Fierce Advocate may be considering 'separate-but-equal' policy to replace DADT

[Bluebear]

The Obama administration has conjured up some inflated fears to justify its decision to appeal an injunction that brought a screeching halt to investigations and discharges of gay men and women serving in the military.

To hear the administration tell it, lifting the prohibition on gay men and lesbians openly serving in uniform would undermine global combat operations. In truth, the real potential for harm is to gay service members if the injunction is held in abeyance....

Clifford Stanley, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said in a court filing that ending the antigay policy would require training, and reworking regulations on issues like housing, benefits and standards of conduct. He said the Army had to consider the “rights and obligations of the chaplain corps.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the military had to consider whether barracks should be segregated and whether partners of gay soldiers should have benefits.

This sounds disturbingly like the creation of a “separate but equal” system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/opinion/17sun3.html?_r=3

[aquart]

1. Unacceptable.

[Teaser]

2. not seeing it...

.

[Bluebear]

3. ?

[Touchdown]

24. Of course you don't

Have a nice day.

[Teaser]

122. I always have a nice day

But I'm still not seeing how the excerpt implies anything.

[tavalon]

33. That's because you willfully have your eyes closed

Try opening them.

This isn't any different than when the white and black troops were segregated.

[ThomCat]

52. Segregated barracks, and refusing to offer benefits to the

partners of only one group of soldiers, and you don't see the resemblance to "separate but equal?"

:wtf:

Are you deliberately not looking?

[Teaser]

123. not seeing that Obama said anything about anything

Gates is != Obama. In fact, Gates has been pushing against the administration to some degree.

So what Gates said is an unacceptable alternative, but he may well be floating his own trial balloon.

[Bluebear]

56. Well that was a silly hit and run, wasn't it?

[TwilightGardener]

4. They do need to come up with policy and training, and cover personnel issues.

I don't know how it will all shake out, but the DoD is a giant, slow-moving piece of machinery, that is for sure. They have a lot of issues to resolve, although they should have seen this coming and gotten a head start.

[Bluebear]

7. What issues need to be resolved exactly?

[AngryAmish]

13. Actually there are issues to be resolved

Mostly training that says is your fellow soldier is gay, calm the fuck down. Scripts have to be written, etc. But it is not really issues that should slow implimentation down for more than two days. Seriously.

[Bluebear]

19. You said it.

[TwilightGardener]

18. Pretty much everything listed above. They need to come up with policy and training

and enforce it. For example, partners of gay members--do they get enrolled in DEERS, and Tricare (dependent benefit stuff)? How does that work, in an era when there mostly isn't legally recognized gay marriage? Military dependents are by marriage or blood--if I wasn't married to my husband, I could not live in military housing or receive dependent benefits. I'm not saying it's going to be separate but equal (hope not), but it does need to be sorted out. What I'm surprised about is that they haven't already planned for this--they should have a pretty good framework already for the end of DADT.

[Bluebear]

20. If they are willing to bleed & die for the USA, I should think dependent benefits should be a given

[Touchdown]

26. +100

:yourock:

[TwilightGardener]

27. But what makes a dependent? It's marriage or blood, as far as I know.

You can't just point to a boyfriend or girlfriend and say "he/she is now my dependent" in the military as it stands now. You have to provide a marriage certificate, birth certificates for children, or show that you care for a relative. Dependent benefits are a morass of policy and paperwork. That's something that should have been considered already, because it will probably be the biggest deal to change. The chaplain thing, meh--just don't go to the chaplains, is my advice. Everything else boils down to making sure everyone is on the same page in terms of conduct--since the military has had females serving alongside males for many decades now, I don't see how this differs greatly.

[Touchdown]

32. Well, then we'll just have to end DOMA, won't we?

Has she been with you for a year? Ok, then! Simple.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Fine with me. If they want a piece of paper, give 'em a piece of paper.

[readmoreoften]

66. Yeah "they" want "a piece of paper."

[TwilightGardener]

141. "They" = the DoD. They're going to have to come up with

a new definition of dependent in terms of unmarried partners, and figure out what to accept as proof or documentation.

[JerseygirlCT]

88. That's the answer

And I can totally support requiring marriage or blood as the definition - once marriage is a universal right. And I do imagine that getting rid of DADT will also further the cause of equality in the broader sense.

[tavalon]

35. And blacks with whites

[TwilightGardener]

44. I'd be interested to know how smoothly that went, historically.

That should be a good guide for how quickly the military culture can adapt to change, when change is ordered and enforced across the board. I wonder how many incidents and conflicts they must have had in the beginning of desegregation...whites refusing to take orders from higher-ranking blacks, for example. There will probably be some conflict with ending DADT, but I have to believe that most young people in the military won't think it's a big deal.

[tavalon]

53. Me too, actually, that's next on my tour of history list

Yeah, I really do have a list but I move things depending on their importance to the history being made now and well, this fits.

[krispos42]

28. That's far to obvious for the reactionary right.

After all, those people were pro-segregation based on skin color, regardless of how willing they were to die for their country.

