Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Chairman, you're not helping

I support the repeal of DADT - but I also think that those who want to keep it are on balance people with the best interests of our nation at heart. Good people can disagree on issues of substance.

I don't know what he was trying to do - but Admiral Mullen just made it personal, and that is sad.
"No matter how I look at the issue," Mullen said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." Noting that he was speaking for himself and not for the other service chiefs, Mullen added: "For me, it comes down to integrity - theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."
So, we bring everyone's integrity into it? The institution's? Before a law has changed ... etc ... etc ... etc ...

He dug his hole deeper on
twiddah.
Stand by what I said: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is the right thing to do. Comes down to integrity.
Admiral Mullen lost me awhile ago - but this just confirms that I was right.

This will only make post-DADT more difficult. Adding insult to injury - as many people, good people, will not be happy - does not help things at all.

IMAO, throwing the "I" word around this was a very selfish act - and d@mn late in the game for that argument. Shame on him.

129 comments:

xbradtc said...

If the good Chairman wants to impress upon me his insistence on integrity, he should call the CNO in for a little chat vis a vis the USNA. Then they can get around to discussing "precepts" for promotion boards. And then maybe they can discuss DADT.

Andrewdb said...

Well, the current policy _does_ say it's ok to serve, as long as you lie about your life partner.  That does sound a like an integrity issue.

traumleben said...

I wouldn't call it weaponization or misuse of "integrity".  On the matter of institutional integrity, he's really calling into question the USG since it's Federal Statute -- <span>Public Law 103-160 – Nov. 30, 1993 – § 546, 107 Stat. 1670 (1993) (codified at 10 U.S.C. A. § 654).  A law that compels a segment of the armed forces population to lie/deny/omit/ignore an element of their identity is inherently wrong.  It's a matter of personal integrity because the individual sacrifices their own values in the deception they're forced to maintain in order to serve.</span>

I was with you when you said DADT, Don't Care.  Maybe we had different interpretations.  The military's just tracking along with society.  We're no longer a social experiment leading the way for the rest of society.  These days we're lagging, which is no place to be for a global competitor.

Andrewdb said...

You're right, it's not a policy, it's a law.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

<span>Admiral Mullen's inappropriate and ill-advised remarks regarding "integrity" on the issue of DADT are quite disturbing.  With his statement, Admiral Mullen instantly dismisses any viewpoint that someone may hold who objects to homosexuality on moral or religious grounds as being somehow dishonest. Such a comment, and such an assertion from an active duty Officer made in his official capacity, is blatantly unprofessional and an abuse of his office.  </span>
<span> </span>
<span>By his comments, Admiral Mullen also attempts to marginalize any very legitimate debate as to whether the certain difficulties of allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the Armed Forces will adversely affect readiness or combat effectiveness of our military forces.  Those arguments, and many others that should be considered regarding this issue, are legitimate and in many ways, compelling.  Whether Admiral Mullen believes so or not.   </span>
<span> </span>
<span>Ironically, Admiral Mullen throws around the word "integrity" rather lightly for a Flag Officer and Joint Chiefs Chairman, when the "diversity" push that is the CNO's number one priority is reflected in policies such as admissions to the US Naval Academy, and the USNA Color Guard fiasco, violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The violations of that act are in the name of political expedience and occur with the explicit approval of the CNO.  The case of Midn Curry at USNA further exacerbates Mullen's pontification on "integrity".   </span>
<span> </span>
<span>Regardless of where one falls regarding DADT, Admiral Mullen's comments reflect the shameful tendency of late in such matters to demonize any disagreement or difference of opinion as somehow immoral, hateful, and illegitimate.   </span>
<span> </span>
<span>His declaration that "it comes down to integrity" is nothing short of an act of political sycophancy. His condemnation of those who disagree with his view, which appears to be a personal one, is entirely inappropriate and something he is not in any way qualified to do.  He has violated the special trust and confidence of his office in the name of currying political favor, and he is no longer fit to lead.</span>

Anon said...

What did the Chairman say that isn't true?  This is a policy that requires people to lie to serve their country.  We as an organization are asking them to lie.  He has a fair point that it seems inconsistent for an organization that prides itself on integrity to have a policy that encourages dishonesty by its members.  He's not demonizing anyone nor questioning the integrity of those who have legitimate concerns about repealing DADT, he's simply offering an explanation for why he came to the conclusion that supporting repeal is the right thing to do.  I fail to see how he was being "selfish" by showing leadership on a complex issue facing the organization, or by giving Congress his honest opinion on the same.

sobersubmrnr said...

Nobody is "forced" to lie, Anon. Homosexuals are not eligible to join, so they shold not try. Just like all the other people with an issue that disqualifies them from military service. If homosexuals really want to get involved, there's always the civil service within DoD.

Admiral Mullen is a politician in uniform and nothing more. The same applies for Admiral Roughead and General Casey. If the CJCS and CNO are so keen on the repeal of the exclusion law, then they should have pushed the issue back when it wasn't popular with the White House. Doing it now is just playing Yes Man to Obama. Arleigh Burkes they are not.

Anon said...

I'm sure you had the same problems with General Pace's statements a few years ago, in which he expressed support for DADT and then went further to offer his personal opinion on why he felt that way (i.e., homosexuality is immoral).  I'm sure you spoke out then and called him unprofessional and unfit to lead, and wailed about how he was silencing those who held different views.

Nothing in what Admiral Mullen said condemned anyone, which is more than I can say for the rant you posted.  Political sycophancy?  That's a heck of an accusation, and without any basis in fact.  If you're going to call people out for being unprofessional, you probably shouldn't behave that way yourself.

You're entitled to your opinion on what is best for the armed forces.  You're not entitled to have the leadership of the organization agree with you, or refrain from expressing its opinion for fear of hurting your feelings.

sobersubmrnr said...

The majority of American society still does not condone homosexuality, despite what a skewed poll may show. Even many who claim to be alright with it still make fun of homosexuals behind their backs, leading me to believe that they are not sincere.

