Comments

You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Obama vows to end restrictions on gays in military

2009-10-11

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, speaking on the eve of a major gay-rights march, told gay supporters on Saturday he would fight for their causes and renewed a pledge to end restrictions on their service in the U.S. military. To a standing ovation at a dinner held by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, Obama said he would "end 'don't ask, don't tell,' That's my commitment to you."

Bet he spent more time on that than he did with General McChrystal ...

Obama, who was referring to the policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, was seeking to shore up his support among gays and lesbians who backed him strongly during last year's presidential campaign.

Many gay activists are frustrated he has not moved more quickly to carry out promises, such as overturning the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from forcing states to recognize gay marriage.

At the dinner, Obama acknowledged that work on those issues was "taking longer than you'd like" as the push to overhaul healthcare and dealing with the economic crisis dominate his domestic agenda. But he promised "unwavering" support for broadening the rights of gays and lesbians and said he would not allow the issue to be sidetracked.

"Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach," said Obama, who made history as the first African American president and compared the push for gay rights to the struggles in the 1960s to end discrimination against blacks. "My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time when we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians, whether in the office or on the battlefield."

Obama touted his decision to extend some benefits to partners of gay federal employees and said he hopes to soon sign a bill that would broaden the definition of hate crimes to include attacks on people because of their sexual orientation. The House of Representatives passed the bill last week and the Senate is expected to act soon.

Posted by:Steve White

#15 Pat Lawless, ex RAR, Army Air Corps, and a friend resigned over this. How many gay salutes was his worth worth?

Posted by: Rhodesiafever 2009-10-11 17:33

#14 Broadhead6 has it right. As a Task Force Commander with 450 Army/AF personnel I dealt with multiple instances of suspected gay personnel and off duty behavior over the course of 4.5 years. The worst was having the J2 (female 04) show up at a social function in a turtleneck and male style business suit with her partner (female 03 roommate) in a frilly pink dress. Everyone worked very hard not to gawk but they both got loaded and made physical relationship very apparent. Based on wives complaints I started an inquiry, and the JAG closed the whole thing down based on command influence above me.
In the combat arms units, this will breed bigtime trouble.

Posted by: NoMoreBS 2009-10-11 17:28

#13 Britain's armed forces faced
a spate of resignations in
protest when the
Government lifted the ban
on homosexuals serving in
the military, newly-released
documents reveal.
The Royal Navy in
particular suffered a loss of
experienced senior rates
and warrant officers who
preferred to quit rather
than serve alongside gay
colleagues aboard
warships, while others
demanded segregated
showers and toilets for gay
sailors.
Soldiers voiced concerns
over room-sharing and
warned that allowing
homosexuals to serve
would "under mine unit
and team cohesion",
particularly within the
infantry, while RAF
personnel were worried
that same-sex couples
would move into married
quarters and "influence"
children.
However, the official study
carried out two-and-a-half
years after the long-
standing ban was ended in
January 2000 concluded
that it had "no discernible
impact on operational
efficiency" despite the
fierce controversy which
raged over the decision.
Judges at the European
Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg in 1999
declared that Britain's ban
on homosexuals serving in
the military was illegal, as it
breached their human right
to privacy.
Prior to the ruling, around
60 personnel a year were
being thrown out of the
forces in disgrace for being
gay.
But the ban was abruptly
abolished and replaced
with a single code of
conduct on personal
relationships covering both
gay and straight servicemen
and women.
The new approach outlaws
"sex not sexuality", banning
"displays of affection" or
"unwelcome sexual
attention" but treating
sexual orientation as a
private matter.
The MOD commissioned an
official study in 2002 which
was kept secret but has
now been published under
the Freedom of
Information Act.
It reveals a far stronger
backlash among junior
ranks than was
acknowledged at the time.
Navy chiefs reported that
the new policy "did not
command the universal
approval of all Service
personnel."
The fiercest opposition was
among senior rates and
warrant officers.
The report states: "This
stratum of naval society is
considered to be one of
the most traditional and,
correspondingly, there
remains some disquiet in
the Senior Ratings' Messes
concerning the policy on
homosexuality within the
Service."
A number of resignations
followed where sailors
cited the lifting of the ban
as one factor in their
decision to quit.
Younger and more junior
sailors appeared to take a
more liberal view, "as the
majority have friends or
acquaintances who are
homosexual."
Some were unhappy about
having to live in confined
spaces below decks with
gay colleagues.
But the report concludes:
"No practical difficulties
have been encountered,
although it has been
suggested that training in
interrogation involving
strip-searching might cause
difficulties."
Within the Army, many
junior ranking soldiers still
felt that homosexuality
would undermine unit and
team cohesion, and
operational effectiveness.
The report observes:
"Heterosexuals do not
want to share rooms with
homosexuals."
"Soldiers should not be
compelled to share
accommodation with
persons of a different
gender or sexual
orientation."
"There is a strong feeling
that toilets and showers
should be separated as per
male and female
arrangements."
Despite expectations, few
personnel or new recruits
decided to reveal their
homosexuality when the
ban was lifted, the report
notes.
At the time a small
number of senior officers
quit publicly in protest over
the ending of the ban,
including Army Brigadier
Pat Lawless and Navy
Commander Colin Douglas
- who called the decision
"the final straw".
Conservative MPs opposed
the policy, and pledged to
allow the armed forces to
review the decision.