[Statistical]

142. The larger issues are the policies and procedures that define the DOD.

Everything has a policy, everything has a procedure.

The person you responded to has a valid point. This doesn't mean that DADT should be allowed to stand but there are rather massive implications.

Do partners receive benefits? IF so how. The current method for enrollment into DEERS is marriage cert. BAHS (money for housing) is varied depending on if you have dependents. Once again current method for that pay calculation is inadequate. If unmarried same-sex partner can receive benefits does that apply also to unwed opposite-sex partner? If so what is the mechanism for defining person w/ benefits.

The idea that DADT can simply be struck down and everything "works" overnight is naive at best.

[EFerrari]

30. The benefits they will try to deny to partners are a separate issue.

And they already have a policy for sexual harassment.

What they don't have is a policy for gay bashing because DADT took that off the table. Every day that this POS is still in force, someone in uniform is prevented from reporting abuse. That's dangerous and unacceptable.

[TwilightGardener]

40. I'm not defending the continued prosecution and discharges under DADT--

they can certainly stop that now. Just addressing the "separate but equal" stuff. There will have to be new policies enacted, and it will probably take some time. Hell, they're just now getting around to addressing the new HCR law about kids staying on insurance until age 26 under military healthcare.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

25. There are several nations where gays serve openly

Seems to me that we can simply use their policies and experiences as guidence for our own.


Unless, of course, Not Invented Here syndrome rears its ugly head.

[TwilightGardener]

31. That's why they should already have a policy framework ready to launch.

Someone in the DoD should have been working on this.

[krispos42]

37. They can have two separate barracks...

"People that like women" and "people that like men".

:D

[Touchdown]

39. So... The Dance Club and the Honkey TonK?

:rofl:

[krispos42]

43. It would give the straight men and gay women something to talk about.

And the straight women and gay men! :-)

[ruggerson]

47. lol

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Wasn't DADT supposed to be a "compromise?"

This has moved beyond absurd.

[Bluebear]

8. Well, the rights of the chaplains have to be observed.

WTF that means!

[donco6]

16. Sounds like they're having to work around "Christophobia"

You know - that phobia against people who are allowed to tell you and all your comrades that you're perverted and Going Straight to Hell. All in the interest of unit cohesion of course.

[Bluebear]

21. Let alone heterophobia

and all the new Oppression Olympics groups I've learned about this week!

[Angry Dragon]

23. I was thinking the same thing

[tavalon]

38. As best as I can tell, they're equating chaplains with bigots

If I were a military chaplain, I think I might be offended at being used as a scapegoat in that way.

Yeah, much of it boils down to protecting the bigots. I don't think protecting bigots is ever a very good idea.

[COLGATE4]

72. The Military Chaplain Corps has for some time now been taken over by the hard-

right fundamentalists and dominionists. Now with DADT they're scared to death of the monster that they've created - can you imagine with something like 80% of the chaplains giving regular sermons on how 'homosexuality is a perversion that leads you straight to hell"?

[Cid_B]

61. Rights is the wrong word...

Interests of the Chaplain corps need to be observed as well. They are an integral part of the military today and do a lot of great things for Soldiers. (Some are also right out tools)

Do those interests outweigh the political pressure to change the policy? I dunno... I doubt it will but no matter how this gets done it will be ugly as hell.

[Bluebear]

63. 'Interests of the Chaplain corps need to be observed as well.' - You're a real champ of rights.

'Do those interests outweigh the political pressure to change the policy? I dunno.'

:applause:

A prince!

[Canuckistanian]

6. No.

In fact, HELL no.

Dead in the water.

[AngryAmish]

9. This is crazy

Really - this is what I voted for?

[Bluebear]

11. Yes.

This is what we voted for.

[AngryAmish]

15. Then that must make us a bunch of assholes.

[tavalon]

41. No, duped

Honestly, every politician lies to get elected. I've always known that but I got swept up in a movement and lost perspective. Many of us did. Obama the Candidate promised us the world and Obama the President can't (and often won't, willfully) really live up to the image he created.

[VMI Dem]

10. What is this fucking shit? Is this for real?

:wtf:

[donco6]

12. So, gays that are serving right now aren't a problem at all, but -

Once they are known to be gay, suddenly they're going to become . . . what? Shower rapists? Nighttime weenie gropers? Super-skilled soap droppers? WTF? The whole thing is completely preposterous.

[tavalon]

42. Fascinating isn't it?

Except real humans are having their careers destroyed so it matters more than the Vulcan like term I just invoked makes it seem.

It's bigotry, plain and simple, just without the starched white pointy hats.

[demmiblue]

46. The only rapists I would worry about...

are the rapists of female troops. Most of whom, I would imagine, get away with the crime.

And I agree, preposterous.

[beam me up scottie]

55. I know, like they're going to suddenly start twirling around Afghanistan singing "It's Raining Men".

Reminds me of the dog whistles used to scare whites into not voting for Obama.