Surface Force said...

Watching yesterday's testimony, Sen Levin (D-MI) mentioned how much he appreciated ADM Mullen's "I" and personal opinion on the matter...of course the Chairman's gift to the Senator was immediately used as a political trump card.

I've always been ambivalent on ADM Mullen he did do some good things after he releived CNO like firing then-VADM Sestak (who treated his people like garbage) and canning lots of Clark initiatives like "seaswap". But other than his first year as CNO, he has always seemed to be the "go along, get along" type of Flag.

Anon said...

You are incorrect that homosexuals are not eligible to join.  The current law permits homosexuals to serve so long as they do not engage in homosexual conduct.  In other words, they are required to conceal their sexual orientation in order to continue serving.

Every flag and general officer is a politician to some degree, but I don't think you have a factual basis for arguing that the CJCS is attempting to curry favor with the president.  Did the last president or the last Congress ask the service chiefs for their opinion on this subject?  When the last CJCS spoke his mind on the subject, was he just a yes man to the last president?  Instead of questioning people's motives, we should be focusing on the merits of their arguments.

LT B said...

Yep, this is helpful.  This will be another diversity bat with which they will beat our heads.  I am fine w/ gays in the mil, but please dont' make a gay pride month, don't send me to more sensitivity training.  I don't feel like giving more of my day up for yet another social agenda.  You want to perform fellatio on your b/f?  I don't care, sir.  Just let me do my job and don't absorb more of my little time available to do so. 

Byron Audler said...

I'm sure that URR could give a rats ass about his feelings. He is a Marine, and other than expressing delirious joy that he a Marine, or sorrow when a Marine is sent to his final Post, he has no "feelings". He is deeply concerned about the current rash of incidents that clearly show that the Navy morals rudder has suffered a casualty.

YNSN said...

I read this as sound bite #1 for the campaign for Mike Mullen Rep/Sen from California (he is from Cali, isn't he). 

He can't have that much more time as CJCS.  I think he is setting his retirement up.

YNSN said...

Anon.  He didn't need to say anything with the "I" word in it to change policy.  His statements were made personal for his personal gain.  Nothing else could come from it otherwise. 

MR T's Haircut said...

<span>I watched the political freak show and I was struck by the SECDEF comments.  Seems this is a done deal.. I guess the "implementation team" is getting all hitched up to the wagon before the skinner comes out to tell us where to go... 
 
There were hints of direction in his commentary.  I loved the "we are going to do an authoritive reveiw in the ranks"... or I may be paraphrasing, but yea good luck getting a straight answer when the survey comes down, if it comes down, if you are against this... 
 
I smell a case of results by firing...  
 
DADT has worked.  Let it continue.  We are at war and we have better energy to use our resources on than this shinola...</span>

MR T's Haircut said...

<span><span>Oh yea, one more consideration.  This is opens up a whole new expenditure for BAH, BAS, Ombudsman, spouse appreciation.... well you get the idea, it has the potential to deeply offend the water carriers and leave the military in a worsened state of military readiness.  This is a volunteer force.  I suspect this could be the end of that volunteer force as people vote with thier feet or choose not to partake in the non required, social engineering of our fighting forces..</span></span>

YNSN said...

ADM Mullen just posted on Facebook a colum from the WaPo titled "Mullen Deserves a Medal for Senate testimony backing open military service by gays".

Why is the Admiral making this issue about him?  Anything else, I could dismiss as being strange, but nothing major.  But, posting about ones self on facebook on an issue like this?! 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020203486.html

Largebill said...

Mullen has been in Washington far too long.  Don't get me wrong, I didn't he was worth a darn before he started hanging our with the intelligensia in DC either.  In DC popularity on the cocktail circuit is like an aphrodiasic.  A lot of these character become like high schoolers again wanting to be liked by the cool kids.

Grumpy Old Ham said...

Indeed.  Define irony: "Defending integrity while a flaship institution of your Service is tossing it overboard."

Largebill said...

Oh, and another thing . . . .   It isn't exactly a profile in courage to go before congress and say this crap knowing your boss is pushing it.  If he had any courage and truly was a big advocate for open flaming he'd have said this to congress when he was CNO or CJCS under a president who did not support repealing DADT.

YNSN said...

No, I am impressed with what he did in terms of what the WaPo article has to say.  Forget the merrits of for or against.  What he did was impressive and took courage.  I think he earned his paycheck today.  He also effectively took the wind out of the GOPs sails.  Which, I'd imagine is why they didn't stick around for the whole hearing. 

If we could fight this war with the tactics he displayed today, we'd be in much better shape...  now then let's just get this issue, one way or the other, behind us and focus on real tasks.

Will said...

YNSN is right on, the Admiral is setting himself up for a political career.

Anonymous said...

Anon, he's a political hack and the CNO is worse. My opinion and I'm sticking to it for good reason. And you're incorrect about the law. It bans homosexuals from serving. DADT is different, it's a policy that states just what the name implies....they don't have to tell and nobody will ask. They don't have to lie because nobody asks if they are gay in the first place. They are still ineligible to join, tho.

Anonymous said...

<span>You're incorrect about the law. It bans homosexuals from serving. DADT is different, it's a policy that states just what the name implies....they don't have to tell and nobody will ask. They don't have to lie because nobody asks if they are gay in the first place. They are still ineligible to join, tho. As for ADM Mullen, he's a political hack, worst than most. Guys like MG Cucolo, not as much. At least he tried.
</span>

gorilspi said...

What would the medal/ribbon look like?

sobersubmrnr said...