Posted by: Rhodesiafever 2009-10-11 17:26

#12 the military is not a social experiment, nor should it be. As a leader I cannot protect openly gays from those that are vehemently opposed to their lifestyle, it is what it is. See what happens when openly gays or the super macho 18-22 yr old crowd happen upon each other out in town off-base - the law of unintended consequences will cause us lots of paperwork and Art 31 hearings.

Posted by: Broadhead6 2009-10-11 13:09

#11 PTSD will do that. And perhaps it should.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-10-11 12:46

#10 I see the potential here of adding to the moral problems, which will reduce new enlistments and reinlistment numbers. That would 'justify' bringing back the draft for mandatory volunteer service...tent/camel.

Posted by: Muggsy Glink 2009-10-11 12:34

#9 Because of DADT, Bill Clinton turned what was a simple honorable discharge to those caught in homosexual acts into a "homosexual hunting license". Commanders, however, know that they had damn well better not report the murder of a homosexual as motivated by his homosexuality. But such killings are not rare.

Any homosexual who would now 'out' himself might as well paint a target on his chest. If his command figures out, about the only thing they can do is transfer them, and keep them, at the higher headquarters.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-10-11 10:18

#8 Round-up of skepticism here.

Best line: "Obama's past approach - Let's divide this up; I'll talk, you swoon - isn't working."

Yee-ouch.

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-10-11 10:16

#7 Procopius-

Do NOT get me started on Kelly Flynn. The media also never mentioned that she shouldn't have made it through flight training - I personally knew one of her instructors, and he said that she was a competent pilot, but NOT B-52 material. And on at least two occasions he knew of (one of which involved him) Higher Authority saved her insubordinate @ss when she was about to be sent home from flight training.

Gorb - Actually, you'd be surprised. There were several folks I knew who, if I'd have been asked, would have said "Yep, they're gay" - and weren't. Needless to say, the reverse happened more than a few times. But at least in the USAF, I ran across many, many instances (especially for some reason in the Base Hospitals - go figure) where everyone knew who everybody else was, and it was NO PROBLEM. The only time it became one was when somebody did or said something so obvious (usually under the influence) that something had to be done, and even then most reluctantly. Once or twice that I remember there were, sad to say, official witch hunts, but those were few and far between.

Mike

Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2009-10-11 09:20

#6 Agree what Procopious said; and the other problem being - the military just barely has a grip on sexual harassment by straights. Same-gender sexual harassment is something I don't think the military really wants to cope with. And such cases would appear, like mushrooms after a rain, if DADT were swept away.
You know, originally, DADT was a compromise - "You can be gay and in the military" but keep it beneath the radar, 'kay?" It didn't satisfy either party completely, but that's what workable compromises are.

Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2009-10-11 08:56

#5 This is about power and special interest groups.

For the non-military, what has been intentionally buried in the discussion is the fact that hundreds of straights every years are kicked out for sexual conduct. They are separated for adultery, sexual harassment, and fraternization. Remember Kelly Flynn. She became the cause celeb of the day as a female 'victim' as posed by her lawyer on a 60 minutes segment. What her lawyer didn't tell anyone, nor the usual enablers in the MSM, was that around 75 male officers had been kicked out under similar circumstance in the prior year. The same applies to the sexual behavior of straights and that impact upon unit effectiveness and cohesion. When a straight is kicked out for such acts, it can and does often result in a less than honorable discharge, though on negotiated cases like Flynn's where she resigned rather than face Courts Martial, they can get a General Discharge. Less than Honorable discharge forfeits VA benefits. Some employers actually ask what kind of discharge one has received, much like 'have you ever been convicted of a felony'.

The radical gay special interest groups pushing this are not interested in equality. They want to both serve openly and be exempt from the same prosecution that straights are currently subject to. Otherwise gays would still be separated from the service for their sexual behavior and that is unacceptable to the power players.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-10-11 08:42

#4 I'd take him more seriously if there was an actual deadline for this momentous decision to be implemented. Right now, I think he's just trying to keep the rubes writin' the checks and singin' hallelujah to the One. (As a bonus, he gets their votes without doing anything to tork off his African-American base in the meantime.)

Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-10-11 08:04

#3 Obama's policy is say, something, do nothing, so I would wait.

Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-10-11 06:12

#2 Not having been in the military directly, it would seem to me that folks would pretty much know who is who anyway. Is this true?

Posted by: gorb 2009-10-11 02:02

#1 Actually, if you think of it---it makes perfect sense. Now any senior officer who refuses to worship the One, can be accused of being anti-gay (no? think again).

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-10-11 00:59

00:00