Gay soldiers are just as professional as heteros, even more so considering the stamina required to endure the mental and emotional pressure they're under. They can't even trust their brothers in arms, I can't begin to imagine what that's like.

[donheld]

115. No but face it.

We will fix up our side of the bases to be much nicer than the straight people's, then they'll want to move in to our areas. Just like they do in Gayborhoods all over the country.

[donco6]

117. Oh yeah.

And we'll have better food.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Touchdown]

29. Pet issues. As long as the pets are straight.

Don't want Spike mounting Rusty, now do we?

[Unvanguard]

17. Do you have the quotes from Robert Gates?

I'm going to see if I can find them in the emergency motion for a stay. Off-hand, I'm not sure I buy the NYTimes' editorial's interpretation of those of the defense officials' statements that I've seen.

[EFerrari]

22. NYTs, Robert Gates. I can see the problem.

:)

[Unvanguard]

45. There is nothing in the emergency motion for a stay that supports the NYTimes' reading.

It is pretty vague on what specifically the military would have to do, but here is what it suggests:

The precipitous changes required by the injunction would prevent the
military from developing the necessary policies and regulations, and from
conducting the necessary training and education of the force, to successfully adapt
to the end of DADT. The Secretary of Defense has, among other things, directed
the Working Group to provide “an assessment of the implications” of repeal and
“an implementation plan for any new statutory mandate.” Id. ¶ 14. The Working
Group is undertaking a comprehensive legal and policy review of the issues
implicated by any potential repeal of DADT. Id. ¶ 17.3 The result of the Working
Group’s Assessment will be to recommend changes to DoD regulations, policies,
and guidance that would be necessary to address the issues associated with ending
DADT and to mitigate any negative consequences of repeal. Id. The Working
Group is also developing tools for leadership to educate and train the force in the
event of repeal. Id. ¶ 18. The Secretary of Defense has emphasized that “strong,
engaged, and informed leadership will be required at every level to properly and
effectively implement” such a change. Id.

The DADT statute implicates dozens of DoD and Service policies and
regulations that cover such disparate issues as benefits, re-accession, military equal
opportunity, anti-harassment, and others. Id. ¶ 26. Amending these regulations
would typically take several months, because of the need to notify and seek input
from all affected to ensure that changes do not inadvertently result in unanticipated
negative effects on the force. Id. Properly implementing any change in policy
would thus be a massive undertaking by the Department and the military and cannot
be done overnight. Id. And if the Court’s judgment is reversed on appeal, the
Department and the military will have to implement another major policy change –
creating further disruption and confusion.

Thousands of military personnel have enforced the DADT statutory policy
for many years. Thus, the end of DADT will require that these personnel receive
training and instruction in a number of areas, including: (i) how the policy has
changed; (ii) why the policy has changed; (iii) how the change in this policy affects
other existing policies; (iv) appropriate treatment of gay and lesbian
servicemembers who reveal their sexual orientation; (v) appropriate treatment of
servicemembers who object to serving with servicemembers they know to be gay or
lesbian; and (vi) principles to consider when handling other issues that may arise
after the elimination of the DADT statute. Id. ¶ 30. The immediate injunction
ordered by the Court does not permit adequate time for this necessary training and
instruction to occur.

There is nothing in here even remotely suggesting "segregation."

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/DADT-memo-10-14-10.pdf

The parallel part of the declaration by Clifford L. Stanley, included as a supplement, reads as follows:

Invalidation of the DADT statute implicates dozens of DoD and
Service policies and regulations that cover such disparate issues as housing,
benefits, re-accession, military equal opportunity, anti-harassment, standards of
conduct, rights and obligations of the Chaplain corps, and others. Amending these
regulations would typically take several months. To change all of the implicated
policies and underlying regulations will require a massive undertaking by the
Department and cannot be done overnight.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/DADT-Stanley-10-14-10.pdf

Here there is indeed a mention of "policies and regulations that cover... housing", but the mention is so vague as to hardly lend support for the NYTimes' statement. Sure, establishing segregation might be such a policy or regulation, but in the absence of a specific mention it seems far-fetched to me to suggest that that is what Stanley is getting at. (Frankly, I find it highly implausible that the military would implement a segregation policy--I fail to see how that would make sense, even from a bigoted view of the likely impact of gays in the military--and would need a clear statement indicating otherwise to believe this charge.)

Then there are Robert Gates' public statements. I have spent some time Googling about this. Pretty much the only reference I can find to segregation is the New York Times editorial.

It is easy to resolve this question. Does anyone have a quote from Gates that substantiates the New York Times' suggestion?

Edit: For what it's worth, I find most of these references to necessary changes, etc., to be substanceless, desperate attempts to delay the change, so that the Pentagon can do it on its own time and reassure its bigoted leadership that catastrophe will not ensue. It strikes me as exceedingly unlikely that DADT repeal will be accompanied by any major policy change, except maybe something like an increase in penalties for general sexual harassment (as both Australia and Britain implemented when they changed their policies.)