<span><span>You're incorrect about the law. It bans homosexuals from serving. DADT is different, it's a policy that states just what the name implies....they don't have to tell and nobody will ask. They don't have to lie because nobody asks if they are gay in the first place. They are still ineligible to join, tho. As for ADM Mullen, he's a political hack, worst than most. Guys like MG Cucolo, not as much. At least he tried.
</span></span>

YNSN said...

it was said in hyperbole and bias on the authors part.  There is no medal deserving of what he did.  If he was being honest, it is what he is paid to do.  Although way outside the norm for a CJCS.  I just hope he speaks with such conviction on matters that are truly important to the military. 

sobersubmrnr said...

He was just confirmed for second term as CJCS a few months ago. That was when the topic of women in submarines was first broached...it was by him in front of the SASC and without being asked.

Matt Hawks said...

ADM Mullen is entitled to his opinion, but expressing it in Congressional testimony is not helpful to the nation.  He was in uniform, he was there on behalf of the US military, not Mike the cool guy.
I am not perfect - far from it as could be.  But I serve a perfect, holy, righteous, loving God.  As a Christian, the right thing to do in any situation is to prevent the calling of evil good.  "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil..." Isaiah 5:20.  Homosexual relations pervert the organs God gave us for procreation (and yes recreation) within marriage.  Yes, homosexual relations are a form of evil.  (As are other acts I seem to commit daily, like lust, envy, greed, etc.  I will not say those are good - they are evil.)  CJCS - please do not call evil good.
Unless I am mistaken, there are still UCMJ articles against adultery and sodomy.  Why?  Maybe because at some time in the past, the proper use of our "equipment" was widely understood, and improper use was appropriately punished.
It is hard, it is difficult, it may ultimately cause me to resign my commission, but I will continue to resist a change in the current law, which correctly states "homosexuality is incompatible with military service."  The current law is good.  Oops! - should I have posted this anonymously, or is it ok for my personal opinions to disagree with the personal opinion of the CJCS?
A final thought on integrity: "The man of integrity walks securely, but he who takes crooked paths will be found out." (Proverbs 10:9)

sobersubmrnr said...

This isn't a done deal. Most the GOP and a lot of Dems are against this, including Ike Skelton, Chairman of the HASC. McCain is already up in arms. This is by no means a done deal.

gorilspi said...

Thank you for writing this. 

Amazing how the supporting of the "civil rights" issue is the "moral" position ("Mullen's allusion to integrity), while it is "immoral" to oppose a precept that has been part of the US military for a long,long time.  I guess the winds of "change"determine morality.

Bizarro world.

Perhaps I should not be in uniform.   As I see what is planned as one in the bowels of the Pentagon, and having worked with CNP's crew, I shudder to see where this fine institution is going.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

anon,

I didn't offer my opinion.  Nor did I intimate that anyone who doesn't agree with me is driven by some moral failing.  That is JUST what Admiral Mullen did. 

General Pace offered his personal opinion as just that, when asked, by the way.  How wise that was is open to debate.  Admiral Mullen in essence told the Armed Forces that his opinion would be policy and anyone who didn't agree with it were lacking in integrity.  Which is despicable political toadying and smells like the other end of a nomination/confirmation bargain.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Leadership?  Please.  Parroting back what the CINC has already told him hardly qualifies. 

Leadership:

"Sgt, take your squad around the left and see if you can flank that machine gun."

"Aye aye, Sir."

Slightly more intestinal fortitude than selling one's soul before Congress. 

FOD said...

Wow... Here I thought that DADT allowed folks to keep their integrity by not being asked or forcing others to ask - that is not being put in a position to lie or get kicked out.  Same position for leaders, if you have "suspicions" about a Sailor's preferences, it clears you from having to pursue those.

Also, people need to remember that there is a difference betweeen sexual orientation and sexual behavior.  We now accept the orientation and condemn the behavior. If we make this a Civil Rights issue, and tie the behavior to it (having gay sex is like being black - can't change it) then how do we permit some their Civil Rights to have sex at sea, but prohibit it for others?

Largebill said...

It would be very pretty.

Marine6 said...

Integrity is like pregnancy. You've either got it, or you don't. And all the evidence available points to the fact that the current Naval leadership falls far short of having integrity, To them it appears that "integrity" is just a feel good word used to buttress your arguments in support of your PC objectives.

Jim Stockdale would have great difficulty recognizing the current Navy as the same organization that he devoted his life to. There was a time when integrity was a cornerstone of of the foundation of military leadership. VADM Stockdale epitomized that ideal.
the current generation falls far, far short.

Anthony Mirvish said...

Claims of institutional integrity, honor and honesty would be more believable if we hadn't just gone through yet another USNA episode that demonstrates (again) a shortage of all of those things, most especially amongst the senior "leadership" responsible for inculcating them. 

Even granting that Mullen is speaking from honest convicition, with all the other stuff, the overall picture is not one of maverick men of principle speaking truth to power but of timid politicians in uniform getting out in front of the crowd and saying what they think their masters and the press want to hear.  I guess they want to be liked.

Of course, the same arguments and process was followed with women in combat, and continues to be.

Mike said...

I believe ADM Mullen to be a sad sad sad example of a senior Naval officer.  He came late to the race issue and is coming late the the DADT issue.  Where was his integrity years ago?  Did he check it at the door and now that he's CJCS, he's going to pick it up again.  It's weak.  He's weak.  Just a bit too mushy for me.  GEN PACE was against gays in the military and sad so - he was left by the wayside.  ADM Mullen is for gays in the military - he should suffer the same fate.  Talk about a politically expedient guy.  Where were his objections to GTMO and military tribunals when he was CNO.  He just goes with the flow - and the flow is headed down the toilet.

Old NFO said...

I'm looking forward to the excuses when this blows up.  Eighteen year old kids in boot camp with proselytizing gay activists as drill instructors.  56 man berthing compartments and open showers all shared with a few open homosexuals.  Shop supervisors and division chiefs being threatened with harassment charges if they try to get any work out of a self described gay.  Take all the problems of putting women on ships and multiply them several fold.  

