You have commented 339 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.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Democrats call for temporary 'don't ask' immunity
2009-12-05
Frustrated by the lack of action to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Democrats in Congress are calling for at least temporary immunity so gay service members can testify at the Capitol about their experiences.

Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, Florida Democrat, introduced a bill this week to grant immunity to troops who otherwise would run afoul of the policy, which bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. He and other advocates see it as at least a first step to pushing the issue forward.

"You can't expect a legitimate and informed debate over repeal if you keep gay troops in the closet," said Nathaniel Frank, a senior fellow at the Palm Center, which researches sexuality and the military and supports changing the policy.

The don't ask, don't tell policy originated in the 1990s as a compromise. Homosexual soldiers were allowed to remain in the military, but only as long as they kept their sexuality private. Disclosure of homosexuality would be grounds for dismissal.

But since then, gay rights groups, many Democrats and some Republicans have argued that the policy serves no purpose and costs the military the services of key personnel, including linguists and intelligence analysts needed to fight the war on terrorism.

Opponents of gays serving in the military said the carve-out exemption that Democratic lawmakers are proposing is a sign of their frustration.

"They were looking for a hearing this year, and that's clearly not going to happen, and they don't know when it's going to happen next year," said Tom Sears, executive director of the Center for Military Readiness.

Still, he said, it's "a wake-up call to Republicans" that the debate on gays in the military is coming soon - possibly when Congress takes up its next annual defense authorization bill.

Mr. Hastings, the bill's chief sponsor, has bristled at the slow pace of action to end the military policy.

He has sent two letters to President Obama prodding him to show leadership on the issue, and Mr. Hastings introduced an amendment to a defense bill earlier this year to stop the policy, though he withdrew the amendment rather than force a vote. The congressman said the White House and some of his fellow members pressured him not to go forward at the time.
Posted by:Fred

#23  although Rantburg's Lurid Tales and Seedy Politicians sections would be ever so much smaller.

and I wouldn't be so assured that there are bigger jerks than me
Posted by: Frank G   2009-12-05 21:31  

#22  To continue: life would be so much less exhausting were the civilians to live by that rule as well... although Rantburg's Lurid Tales and Seedy Politicians sections would be ever so much smaller.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-12-05 20:36  

#21  The bottom line, as far as I can tell, is that everyone is celibate while Over There. At home, whatever you do at home with your significant other (of whatever duration), you don't talk about it on the base. Again as far as I can tell, Don't Ask Don't Tell is a restatement of that rule for homosexuals, the same as it holds for darkies and wymyns, Shipman... and the rest of humanity in all their glory.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-12-05 20:34  

#20  Since I can't edit.... it certainly makes sense that those folks would impair combat effectiveness by their presence. Much like an idiot would with a brass key.

It isn't 'presence'. It's 'conduct'.

I understand there might be confusion on those. Much like 'rushed political agenda' and 'considered decision' - or in your case - 'positive contribution' and 'terminal sarcasm'.
Posted by: Pappy   2009-12-05 20:33  

#19  I did 29 years, first six in the USMC and USMCR as an enlisted (E1-E6) and then 23 in the Army as a commissioned officer. In Intel, combat arms and senior staff positions. I served with a number of people who were obviously gay, but had the good manners and common sense not to make a display of it. In combat arms units, I can tell you that openly flaunted homosexual lifestyle will be enormously corrosive to unit morale and discipline. Stop making the military the social lab for the gay agenda! Just becasue they obey orders doesn't mean it wont drastically affect efficient units, and do you really want to make the national defense the place you force the gay agenda?
Posted by: NoMoreBS   2009-12-05 18:06  

#18  You know, I have more than a dozen close friends who are deployed for the 4th or 5th tour right now in combat situations. Another year away from their families, another year when they might die.

They and their units have seen more death and gruesome destruction than any person needs for a lifetime. And we're asking them to do it yet again in Afghanistan, with their hands tied by rules of engagement that are pretty much unprecedented in combat.

So excuse me if I don't give a flying fuck about challenging DADT right now.
Posted by: lotp   2009-12-05 17:44  

#17  And:
Since I can't edit.... it certainly makes sense that those folks would impair combat effectiveness by their presence. Much like an idiot would with a brass key.
Posted by: Shipman   2009-12-05 17:30  

#16   I'm sure you mean to be wittily sarcastic, Shipman, but I doubt you have much of a clue about what makes military units function well or how to lead one effectively.

You are absolutely correct on all points except for the ones pointed out.

Darkies
Wymens

Have no place in a military environment where their presence could lead to a lack of comabat effectivenss.

Perhaps you will agree with parts. Or not.




Posted by: Shipman   2009-12-05 17:28  

#15  the Flamboyant Gays™ surely haven't been in due to DADT. The quiet ones (which have been in the military) are not an issue AFAICT, as most respect them and just don't want it "thrust in their face" so to speak, same as in any workplace. I've worked with gays that I like and gays that I didn't. Just like with straights, I don't need to know "how much ass you tapped" over the weekend, especially if it's literal. Keep it to yourself, don't sexually harrass anyone in teh workplace, and we all get along
Posted by: Frank G   2009-12-05 16:44  

#14  I'm sure you mean to be wittily sarcastic, Shipman, but I doubt you have much of a clue about what makes military units function well or how to lead one effectively.