[ruggerson]

49. The head of the Marines (Conway) did say it

Back in April, I think. Don't know if Gates publicly concurred.

[Unvanguard]

50. Thanks for that. Found the Conway reference.

WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps' commandant said he won't force his troops to bunk with gays on base and would give them separate rooms if Congress votes to allow openly gay service.

The comment, by Gen. James Conway, is the latest pushback by a small but vocal faction of senior military leaders opposed to a repeal of the 1993 law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/26/marine-corps-general-jame_n_515564.html

Sounds like shit-stirring from an opponent to repeal to me: "Look at the ridiculous, disruptive things we will have to do if we change this policy!"

[Radical Activist]

92. It's a wildly speculative claim.

Par for the course.

I would think the military will have to issue new guidelines that protect service members from discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation. That should be easier than they're making it out to be.

[Unvanguard]

103. I think you have it right.

Both about the likely components of a DADT repeal implementation and about the Pentagons's exaggerated take on its difficulty.

They are stalling, for reasons that I'd guess are political. But they have a deadline, so it will probably not be indefinite. The real limiting factor is the Senate, and, secondarily, President Obama's willingness to use executive power to bypass it if it drops the ball again.

[ruggerson]

125. You do realize that used to be in the repeal bill - Obama and the military took it out

n/t

[JVS]

36. That's really not a good reason. There are already denominations that do not operate within the...

chaplain corps. They send their own chaplains independently into the area, but do not "imbed" with the army.

[rug]

48. "The law has been used to drum out some 13,000 service members in the past 17 years. "

This is not an academic issue that requires further study.

End it.

[struggle4progress]

51. It sure would be great if our Presidents all ignored the law even more, wouldn't it?

I felt so bad for Mr Bush in the White House: he always wanted to break the law, and often did, but the poor guy's hands were frequently tied by politics -- instead of just breaking whatever law he wanted to, whenever he wanted to, he sometimes had to waste his time and energy getting people to cook up long complicated bullshit excuses about how "he isn't really breaking the law so stop saying that." It's unfair, isn't it, to hamstring the President that way? In the good old days, Mr. Nixon's lawyers told the Supreme Court that the President was an absolute monarch, completely above the law: some people didn't like that idea, but I can't remember why

Still, if Mr. Obama is going to insist on having Congress repeal DADT, the very best thing to do would be to repeal it, without doing anything else. After all, we got DADT because Mr. Clinton wanted to remove the restrictions that prevented gays from serving in the military -- and the Republicans nutters beat him back to a weaker stance: gays could serve in the military but not openly. Obviously, we should just repeal DADT, and then if the military wants to go back to treating gays the way they did before Mr. Clinton took office, well, why not let them?

Thank you so much for this very helpful OP, Bluebear! I had not realized just how terrible an idea it was to even suggest discussing changes to Federal law and regulation, like whether or not same sex partners of soldiers should get benefits! But now I see the light! Shame! shame! on the Obama administration for even suggesting that issues like partner benefits should come up as part of DADT repeal! Surely the best thing we could do is just to repeal DADT without thinking about larger issues, like whether or not partners of gay soldiers should have benefits. Partners of gay soldiers don't get benefits now, so why should we even discuss whether they should? No, we should just kick the can down the road and let people address the topic fifty or a hundred years from now, if they think it's important then

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Why should their civil rights be up for discussion?

Are yours?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laughingliberal]

62. Of course his civil rights aren't up for discussion. Therefore, it's NBD. nt

[struggle4progress]

75. Here! I have drafted a letter to the White House for you! Feel free to use it!

Dear Mr President:

I am gravely concerned by reports that your administration is encouraging conversation and comments on what changes might be required in existing military laws and regulations when DADT is repealed

Nothing could possibly be offensive to the spirit of a free people, than public conversations and comments about laws and regulations. And it is particularly offensive to encourage public conversations and comments about possible changes to military laws and regulations, because such laws and regulations are military. On those rare occasions when laws and regulations are changed, we should make those changes without allowing any public conversations and comments

You may be aware, Mr President, that all our existing military laws and regulations have been crafted and interpreted in legal environments where gay or lesbian relationships were prohibited or else closeted by mandate. It would be best if all such laws and regulations remained unexamined and unchanged after repeal of DADT, because no good could possibly come from any discussions

In particular, I am gravely concerned that there may be discussions on what changes would be needed to allow same-sex partners of gay or lesbian service members to receive benefits. This is offensive, Mr President! Whether or not changes would be needed to allow same-sex partners of gay or lesbian service members to receive benefits, there is simply no excuse for encouraging public conversation and comment on the topic. We should accept whatever the current military laws and regulations say, without any conversation. And when we change military laws and regulations, we should just make such changes without any public conversation and comment: like it or not, that's the way democracy works

Sincerely &c &c

[struggle4progress]

73. Right! Since all existing military has been written

for legal environments in which same-sex relations are either prohibited or else officially closeted, nothing could be more offensive than a careful public examination of the existing military laws and regulations, to determine what parts might require clarifying changes when the military eliminates restrictions on same-sex relations. The ideal way to proceed, when we finally eliminate military restrictions on same-sex relations, would be to leave all existing military laws and regulations untouched, so that the language of those laws and regulations continues to reflect the prior legal environments in which same-sex relations were prohibited or closeted: that would reduce the possibilities for confusion about what the new legal environment was and what it really meant!