As for Admiral Mullen and his ilk.  I wonder if there is a point where political correctness would become too much even for them.  They still can't admit the Fort Hood massacre was done by an Islamic Terrorist.  And now they think allowing open homosexuals into the high pressure close quarters of shipboard life is a great idea.  

Earth to Admiral Mullen and Obama.  The military is not an office.  You don't go home at the end of the day.  You live in close contact with your shipmates 24 hours a day for months on end.  Every little personal habit is inflicted on everyone else, especially in the lower enlisted ranks .  I expect homosexuals will become the new protected class in the military.  Good luck meeting your enlistment goals.

Lobotomy (sel) said...

Pretty sure it was Mullen's aide that made that posting.  If an Admiral is as busy as the rest of the fleet then he has no business twiddling around on Facebook.

gorilspi said...

he tweeted the "integrity" comment himself.  he actually did an interview a few weeks ago declaring that he does his own, because his wife encouraged him to do so (paraphrased).

LT B said...

It would be pretty, oh so pretty, oh so witty and bright. 

LT B said...

Now, we will see message traffic w/ "goals" of hithpanic homothexualth.  I agree Old NFO, another protected class, more sensitivity training and less focus on mission readiness. 

Eric Palmer said...

Gay pride month in the DOD? Gay pride day on base/post? At sea? How will slots for base/post housing for married people be issued out? What will the future of base/post housing for married people  look like?

Quartermaster said...

The repeal of DADT will be far more corrosive than a coed Navy. Sorry, Cdr, but your position is at odds with a love for the Navy, or any military service. This is not soemthing that "reasonable" people can disagree on it, unless cancer is just a minor disease. Mullin and Roughhead are just the public face to this dangerous farce.

Eric Palmer said...

Neal and Bob declare themselves gay in order to get base/post housing.

Non said...

No it doesn't.  If the Sailor was straight he could still get married and have the same BAH, same spouse support from fleet and Family Services, etc.

Mr. X said...

I'd like to offer a different point of view on the Chairman's statement, if I may.  I think by expressing his personal judgment on this question, he's opened the door for the service chiefs to do the same when they testify before Congress, and presumably some of them will have differing opinions.  I think he also knew that if he did not express his personal opinion, the talking point from the opposition would be that Obama is forcing this on the military.  His statement at this time lets the public and Congress know that there are some at very high levels in this organization who think a change in the law is not only supportable, but desirable.  That is important information that Congress and the public did not previously have.  I don't think he stifled debate at all.  I think he helped start it.

Non said...

I'm pretty amazed at the amount of hate on this subject.  You have all served with homosexuals, wether you know it or not.  Being gay does not make you a bad person, bad Sailor, or bad American.  Stop throwing your religious morals on others - that's what the settlers of America were trying to escape when they first landed here on the Mayflower.

Also, I'm quite sad all the time and money that will be spent on study after study, hearing after hearing.  It should be repealed, period.  We have the mechanisms in place - it's called the EO system.  We aren't "adding" another special group - it's about treating people fairly and with respect.

Non said...

I agree.  There is information that has been leaked that other service chiefs do not agree, and this allows them to step forward and stated their opinion.  Of course, will they is the question because of their political futures.  Depending on which way the flag officers come out on the issue will drive their post military hiring opportunities.

Andrewdb said...

The Defense of Marriage Act says the Federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage, period.

Largebill said...

Non,

        I didn't see the hate you're imagining.  Some people are disappointed in the CJCS for the manner in which he accused people with a different point of view of having integrity issues.  

As far as serving with gays who hid their sexual orientation - so what?  Are really you unable to see the difference between accepting the possibility (or even probability) of a few gays and having openly flaming gays in your berthing space?  Take that mindset to other problems shipmates may have that we are unaware of.  I'm sure we have thieves in our midst, I guess we should let them serve openly.  I'm sure we have druggies in our midst, might as well let them serve openly.

Do you really think the original settlers of this country came out of concern for gay rights??? 

Lastly, when you assert that we won't be adding another special group, you are showing ignorance about how the diversity industry has operated.  The unstated goal of the diversity bullies to separate people into as many subgroups as possible in order to foster additional grievences.

FOD said...

It sounded to me like we were having a pretty reasoned discussion.  Some people have strong positions, based on commonly held religious beliefs.  I haven't even seen any name-calling. The only reason to call it hate would be to stifle debate.  

Of course we've served with homosexuals. No one said they are bad people.  But just like the nice people who smoke weed, their actions....  the things they do, while serving are illegal. Illegal acts are by definition "wrong" until Congress changes the law.

One doesn't need to be "throwing your religious morals on others" to understand the moral obligation to uphold the law.   Same as saying aye-aye and carrying out an order you don't agree with. That's why the Chairman framing it as an integrity issue has so many here spun up.

RCZ said...

I'm active duty, and I've served at sea and ashore, in submarines and special warfare. At every command, we've had gays. At my current command, we have a YN2 who's gay, everyone knows it, and no one cares. In fact, it hasn't impeded his carreer in the slightest- he's been CAPed to both YN3 and YN2. And yes, he deploys with rest of us. Frankly, I think I'd rather have him on my flank than you folks who seem so obsessed with his off duty behavior. God forbid one of you should see him off duty with his boyfriend and feel the need to investigate- he's done more for the team than either of the last two YNC's we've had.

If SEAL's and SWCC's from E3 to O5 can accept this, perhaps you fine fleet folks can learn to deal with the scary, scary gays.

The simple fact is, the Chairman is right. Integrity is what matters- it ties in to moral courage, and by telling gays who are in all other respects qualified to serve, you must hide who you are and what you do. FWIW, I don't think most of the folks who are gay on AD right now want to wave rainbow flags and proclaim their preference. They just want to serve, without the fear that someone with grudge will force them out because of their preferences.

And to those who want to bring up berthing and other various logistical problems, find another tree. I'd much rather have a clean gay guy in my berthing/hooch/barrracks, than and A-ganger who couldn't be bothered to shower before hitting the rack.

