DADT and the -How It Will be Implemented- Question

[donco6]

I'm beginning to hear interesting comments with regard to the eventual rules and procedures that will come out of the military study on allowing gays to serve openly in the military. One in particular makes me want to get a read on our community here. So where do you come down?

[donco6]

1. Anyone else hearing -

-hearing the argument that "the study may limit gays' participation in certain positions (submarines being mentioned specifically), but they'll have to be patient until the leadership can figure out how to "make it happen".

So, if someone is gay and already stationed on a sub, does he have to continue hiding his orientation for fear of losing his post?

[Skinner]

2. I guess someone needs to fill me in.

I was under the impression that repealing DADT would mean gay and straight troops would be treated equally. I haven't heared these other versions you refer to. Do you have any info that might shed light on this?

[donco6]

4. I've seen it on two threads here today, but with no links.

Well, except for the Marine leader who implied that gays would be put in separate barracks. I'm just wondering if that's really an idea people here would support or not? I wouldn't think so - and so far I'm right. But then again, sometimes I wonder how far people will bend on principle just to gain some false sense of expediency.

[Solly Mack]

7. Yep. Gen. James Conway said it.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/26/marines.gay.housing/index.html

And he lies in the article...the army also has 2 people to a room in many of their billets. He's just looking for excuses.

[USArmyParatrooper]

8. I can tell you

just from my anecdotal experience that the repeal is very unpopular. The top brass are all guys that have been in 25+ years so I presume they would even be more worried about it. The entire premise is that men changing/showering in front of a gay man (who's sexually attracted to men) is similar to a woman having to do the same.

Based on living in the real world I disagree with them, but you have to admit it's a seemingly valid point. But the thing is we've all used public showering facilities our whole lives - from PE in school, sports teams, going to the gym, etc. Nobody walks into Gold's gym and demand gays be given a separate shower area, or that they hide their identity.

[donco6]

9. So how do you suppose all those other countries did it in 4 mos.?

Are we that backwards in our top brass?

[Mojeoux]

3. Some of the major international research studies on service by GLBT men and women.

http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/what_does_empirical_research_say_about_impact_openly_gay_service_military


- Research has uniformly shown that transitions to policies of equal treatment
without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful and have had no
negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat
effectiveness. No consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that lifting
the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military.

- The updated research conducted for this study confirm that early assessments by
both military and independent analysts hold across time: none of the successes
and gains of transitions to full inclusion were reversed by any of the nations
studied, or yielded delayed problems over the years in which these militaries
allowed openly gay service.

- Evidence suggests that lifting bans on openly gay service contributed to
improving the command climate in foreign militaries, including increased focus
on behavior and mission rather than identity and difference, greater respect for
rules and policies that reflect the modern military, a decrease in harassment,
retention of critical personnel, and enhanced respect for privacy.

- All the countries studied completed their implementations of repeal either
immediately or within four months of the government’s decision to end
discrimination. These experiences confirm research findings which show that a
quick, simple implementation process is instrumental in ensuring success. Swift,
decisive implementation signals the support of top leadership and confidence that
the process will go smoothly, while a “phased-in” implementation can create
anxiety, confusion, and obstructionism.

- None of the countries studied installed separate facilities for gay troops, nor did
they retain rules treating gays differently from heterosexuals. Each country has
taken its own approach to resolving questions of benefits, housing, partner
recognition, and re-instatement. Generally, the military honors the status afforded
to gay or lesbian couples by that country, and the military rarely gets out in front
of the government or other institutions in the benefits offered.

- There were no instances of increased harassment of or by gay people as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.

[donco6]

5. And this is exactly what I would hope we implement here.

But after reading that Marine article today, I'm beginning to wonder if the upper military establishment may be trying to sabotage the thing from the beginning.

[Solly Mack]

6. Damn shame this is even a question.

Even as progress is being sought in ending discrimination, that other means might be sought to marginalize gays and lesbians serving in the military.

To deny gays and lesbians certain jobs (and advancement, as certain jobs tend toward quicker advancement), or to move them into segregated housing... all moves meant to marginalize. All still just another way to discriminate.


A lot of people treat repealing codified discrimination as earth-shattering - when such a thing should be celebrated.

It's been a little over 60 years since the Women's Armed Services Integration Act that allowed women to serve as permanent, regular members, during peace time as well as in a time of war. America didn't collapse. The military didn't crumble.


It's been a little over 60 years since Truman brought the US military closer to the American democratic ideal of equality. America didn't collapse and the military didn't crumble.

Never mind that there hasn't been a war fought by the US where black soldiers didn't participate...and women in American have long been a part of the armed services - in one capacity or another..officially or not. Some even dressed as men to fight.

Well guess what, America?

Gays have always served in the military. Always.

If your comfort zone is dependent on discriminating against others, then you are the threat to troop morale. You are the one that hinders unit cohesion and troop readiness. You are, in short, the problem.

[donco6]

10. kick for a.m