And, of course, in the unlikely case that unpleasant confusions resulted from leaving the existing laws and regulations untouched, the best way to proceed would be to appoint one single person to make any necessary changes in the laws and regulations, without any discussion and without any input from anyone else, because one mind and pair of eyes always produces better results than tenn or a hundred or a thousand. Obviously, no good whatsoever could result from allowing many many people to examine the laws and regulations and to provide their thoughts on what changes would be useful or appropriate

Thank you for your helpful post!

[beam me up scottie]

78. You didn't answer my question. Why should they continue to forfeit their civil rights?

Are you suggesting that their rights be held hostage while allowing those "many many people to examine the laws and regulations and to provide their thoughts on what changes would be useful or appropriate"?

Because we all know who THOSE people are and what they think is appropriate.

[struggle4progress]

80. Interesting! We could ban all discussion of rights issues!

I am afraid I have been sorely confused on this topic: I had thought, for example, that many people appreciated opportunities to examine drafts of statutes and regulations and to discuss with lawmakers and regulators any concerns about the possible effects of statutory or regulatory language

But you, with your sharp wit and brilliant reason, have convinced me that this is a bad idea: I now believe we ought to amend the Constitution to forbid any discussion of rights issues. That might take some time, of course, and all the usual suspects might object, but perhaps at least DU could meanwhile ban all discussion of rights issues here: I'll contact the Admins immediately to see what can be done, and I expect you to do the same

I do feel confident that no one posting in this thread would be shallow or craven enough to study the existing statutes and regulations that might have any bearing on this topic. And I feel confident that no one posting in this thread would even consider asking what confusions might result from other existing statutory or regulatory language, if DADT were simply repealed without other changes. So I am not worried by the possibility that someone posting in this thread might be rude or inconsiderate enough to provide any useful and constructive comments about this topic to lawmakers or regulators: it simply will not happen

Thank you for helping me clarify my thinking here!

[beam me up scottie]

82. WTF? Why the hostility? Did a gay soldier steal your binkie?

What rights would you be willing to give up in solidarity while theirs are being "discussed" by religious conservatives and homophobic bigots?

[struggle4progress]

84. For years and years, I made the sad mistake of reading and commenting upon

draft legislation and proposed regulations, on various topics, in my spare time

I stupidly did things I now suddenly regret, such as asking regulators to extend comment deadlines (so more people would have any opportunity to comment) or trying to obtain actual public hearings on matters I considered important

But the OP, and your helpful remarks, have now convinced me of the error of my ways: what was I thinking? why would I encourage people concerned about issues to try to express their specific concerns clearly to legislators and regulators? what good could possibly come of that? doesn't it really signal the end of democracy as we know it?

[beam me up scottie]

86. "in my spare time" "matters I considered important"

This isn't about putting a stop sign or speed bumps on your street, this is about basic human rights.

And since YOUR rights are not up for discussion, you could care less how long the bigots hold up progress.

Got it.

[struggle4progress]

93. Hmmm. So you think people should be allowed to comment on a proposed stop sign

or speed bump, but not on larger issues with broader impact? I'll have to think about that

[beam me up scottie]

97. Comment/shmomment. The bigots who deny glbt soldiers their civil rights shouldn't get to participate

"I'll have to think about that"

Don't strain yourself, this issue is obviously too complicated for those looking down from their pedestal of unearned privilege to understand.

Let them eat cake, right?

[EFerrari]

79. The president should just use the same forwarding looking strategy

he used for the BushCo torture program. That seemed to work for him just fine!

But clearly gay service people should be beside themselves with gratitude for the assiduousness with which the Pentagon is looking out for their welfare by delaying the suspension of DADT!

[readmoreoften]

67. What law--like separation of church and state? That law?

[struggle4progress]

74. I share your distain for complete sentences. And I also share your

contempt for the idea that there could be any productive discussion of the possible changes that might be required in existing military law and regulation, when important elements of the controlling legal environment change

It would obviously be best if military laws and regulations never ever changed. But when changes to military law and regulation are unavoidable, it would obviously be best if no one were permitted to discuss such changes in advance

Please bear with me: I really am attempting to eliminate verbs from my posts here. And thank you for your helpful remarks!

[beam me up scottie]

81. If you eliminated the ad homs and dog whistles there'd be nothing left of your posts.

What a piece of work.