Mr. X said...

Non, I don't think it's hate so much as it is ignorance.  It's apparent from many of the posts here that some think homosexuality is equivalent to drug abuse, openly gay is equivalent to flaming in-your-face sexual predator, saying a policy is bad because it requires people to lie is equivalent to saying those who support the policy hate the truth, and "don't ask" is equivalent to "can't ask".  None of those things is true.  I guess if I lived in the alternate reality where those things were true, I probably wouldn't support repealing DADT either. 

Old NFO said...

Gee Non, hate and ignorance.  That smear didn't take long.  So, I guess anyone who doesn't enthusiastically promote the gay agenda is just a hater and homophobe?  Just curious, why is the type of morality you want to force on the military, and society at large, so much more acceptable than that of traditional Judeo-Christian morality? As for the settlers of America, I don't remember a rejection of Christian morality in the Mayflower Compact.  Perhaps you can point it out.

Anon said...

CDR Salamander, why do you support repealing DADT?

AW1 Tim said...

Non,

   Even IF the military decideds that repealing DADT is what tyhey want, it isn't up to them. It is up to Congress. Congress makes the law(s) and the military follows them. At the moment, it is illegal to allow homosexuals to serve in the military, which is wht DADT was adopted.

  How about:U.S. Code: Title 10 Subtitle A Part II Chapter 37 § 654
Dealing with homosexuality in the armed forces

Excerpts, from the US Code, from a post by over to Blackfive's place.


(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) ... it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that ... the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

  entire law here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html

C-dore 14 said...

When the Chairman testifies before Congress or makes public statements elsewhere he needs to make clear when he is speaking for the JCS as a group or himself as an individual.  I don't see anything more in his preamble here than that.

Having just finished reading McMaster's description of Maxwell Taylor's time as CJCS where he often passed off his personal opinion as the collective judgement of the JCS, I'm happy that Mullen made himself clear.

MR T's Haircut said...

actually it does.. because right now my Sailors dont mary the same sex and my Junior Sailors dont have two guys named Bruce and Steve living in Base housing with no kids while a family of 4 struggles out in town...

MR T's Haircut said...

<span>actually it does.. because right now my Sailors dont marry the same sex and my Junior Sailors dont have two guys named Bruce and Steve living in Base housing in a critical housing area with no kids while a family of 4 struggles out in town...  watch it WILL happen.</span>

MR T's Haircut said...

Don't have to be the Ceasar.. just need to have Ceasar's ear....

MR T's Haircut said...

Obama IS forcing this on the military...

MR T's Haircut said...

FOD, the "Integrity" comment has the implied definition that if you don't support a liar who who lied to join and help that liar have integrity, then that opposing opinion is also lacking the integrity....

MR T's Haircut said...

oh, so if I disagree, I am now a hater... that is how the camel peeks under the tent... I aint gonna stand for it... I simply dont like liars...

MR T's Haircut said...

<span>oh, so if I disagree, I am now a hater... that is how the camel peeks under the tent... I aint gonna stand for it... I simply dont like liars...</span>

MR T's Haircut said...

I think a BSC opened up in the diversity directorate.. a call out to the fleet will be coming for any gay 0-3/0-4 for the rainbow division.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Of course you're a hater, T!  If we disagree with any part of the "program" we must have some moral or intellectual shortcoming that is the root cause, because there is no legitimate disagreement with diversity, gay marriage, repeal of DADT, government health care, gun control....  you get the picture. 

Admiral Mullen proved himself no more than a blatant political hack.  His ilk are less a part of the proud Navy legacy and more a part of the grey uniforms in the dock at Nuremberg.  Both are groups who sold their honor, their tradition, and their professional consciences to please a political master. 

FCC said...

I think it also opens up a legal Pandora's Man-Purse as regards those who have already been discharged for their sexuality.  If the Feds and DoD go all apologist/revisionist (which, politically, you can be sure they will), how much back pay will the Supreme Court determine that the U.S. Treasurer owe the thousands who've been kicked out over the years?

And what about those who just got a "general" or convenience discharge?  Will they be able to say that their command merely padded the blow, and that they were actually kicked out for being gay?  If there's reparation money involved, there'll certainly be a lot of these guys (and gals), too.

cdrsalamander said...

Click the DADT tag ---- and listen to Midrats (click the box on the page) on Sunday.

cdrsalamander said...

Medal - sure; how about a Fleet Unit Commendation with decorative Cluster.

MR T's Haircut said...

It's a cluster alright....

DeltaBravo said...

MTH, you'll be the first person at the sensitivity session.  Admit your crime!

MR T's Haircut said...

Missy, I have been waterboarded before, you'll never get it out of me, War Criminal #10 out...

AW1 Tim said...

Bwe\ahahahahahaha......

  How 'bout em all?  MUC, a NUC, and then a FUC? A "three-way medal"?

AW1 Tim said...

Same here, MTH. If those bassids at Rangely couldn't phaze me..... :)

DM05 said...

We've all served with people - Shipmates - that were gay. So what? His advancing this agenda - and Mike's thoroughly innapropriate comments and use of his office - troubles me. By his vociferous verbalizing and advancement of the openly homosexual agenda, one has to ask if he's setting up, playing to the (often kooky) political masters, or simply a kool-aid drinker. Don't know what's in his head, but we know what comes from his mouth. What would be helpful is an honest reasoned analysis of how encouraging openly gay Sailors will help the Navy become a more effective platform building, platform deploying, war winning team. Absent that, I simply scratch myself, write the Navy off as a giant social experiment, and fear for our republic.

Must sign off now, back to my Village People "YMCA" youtube rendition.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

You see yourself with the construction hat or the tribal head dress?

Cannoneer No. 4 said...

I’d sooner have a sister in a whorehouse than a brother on the Pittsburgh.

Who said that, and why?

Homosexuals aboard warships are nothing new.  What is new is that now we are expected to think there is nothing wrong with that.

