don't like the risk of what the public would think
Also coincidentally the same as the "blacks aren't inteligent enough" that's why they can only be cooks and drivers excuse used 50years ago.

 

[Al68]

But what's bewildering is that Barney Frank, in the same interview, claims that it would be too disruptive to the military to allow men and women to shower together. Why? What would be disruptive about that?

You're kidding right?

LOL. Of course. Just my way of pointing out that Barney Frank seems to have his head buried in the sand.

I agree with this change, too, but I don't have my head buried so far in the sand as to think that the position and concerns of the other side don't exist (my agreeing with Dems on an issue here and there doesn't actually make me a Democrat).

 

[Al68]

Other people oppose them because they are different - exactly as they opposed people for their skin color.
The arguments are word-word the same.

If those are the only arguments you're aware of, I would suggest informing yourself a little better on the issue. Sexual orientation, race, and gender are three different things. The reasons espoused, valid or not, for opposition to serving in combat with each are different.

Is a white woman who refuses to shower with a black woman the same as a woman who refuses to shower with a man? Is gender equivalent to race in this respect?

 

[DBTS]

You're wrong. People under fire really do care, which is why the negative response by actual combat troops was basically double that of the military as a whole.

http://www.stripes.com/news/opponents-seize-on-combat-troops-concerns-about-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-repeal-1.127146"

What I do object to are blatantly false statements meant to support the argument. Gays will definitely become an issue amongst combat units. There will be incidents that will affect many lives, even possibly cause deaths. But all this will have to be accepted.

"Blatantly false statements"? Wow:

WASHINGTON – Gay troops can serve openly in the armed forces without harming the military's ability to fight, the Pentagon's top leaders declared Tuesday, calling for the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" ban to be scrapped and pointing to a new survey to show most troops won't mind.

President Barack Obama, citing the troop poll, urged the Senate to repeal the ban before adjourning in the next few weeks, but there is still no indication GOP objections can be overcome with just a few weeks left in the postelection lame-duck session. Still, the survey did put new pressure on Republican opponents, led by Sen. John McCain, who say efforts to repeal the law are politically motivated and dangerous at a time of two wars.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the ban on openly gay military service "requires people to lie," and he called for quick Senate action.

"We spend a lot of time in the military talking about integrity and honor and values. Telling the truth is a pretty important value in that scale," Gates said as he released the Pentagon study showing that most people currently in uniform don't care about the ban.

Senate Democrats plan to force a vote in December. Senate Republicans were generally silent following release of the Pentagon recommendations for repealing the ban.

Although historic, Tuesday's recommendation that the military for the first time allow openly gay people came with a caveat that also frustrates many supporters of repeal. Gates wants an indefinite grace period while the Pentagon prepares for the policy change and phases it in.

"It would be unwise to push ahead with full implementation of repeal before more can be done to prepare the force, in particular those ground combat specialties and units, for what could be a disruptive and disorienting change," Gates said.

Critics led by McCain say the Pentagon's report doesn't address risks to morale and fighting mettle. Gates countered: "I obviously have a lot of admiration and respect for Senator McCain, but in this respect I think that he's mistaken."

Obama has called it a top priority to repeal the 1993 law that bans openly gay service. But gay rights groups have complained that he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have done too little to see it through, focusing their postelection efforts instead on tax cuts and a nuclear arms treaty with Russia before Republicans gain congressional strength when lawmakers return in January.

In the report, the study's co-chairs, Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Army Gen. Carter Ham, wrote, "We are both convinced that our military can do this, even during this time of war."

Gates said he didn't think the Pentagon would have to rewrite its regulations on housing, benefits or fraternization to accommodate gays if they were allowed to serve openly.

A defense policy bill that would overturn the law — pending certification by the Pentagon and the president that doing so wouldn't hurt the military's ability to fight — has languished in the Senate since it passed the House this spring.

In the meantime, a federal judge ordered the Pentagon to stop enforcing the law because it was unconstitutional. The Obama administration is appealing that decision.

"Given the present circumstances, those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts," Gates said.

Obama said in a statement released by the White House: "Today I call on the Senate to act as soon as possible so I can sign this repeal into law this year and ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally."

The president noted that the Pentagon survey had found most service members willing to serve alongside openly gay and lesbian troops, and said: "I am absolutely confident that they will adapt to this change and remain the best led, best trained, best equipped fighting force the world has ever known."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said repealing the ban was discussed during a two-hour meeting Tuesday between Obama and lawmakers and was the sole focus of a session Monday with the military service chiefs. He declined to provide more details.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday he agreed with Gates that "this is a policy change that we can make and we can do it in a relatively low-risk fashion," given time to prepare forces and leaders for new rules and expectations.

Advocates for repeal said Congress was running out of excuses to change the law before the courts do it for them. The Justice Department is fighting the recent federal ruling that the 1993 law is unconstitutional.

"For senators who were on the fence — Republicans as well as Democrats — this report should address most if not all the concerns that they have raised," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a pro-repeal advocacy group.

The Pentagon survey found that some two-thirds of troops don't care if the ban is lifted. Of the 30 percent who objected, most of them were in combat units.

Opposition was strongest among combat troops, with at least 40 percent saying repeal would be a bad idea. That number climbed to 58 percent among Marines serving in combat roles.

A summary of the report said 69 percent of respondents believed they had already served alongside a gay person. Of those who believed that, 92 percent said their units were able to work together and 8 percent said the units functioned poorly as a result.

"We have a gay guy. He's big, he's mean and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay," the report quotes a member of the special operations force as saying.

The report says that many gay troops would be likely to keep their sexual orientation quiet even after the ban was lifted. That discretion would probably be more common in the military than in the civilian world, the report's authors said.

Of those respondents who said they were gay, only 15 percent said they would want that known to everyone in their unit.

The summary included anonymous quotes from gay troops currently serving.

"I will just be me," one person said. "I will bring my family to family events. I will put family pictures on my desk. I am not going to go up to people and say, 'Hi there. I'm gay.'"

Though some troops suggested during the study that there should be separate bath and living facilities for gays, the report recommended against it because it would be a "logistical nightmare, expensive and impossible to administer."

Further, separate facilities would stigmatize gays and lesbians in the way that "separate but equal" facilities did to blacks before the 1960s, it said.

The report said commanders could address individual concerns on a case-by-case basis.

Reid, D-Nev., has promised a vote on the matter by the end of the year, after hearings can be held this week. But if he fails, the bill's chances of survival are dim as the new Congress takes over in January. Republicans have seized control of the House and the Democratic majority in the Senate becomes even more narrow.

I am in the AirForce, not the marine corps which was what my statement was in reference to.