[struggle4progress]

85. Well, thank you again, ever so much, for your productive remarks!

Nothing could possibly be more destructive than encouraging people to cast a careful eye over existing laws and regulations, to see whether the laws and regulations might ber improved, or in encouraging people to share their detailed comments about laws and regulations with lawmakers and regulators, with the hope that matters might be improved somewhat

I must confess, that until I read your thorough analysis, I had not realized just how dangerous it was, to allow comments on existing laws and regulations

But you have demolished my idiotic prior misconceptions. So thank you! thank you! thank you!

[beam me up scottie]

89. And we should definitely keep studying and discussing climate change too.

We wouldn't want to do anything rash to save the planet, would we?

I really don't think your "idiotic...misconceptions" can be demolished, they appear to have been built on a foundation of homophobia and religious bigotry.

Maybe they'll just rot from the inside out over time.

I like the thought of that.

[struggle4progress]

90. Gosh! We wouldn't want anybody to comment on statutes and regulations

that might be related to climate change, either, would we? I hadn't thought of that: I'm adding now it to my list of things I shouldn't ever say anything about!

[beam me up scottie]

99. Spoken like an opponent of the 1960's Civil Rights Movement.

You don't dare say what you really think, you prefer to camouflage your opposition by making all this noise about statutes and regulations.

Those dog whistles aren't really silent, you know. ;)

[struggle4progress]

104. I hadn't realized that only bigots could read and write in this country

[beam me up scottie]

106. If that were true it would be terribly lonely in here, wouldn't it?

Good thing there are so many others here to refute the memes.

[ruggerson]

77. What law? DADT has been declared unconstitutional

Right now, the law is dead.

[struggle4progress]

83. Oh, well, then, of course, the OP is completely right: absolutely no further discussion

of the subject is needed! The field is clear! The day is won! All is happily restored to the glorious situation we enjoyed before Clinton failed to eliminate antigay military regulations!

[ruggerson]

95. The day is indeed won, unless the ruling is stayed and appealed

n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

58. They're going to call it The Navy

Just a joke! Don't throw anything at me! :hide:

[jmowreader]

65. Old war story from another time

There is a proven method for gay sailors to find each other: you just go find the meanest, nastiest looking hand aboard and ask him who are the (insert six-letter derogatory homophobic term here) you should stay the hell away from. And then you introduce yourself to the people he points out.

[readmoreoften]

68. Actually, that's funny.

"In the Navy, you can sail the seven seas"...

[jmowreader]

64. In units that have new barracks buildings, this won't be a problem

New barracks buildings have one-soldier rooms--sometimes with one latrine between two rooms, other times each room having its own latrine. (The REALLY new barracks, like they're building at Fort Bragg, put a latrine in each room. Fort Drum's barracks have a latrine between two rooms.)

The thing is this: There's not a first sergeant in the Army that can't handle the admin requirements of gays in the barracks, because they've been dealing with the far worse problem of smokers in the barracks for decades.

[Bluebear]

69. Seriously, what's the problem in old barracks?

What do latrines have to do with anything?

[readmoreoften]

70. More bathrooms=can't catch teh gay or teh lez.

[Jamastiene]

71. It is the hubris of homophobes.

They honestly think gay people are just waiting to pounce on them at every turn. They flatter themselves. :eyes:

[jmowreader]

113. In old barracks, there's generally one or two per floor

At Fort Campbell we had barracks built in the 1960s. Each floor had two latrines--one near the north stairwell, one near the south stairwell. Like it or not, we put gay guys in the Army openly and the Republicans that are there now are going to go to Top screaming "I don't want Private Smith looking at my ass!" And the poor old first sergeant, who's got to deal with these assholes on a daily basis, is going to have to do SOMETHING to shut the Republicans up. Yes, they could give Private Smith housing allowance so he can move off post, but then the fucking Republicans will run to the Inspector General bitching that Private Smith got "special treatment" because he is gay. No, Private Smith got off-post housing because YOU claimed you were going to "kick his f***** ass" if he so much as walked into the latrine again, and we can't let him rot from lack of bathing or explode in formation.

These days latrines aren't going to be much of a problem because a LOT of posts have the new-style barracks with lots of latrines, but (especially overseas, like Korea) there are still places that have one latrine per floor.

We're still looking at a leadership function--quite a few of those barracks with community latrines have males and females living in them, and you've got to house them on separate floors. It gets better: in the 101st, quite a few of the units around mine (which was a mixed-gender outfit) had three or four women assigned to them. In cases like that, my unit agreed to house their female troops because they literally had nowhere for them to live.

[donco6]

102. Gays are in the old barracks now.

Have we had widescale shower-raping going on that I don't know about?

[jmowreader]

114. Not that I know of...

In a response upthread, I noted that if we allow gays to openly serve, the straight Republican soldiers are going to be the problem--they are going to assume they're the object of desire to every gay guy, even though they're not.

You know the strange thing? I think right-wingers are more obsessed with homosexuality than any actual homosexual on the planet.

[donco6]

116. LOL! Got that right. I wish I had that much time to obsess about sex.

Those were the days . . .

[TexasObserver]

76. Well, we've got the Supreme Court to bring back Plessy v. Ferguson.

I'm sure the GOP FIVE would love to go back to 1896 and redo that one.