Cannoneer No. 4 said...

Don't talk to me about naval tradition.  It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Chortle

MR T's Haircut said...

He is the "policeman"

gorilspi said...

Awesome reply, Old NFO.  Amazing how much ignorance on the foundation/founding of this country exists.  Other people did come to America before the Mayflower who were not doing so for religious freedom (as Christians); however, they did not fluorish/survive in the New World (at least in significant numbers).

If my history is off, I would love a lesson. Non says, "What's a Mayflower Compact?" New auto from Ford?

Non's comments seem to relect the result of the limitations/groupthink inherent within our current "educational" system.  People offer/spout opinions on all subjects (this, foreign policy, economics) with no real knowledge or critical understanding of the subject.

I think I will be cautious myself to listen and not speak when I have no basis/background/advanced knowledge for a strong opinion. The relative value of an opinion is directly proportionate to the developed credibility of the individual giving that opinion to an audience.  This "credibility" is tough to ascertain with anonymous message boards.

Rich said...

Shipmate read your history this country was founded on Godly P<span>rincipals</span> which the current adminstration is slowly taking away.

Mr. X said...

I thought this piece by a retired Navy CAPT was a good example of the impact of the policy on those currently serving under it.  She raises some good points about things we take for granted.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/03/darrah.personal.history.gay.military.experience/index.html?hpt=C1

There's a popular misconception that the "don't ask" part of DADT means we are forbidden from asking, but that's not true.  Shipmates casually ask one another all the time.  "Hey, what did you do this weekend?"  "Who was that I saw you having dinner with?"  "So, are you seeing anyone?"  An honest answer to those questions from a homosexual is grounds for discharge, regardless of the fact that they were "asked" by someone within DoD.  There is also no penalty in the law for those who ask, and nothing that prevents the information from being used if someone does ask.  Because the law is written this way, homosexuals frequently find themselves in situations where they are asked questions they may not answer truthfully.  I think that's was Admiral Mullen was talking about when he raised the issue of integrity.

Andrewdb said...

I'm actually on Non's side here, but the idea that the Pilgrims wanted religious freedom is just not true.  They were escaping the established Church in England so they could set up their own theocracy.  Remember what happened to Roger Williams?

Andrewdb said...

A Marine freind tells me he can tell when those he works with have figured him out - they stop asking "what did you dolast weekend"  Not a great way to build unit cohesion.

AW1 Tim said...

Actually, NON, the Mayflower crew were latecomers to America. They were also an aberration to the normal settlers. There was a good-sized thriving colony at Damariscove, Maine, by Britol, before anyone showed up at Jamestown or Plymouth.  The first settlers, the ones who actually prospered here, came for economic reasons. They saw the ability to make a good living through timber and fishing, and took it. In fact, it was the colonists at Damariscove who provided the materials to Plymouth that first year that kept that  crew of naive pilgrims alive, even more so than the natives.

respects,

C-dore 14 said...

Mr. X, An interesting point and probably the correct interpretation of what Mike Mullen was trying to say.  However, one point that's often overlooked in this discussion is the percentage of folks who are discharged after they "tell".  Four of the six cases that I dealt with under DADT involved people who decided to "come out" to avoid deployment or commissioning and active duty.  A small sample to be sure but probably indicative of a larger issue.  Part of the reason I'm in the "Don't ask, don't care" crowd is that eliminating DADT will give a commander greater latitude to deal with these type of cases. 

Mr. X said...

Agreed.  My experience has also been that the majority of DADT separations involve people voluntarily coming out with the intent to terminate their service.  While I am sure there are some who do it to get out of deployments, I think a larger number of them are folks who just don't want to live under the policy anymore.  And here's an unintended consequence of the current law--because the rules for investigations are so restrictive, we usually have to take the person's word that they're gay.  That means the easiest way to get out early with an honorable discharge is to walk into your CO's office and tell him you're gay.  Sure, your DD-214 will say you were discharged for homosexual conduct, but that's a small price to pay.  Even better, officers can use DADT to get paid tens of thousands of dollars in involuntary separation pay.  Why resign and get nothing when you can come out and get paid on your way out the door?  Some smart but unethical Sailors have figured this out and occasionally use it to our disadvantage.

MR T's Haircut said...

No sense in having uniform standards for Haircuts anymore.. really who cares?  If  gay man wants to have his hair long, who am I to deny him his gender identification?  I guess I need to stop enforcing nail color too... oh well

can't have it both ways.. Maybe Admiral Mullins will be invited to the first Gay Military Wedding, male on male hug and kissy face and all those swords "unsheathed"!

Fabulous!

Mr. X said...

You put a disturbing amount of thought into that post...

DeltaBravo said...

Oh, don't be silly!  He puts a disturbing amount of thought in ALL his posts!  (or is that "an amount of disturbing thought..")

C-dore 14 said...

Mr. X, When I commanded a Naval ROTC unit the guidance I had was to take the student's word at face value and process them.  I always recommended recouping their scholarship, fees, etc. (as I did for all voluntary resignations after freshman year).  The year after I retired the guidance was modified to ensure that all folks who resigned under DADT were asked "Would you serve if the policy allowed you to serve?"  If they answered "Yes" repayment of scholarships, etc. was waived.  You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the answer was going to be.  This was during the Bush Administration, BTW.

Andrewdb said...

Or maybe ADM Mullen will just march in the Pride Parade.

http://www.proud2serve.net/news/20060701-EuroPride.htm

Jay said...

ADM Mullen did this right.  As did Sec Gates.  Interesting to see Sen. McCain's backtrack from his previous 2006 comments re: same.  Then again -- he may have a viable primary fight on his hands (sad to see him use this as a campaign platform, but then again, he has been a politician for a while..).

This is a done deal -- implementation will take a while, but it is long overdue.  They are correct to be taking some time to study the issues & get it right.  (I wish I could go back into USNI blog archives & cut & paste all comments -- some large number, if I recall, but the comments posted here are much the same.)