The military, as has been noted more than once, is not civilian life - what works in the latter doesn't necessarily belong in the former. And in combat unit cohesion is a lot more important than sly witty digs.
Posted by: lotp   2009-12-05 16:26  

#13  I mean sure as hell as soon as you let deh ghez in they'll be mixing races and sexes on ships. We'll need huge handbaskets on wheels.
Posted by: Shipman   2009-12-05 16:12  

#12  overt sexual behaviors have corrosive effects

Do tell! :)

What's with these damn crzy ghez? Like Rabbits!
Posted by: Shipman   2009-12-05 16:08  

#11  It only takes one federal judge to alter that and removing DADT from the plate will be the nudge one is looking for. There's a 14th Amendment issue here and 'incorporation' can be a two way street. Then it'll require literally a constitutional amendment as in California to change it back to non-recognition.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-12-05 15:13  

#10  P2K, IIRC the Federal gov't does not recognize gay marriages (yet).
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2009-12-05 14:37  

#9  I'm assuming you're being ironic, Shipman, but I'm with Procopius on this one. Even within the far-from-combat conditions of staff offices in the Pentagon and the service academies, overt sexual behaviors have corrosive effects. Add in the all-male makeup of combat branches in the Army and the consequences go up significantly. At a time of voluntary service, DADT is a decent compromise IMO.
Posted by: lotp   2009-12-05 14:33  

#8  Awesome work there, crazy gehz in the US Army have been in the headlines a lot recently.
Posted by: Shipman   2009-12-05 13:19  

#7  Figure this one out. A gay military couple go to Iowa or Massachusetts and gets married. They show up at family housing demanding their housing entitlement to married service members. It's a legal document as it would be for a straight couple from the same states. Do you give them family housing or do you give them a housing allowance to 'take it off post'. What happens next when the junior enlisted figure out that with that little piece of paper they too can get out of the barracks. While there are probably a number of 'no sex' marriages between opposite sex couples in the military, the low ratio of male to female means they are few and it doesn't have much an effect on command and control. So when, the barracks start emptying out of non-sexual same sex 'married' couples who do have the proper paper work, does the senior leadership figure out they've lost control.

Military service for gays is like the abstinent priesthood in the Catholic Church. With full and unquestionable understanding of the conditions of service, you 'serve' the duration to those conditions. When personal desires exceed the restrictions, you leave.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-12-05 13:08  

#6  The fact that gays are serving in the military shows they are capable of keeping their business, THEIR business. Nothing would change if they were suddenly "allowed" to serve except we would not discharge someone for saying "I'm gay".
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2009-12-05 12:30  

#5  didnt they beat this issue to death about 8 or 9 years back. I thought it went away......
Posted by: 746   2009-12-05 10:27  

#4  Credited the wrong rant *#&#*#@!. Spot on Procopius2k.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-12-05 08:47  

#3  Spot on Cyber Sarge. There should be no place in the military or the Air Force for sodomy. The only thing a soldier should be concerned about going up his arse is his first sergeant's boot!
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-12-05 08:45  

#2  Sorry Sarge, in my twenty years in the Army I saw sexual behaviors that destroyed unit integrity. The military, unlike civil society, does control both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors. Don't ask, don't tell applies to both. When partners have cheaters in and among the unit, it causes the unit to split into factions. In an environment in which you have to depend on the person next to you to literally cover your back or be serious wounded or killed, you can't afford that kind of friction. Fraternization, adultery, and sexual harassment are already at the point that no one wants to look at the real numbers. Removing Don't Ask, Don't Tell will have to apply to the heteros as well, that's when you end being military and just become another organization with dysfunctional behaviors that will undermine effectiveness of that organization. The radicals in the gay community pushing this are not looking for justice, they're looking for power. They just don't want DADT ended, they also want to be exempted from punish for sexual behaviors that heteros are disciplined and discharged every year for. As soon as it's lifted, they'll make a big cry that they're being picked on for coming out in order to deflect that they would be held to those same standards everyone else has been held to for generations. That means not a General Discharge but a Less than Honorable or Bad Conduct Discharge with loss of veteran status. Nothing like increasing the time and resources the small unit commanders have to spend on problem children rather than on the mission.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-12-05 08:23  

#1  I my shock some of you but I really don't care if someone is gay and serves in the military. I spent 20 years in the Air Force and I can say without a doubt I have served with people who are gay. Truth is the issue of someones sexuality rarely if ever comes up in the course of your job. In 20 years I can never remember a time to announce my sexual preference in a staff meeting, or Commanders Call. I think that gays would have few problems if they acted the same way and not expect some sort of special status. When I first joined I remember supervisors anguishing whether they should confront a subordinate about behavior or job performance because of their race or gender. I made a vow that when I was a supervisor I would quit if I found myself even mildly thinking along those lines. Would I support a gay night at the NCO club? Not any more than I would support a white, black, or Asian night because it detracts from unit cohesiveness. Yes there are celebration of black/Latino/Asian history but that is more to highlight MILITARY heritage and those who fought for inclusiveness not special treatment. Do I approve of the gay lifestyle? No, but unless it affects job performance I really couldn't care less. P.S I also don't approve of mashing on the dance floor at happy hour by anyone (get a room).
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2009-12-05 07:48  

00:00