[JerseygirlCT]

87. The chaplain corps is (or ought to be) there to serve the troops

not to serve their own theological interests. If this discrimination is finally ended, and they have some personal problem with ending it, they need to resign.

I don't get all this "concern" about the bigots in the service. It's really quite simple. Shut up and get over it, or leave.

[Cid_B]

91. It isn't that simple...

What if we follow that plan and 25% ( a number straight out of my ass) are unwilling to serve with open homosexuals?

Is it in the best interest of the military to cut that 25% IOT retain a smaller number of service members?

Bottom line. The "Shut up and get over it, or leave" plan is doomed to fail. Both on a DoD wide scale and on an individual scale. The interests of all service members must be taken into account and plans drawn up accordingly. Any plan that weakens the military instead of strengthening it is a loser and should be revamped so that the service comes out stronger than before.

[JerseygirlCT]

94. I don't get that

So we're to tolerate, even indulge, bigotry in order to maintain the services of the bigots?

[beam me up scottie]

101. That's it exactly. After all, it's the gay soldiers who are the problem.

:banghead:

[JerseygirlCT]

110. I'll just never understand that thinking!

Do we take a vote before each mission?

Ok guys, who wants to go out there and maybe get killed today? Who wants to sit here and read? Show of hands? Ok, reads have it...

As you say below, we ought to have more faith in the people serving. And a better understanding of how insidious this bigotry is.

[beam me up scottie]

112. The funny thing is that the military is FULL of bigots.

But even the racists, sexists and religious bigots know that they have to work together.

You don't have to like your bunkie and you don't have to bond with your gunner, but you may have to rely on them to save your ass someday.

[Cid_B]

118. I'll try to clarify....

Two scenarios for you...

"SPC Smith, I want you to get to the other side of that wall. I'm in a rush right now cause I've got some other stuff to do so what I'll need you to do is ram your head against the bricks until you break through."

"SPC Smith, I need you to get to the other side of that wall. I've installed a door and in case that craps out we have this ladder and some tools that I picked up from supply. OK... go!"

In the first scenario, SPC Smith ends up bloody and brain damaged and probably pretty pissed off at his leadership because they were to lazy to implement a proper plan that took his needs into account. In the second scenario the leadership took the time to create a plan that accomplished the goal and also took care of the Soldier.

The Soldier will do it either way because that's what he does. It is our responsibility as leadership to make sure it happens the right way and every Soldier has what he needs IOT make the service stronger and better.

[Touchdown]

130. What a pant load!

:eyes:

[Cid_B]

131. Wow...

Bravo... The depth and insight in that response really made me rethink my position and come over to your way of thinking....

You should be a professional writer with sort of insight...

____________________


Seriously though, why do you bother even typing if you don't have something to say?

[Touchdown]

143. I just responded in kind.

There was nothing you said that is worth a response, and giving you any counter argument will just fall on your already deaf ears.

Why do I bother typing? Because other people on this public message forum read your exclusionary language disguised as "sound policy recommendations" and it needs to be exposed as such.

[beam me up scottie]

133. So accepting the fact that gays are serving with you is like having head injuries and brain damage?

Nice.

What are these "needs" that need to be taken into account?

And what is the "right way" for bigots to be informed their bigotry will not be tolerated?

[Cid_B]

138. Look...

... if you are going to to try to take part in the conversation at least take a real swing at it. Being deliberately obtuse won't help...

Until you're ready... the grown ups are talking so shoosh...

[beam me up scottie]

139. Can't answer the questions, *sir*? What are these "needs" that need to be taken into account?

And what is the "right way" for bigots to be informed their bigotry will not be tolerated?

You're the only one dodging the issues, buddy.

[donco6]

140. Recognizing that gays are already in the military is like brain damage?

Great.

You were better off before you started this stupid comment. And that's not saying much.

[JerseygirlCT]

145. So SPC Smith in this case is...

the bigot? In which case, he might very well need to experience a little metaphorical head pounding until he absorbs what harm discrimination does.

or the gay servicemember?

Because if it's the gay service member, then I don't think your analogy holds. What they need from us isn't years of planning to prepare the rest of the world to simply treat them like people. What they need is an immediate end to the discrimination and some leadership from the top that says: "this stops. Here and now."

[JerseygirlCT]

148. That's where the problem is

you put it succinctly.

[beam me up scottie]

150. If this person really is a military leader I pity the soldiers under his command.

And not just the gay ones.

[beam me up scottie]

100. It IS that simple and it WAS that simple when they integrated black soldiers.

Gay soldiers are professionals, stop insulting them by alluding to some hypothetical epidemic flame fest that will alienate straight soldiers and drive them out of the military.

And give the majority of straight soldiers the benefit of the doubt as well, I knew I was serving with gays and I didn't care.
In fact, I admired their dedication, I only had to lie about my religion.

[Bluebear]

105. "Open homosexuals" - -you have a real problem, don't you?