They'll be some grumbling (more from the VFW halls than inside, I'd wager).  Services will adapt & move on.  In a decade this will be just another non-issue.

We are better for it.

LT B said...

I say again.  The diversity douches will pound us w/ more sensitivity crap.  If we could implement it w/o them politicizing it and telling those that try to play the "gay card" to quit being a Sally, then I'd not have any problems w/ it.  But having seen the "girl card" and "race card" played  I have little faith that this will not be, yet another, tool to degrade readiness.  I have served w/ gays that I considered good Sailors and have served w/ one horrible officer who was gay.  Their tender vittle usage had nothing to do w/ their professional capabilities.  But in the brave new world when that gay officer gets reprimanded for being a bad example, and abusing his Sailors, will he now play the "gay card" and the lack of spinal fortitude from above allow him to continue his service w/o a duly noted FITREP?    We shall see, but the lack of integrity and adherence to Navy Core Values from the senior leadership in the Navy has shown me the route I believe will be taken. 

Outlaw Mike said...

As much as i have sympathy for the well-thought out comments by Mr X, I think I'll stick with Old NFO here.

Actually, I find Old NFO's comment so good I find myself compelled to repeat it (I hope he doesn't mind).

"<span>I'm looking forward to the excuses when this blows up.  Eighteen year old kids in boot camp with proselytizing gay activists as drill instructors.  56 man berthing compartments and open showers all shared with a few open homosexuals.  Shop supervisors and division chiefs being threatened with harassment charges if they try to get any work out of a self described gay.  Take all the problems of putting women on ships and multiply them several fold.    
 
As for Admiral Mullen and his ilk.  I wonder if there is a point where political correctness would become too much even for them.  They still can't admit the Fort Hood massacre was done by an Islamic Terrorist.  And now they think allowing open homosexuals into the high pressure close quarters of shipboard life is a great idea.    
 
Earth to Admiral Mullen and Obama.  The military is not an office.  You don't go home at the end of the day.  You live in close contact with your shipmates 24 hours a day for months on end.  Every little personal habit is inflicted on everyone else, especially in the lower enlisted ranks .  I expect homosexuals will become the new protected class in the military.  Good luck meeting your enlistment goals."</span>
<span></span>
<span>Damn right. I'm sorry for gay people, but they know what they can expect when they enter the military under DADT. Is DADT perfect? I don't think so. I do think though that currently, it's the BEST policy.</span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

LT B 

You forgot the Muslim card.

Mr. X said...

Then fix the problem with the "diversity douches".  Don't punish the gays for a problem someone else is causing.  If you're going to be logically consistent, you might as well start arguing for blacks and women to be excluded from service too, since by your logic their presence is degrading readiness.

sid said...

The ghey Muslim card...

FOX said...

Jeez MTH took me three days to figure out what you were sayin. Got it now. Agree

MR T's Haircut said...

"Douche Nozzle"... remember...

MR T's Haircut said...

Sucka I dont want to say it again! :-D

DeltaBravo said...

You know, since most of the posters here are men I've seen an aspect of this debate that has fallen by the wayside.  I don't want to bring an avalanche of accusations and anger and... well, who cares.  I'll wade in anyways.... 

The following is very non-PC.  Read at your own risk.  I'm just making comments from the point of view of a woman who has watched things for years, has female relatives and friends who serve and have served, and who knows the female mind.

Forget the jokes about DADT and hot lesbians.

There are lots of women in the military.  DADT isn't just about the Navy and a few women on ships.  It's about other branches that have higher percentages of women clustered in some specialties.  How to say this nicely... not a few lesbians among them.  Right now they have to keep a lid on things. 

YOU.DO.NOT.WANT.TO.TAKE.THE.LID.OFF.THAT.POT.

Women deal with each other differently than they deal with men.  In the grand scheme of things I'd rather have 10 male bosses than one average female one.  Women are not nice to each other.  I have watched people who were suspected of being lesbians target women in the workplace who did not accept their vague advances.  It's not pretty.  Women can be brutal with each other and very spiteful.  Career-killing spiteful.   Now put a bunch of them in a command and have love affairs going on semi-openly with people now allowed to publicly proclaim their love that can now speak its name.  Girlfriends pairing up, new young recruits coming in and all the drama.  Oh, the drama!  (Picture what you know of male/female triangles and fraternization.  Rejections.  Accusations.  Now double the estrogen involved.)  You do not want to be the COs who have to wade into that minefield.  Ever watch a show on women's prisons?  Try that in a military division.  It will destroy all semblance of unit cohesion. 

This isn't just about guys in showers feeling gazed upon.  This is about the emotionality and attachments that women can foist on each other that will give many DIVOs excedrin headaches. 

At least before, there was doubt maybe whether someone was lesbian and their advances were misread.  But bring that whole woman scorned thing out into the open....  it makes what you men navigate look like a cakewalk. 

I've seen it in action.  NOT FUN. 

UltimaRatioRegis said...

DB,

Eloquently put.  I've been told by several close female friends over my 25 years of service that the lesbian business is just terrible. 

But....  nobody is driving the wrong way down a one-way street, so to speak. 

MR T's Haircut said...

<span>DB,  did you happeen to do berthing inspections on a CV at one time???  we finds all kinda crazy stuff!</span>

DeltaBravo said...

Haha.  No, the only time they let me near a CV was when it was in dry dock.

cdrsalamander said...

MTH - were you on the Big E during that fire in fwd female berthing in the late 90s?

The things you can find during the clean up ......

MR T's Haircut said...

Phib,

No I wasnt on her until 2000.  but.. we did find some really nasty stuff.  I mean "away the Hazmat and Medical response teams" kinda stuff...

on a lighter note:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_rBidCkJxo

MR T's Haircut said...

well there was the time in the shipyards... also.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

I know when women fight, it is much more violent than male-male fights.   When I respond to a bar fight, and the fighters are male, ( as admittedly, they most often are ), you can sometimes stop it just by using ones Command Voice, " GENTLEMEN, THAT'S ENOUGH ".  Males also seem more aiming at determining dominance, than doing actaull damage to each other. And, oddly enough, a half hour later, the combattants are drinking together.

   But when two females are fighting, they seem out to do the maximun damage possible to each other, and must be physically seperated.   Since the majority of the female-female fightsseem to be based on the "Bitch! He's mine! Stay Away " theory, I can see the same applying to the " She's Mine! " school of thought.  This will not help unit cohesion, and believe me guys, women actually fighting is in no way hot.  Still, it will give the MAAs something to do.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

MTH is a disturbing fellow.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Scott,

I dunno where you are a bouncer, but I have never seen a woman kick all of another woman's teeth out, or hit her in the head with a gin bottle, or have four or five of her buddies drag a woman out into the parking lot and kick her until she had both lungs punctured and all her ribs broken. 

That aside, you are probably right about the effects in the fleet.  Imagine that.  We are talking about Halsey's "fighting sailors" in the context of battling each other.....

DeltaBravo said...

Just read an article about Ivette Davila out of Ft. Lewis.  Women can be very cold-blooded.
http://www.dreamindemon.com/2008/03/04/ivette-davila-is-a-jealous-bitch/

In a very special way...  ;)

FCC said...

My aunt was a child psychologist in a public school, and she used to say that she liked boys better than girls, because "when boys fight, they exchange a few blows and then are playing handball together before lunch is over.  When girls fight, the fight continues for the rest of the school year."

DeltaBravo said...

Or they can drive their victim to suicide....

Just saw that on the news also. 

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Ultima, I'm a cop, a Badge wearer.  Yes, one does see fights like that, but fewer than one might think.  It doesn't hurt that I am in a small rural county of 27000 people, and any fights like that, we soon find out who was behind it, if we don't catch them in the act. I know we get very few of them, but a nearby town, which is a resort community does get them, with out of towners from Chicago and Milwaukee figureing prominentely in the participants. 

   I have seen women pull knives, however.  Women are getting more and more violent every year, because our culture gives them a pass on it, as we don't seem to consider violence by women to be something to take seriously.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Roger that, Scott.  I suppose my lesson in all this is to stay out of the bars I used to frequent...  past my bedtime these days anyway.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Mind you, you couldn't pay me enough to work in a place like Milwaukee, where the fights you describe are a nightly occurance. I recently saw a job posting on WILENET, the WI Department of Justices website for Law Enforcement, for a Milwaukee suburb that is adjacent to one of the rougher parts of town, and they list the pay as $5,000 a month. Which isn't enough money to get me over there.  

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Do I even want to know what you found?  Or must it remain something in my imagination?

MR T's Haircut said...

<span>Badger, </span>
<span></span>
<span>Yes, I find that women fight with extreme prejiduce.. aiming for a maiming,,,</span>

LT B said...

Um, I do argue women should not be at sea.  As for Blacks or other minorities, I have found there to be very little racism but self absorbtion and lack of introspection for many of those that cry racism in reply for their poor ratings.  If we hold all to the same standards, all of this crap goes away.  Let me know when you and your ilk are ready for that.  I find that most of my male troops are ready for it and my female troops, not so much.  This is regardless of race.  Gays, I would have no problem with if they do not use it as an excuse for poor marks on their evals/fitreps. 

Byron Audler said...

I know of a Goat Locker that has been ripped apart along race lines, and for the most part, it's because of one female black chief. I'll leave it to your imagination as to how that happened.

Mr. X said...

My ilk?  Don't even think about lumping me in with the diversity bullies.  I think we should ALL be held to the same standard, gay or straight, black or white, male or female.  No one should be coddled.  That's actually why I oppose DADT.  It coddles people who can't or won't set aside their moral disapproval of homosexuals to accomplish the mission.  They want gays to be held to a different standard than they are because to do otherwise would offend their delicate sensibilities.  Who's the "protected class" right now under DADT?

The problem isn't the gays, it's the people who suck at life and expect everyone else to refrain from telling them so.  That is most certainly not a trait unique to homosexuals.

Anthony Mirvish said...

Based on the commentary, I'm not sure that the coed thing has been accepted and everyone has moved on, even though it's 17 years since the combat exclusion laws were (mostly) removed and 34 since the academies were re-opened.  By contrast, NO ONE is talking about de-segregation because that actually worked.  

There is more to moving on than the senior leadership publicly affirming that all is well.

Wharf Rat said...

We had the first openly gay female fire chief in the country in Minneapolis.

What did we get?  She fraternized with officers under her, once they broke up, she actively prevented promotions from lovers, this led to a civil suit, costing the taxpayers millions.  Eventually this lesbian fire chief was bought out for hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

If I did remotely the same thing at my company, I would be terminated as fast as possible, humiliting myself, my wife, and my extended family. 

Not this gal - she costs the taxpayers millions.  If memory serves, I think she was demoted but still has a job approaching $100k in the Minneapolis Fire Department. 

If you don't think this will happen in the Navy, you have another thing coming.

Best post I ever saw on this issue - someone a few months back wrote something to the effect "wait until you have a man wearing a dress 'manning the rails'"

Remember the slippery slope - those with an agenda won't stop at this.  I'm with you - I don't care.  Since when did shooting a gun have anything to do with sexuality.  But I oppose repeal because it won't stop there.  You will have men wearing dresses on the rails at some time in the not so distant future.  You will have fraternization, you will have legal issues, you will have people pulling the gay card when it's their performance as a sailor sucks.

The rules aren't the same - and it's not the Navy's job to worry about controversial issues.  It's the Navy's job to train people to work on flight decks, to flight fixed and rotary aircraft, to steer ships, to shoot missles, to run silent, to spy on the enemy. 

LT B said...

Roger, copy all.  I will remove you from THAT ilk. :)