:(

[QC]

111. That's not exactly news. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

135. Like I posted below,

the military is FULL of bigots.

Homophobia is the only acceptable, no, the only officially sanctioned bigotry.

[VMI Dem]

119. Fuck the interests of all service members.

[Cid_B]

120. Ohhh....

Glad to see you staying true to your roots...

[VMI Dem]

121. Glad to see your feelings about "open homosexuals".

:patriot:

[Cid_B]

124. What? My feeling that their feelings and interests...

... should be taken into account just like everyone else? *gasp*

The horror...

You must have had a great 4 years with a fun attitude like yours.

[VMI Dem]

126. Do you also think white service people's feelings should be taken into account about blacks?

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

127. '*gasp* the horror'...... talk about drama queens, soldier.

[VMI Dem]

128. I'm still trying to figure out what the great 4 years comment is about.

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

129. I have no idea.

Our big, brave soldiers all in a conniption over this. It's disgraceful.

[Cid_B]

132. I was referring to your screen name...

If you had such a wit about you while attending VMI you must have been a real hoot.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

134. No, they shouldn't. If you don't like serving with gays, get out.

It's still voluntary, tell your superiors that you can't get past your homophobia/bigotry and want to be discharged asap because you can't fulfill your duties.

Human up or get out.

[JerseygirlCT]

147. So for service members who have a problem with

African Americans - we should also be taking their feelings into account?

Bigotry is not acceptable, plain and simple.

[JerseygirlCT]

146. That's one approach... nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

153. Any, and I do mean ANY organization will benefit from the exclusion of bigots.

No matter how many they are. And by the way, there's no way it's that many.

[Shining Jack]

96. K&R

The troupes don't give a damn.


Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military:

* 2.1 Albania
* 2.2 Argentina
* 2.3 Australia
* 2.4 Austria
* 2.5 Belgium
* 2.6 Canada
* 2.7 Colombia
* 2.8 Czech Republic
* 2.9 Denmark
* 2.10 Estonia
* 2.11 Finland
* 2.12 France
* 2.13 Germany
* 2.14 Ireland
* 2.15 Israel
* 2.16 Italy
* 2.17 Lithuania
* 2.18 Luxembourg
* 2.19 Malta
* 2.20 The Netherlands
* 2.21 New Zealand
* 2.22 Norway
* 2.23 Peru
* 2.24 Philippines
* 2.25 Poland
* 2.26 Romania
* 2.27 Russia
* 2.28 Slovenia
* 2.29 South Africa
* 2.30 Spain
* 2.31 Sweden
* 2.32 Switzerland
* 2.33 Taiwan
* 2.34 United Kingdom
* 2.34.1 Bermuda
* 2.35 Uruguay


Countries that disallow homosexuals from serving in the military:

* Cuba
* People's Republic of China
* Egypt
* Greece
* Iran
* Jamaica
* North Korea
* Pakistan
* Saudi Arabia
* Serbia
* Singapore
* South Korea<3>
* Syria
* Turkey<4>
* Venezuela
* Yemen

Countries with other policies:

*3.1 United States

Main article: Sexual orientation and the United States military

While federal law in the United States prohibits LGBT service members from serving openly under the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy (meaning service members who remain closeted are allowed to serve, but investigation into a member's sexuality without suspicion is prohibited), the United States has been enjoined for the time being from enforcing this law. Openly gay people may serve in the military, but face future investigation should the permanent injunction currently in effect be lifted by a higher court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service

That's nuts!

[Stevenmarc]

98. OK gays can serve.... deal with it....THAT'S AN ORDER

[Skittles]

152. gay folk have ALWAYS SERVED

the question seems to be whether or not STRAIGHT FOLK can HANDLE KNOWING IT! :rofl:

[xchrom]

107. Recommend - and thanks to Beam Me Up Scottie for dealing

With some real nightmare posting.

[donco6]

108. Absolutely.

That one deserves a Medal of Honor.

[beam me up scottie]

137. .

:toast:

[beam me up scottie]

136. You always make me blush, xchrom :)

Listening to some Jackson Browne here, happened to come across these lyrics just now:

"Until the Land of the Free
Is awake and can see
And until her conscience has been found"

~For America, Jackson Browne


Funny how the republicans never use his music at their conventions.

[HughBeaumont]

149. Not the first time . . .

. . . Dickmaster General thinks adult intervention to protect kids who cannot defend themselves is just "whining", and they should simply stop being a victim and start kickin' them sum ACE!

Right . . . you know, because I could have done that against teacher's kids and wouldn't have been expelled from school. Yep. That would have happened. :sarcasm:

[MrScorpio]

109. It won't happen...

It's a dumb assed speculation by a stupid undersecretary that should have never been voiced.

And plus, this never came from the White House, it's coming from the E-Ring of the Pentagon.

[cliffordu]

151. "May"

He "MAY" be thinking about appointing the monkeys flying out of my butt to the Supreme Court, too, but that prolly ain't gonna happen....

[AtomicKitten]

154. Oh you spoil sport you. nt