Saturday, December 18, 2010

DADT almost TU

The Senate Saturday voted to end a longstanding ban on gay troops serving openly in the US armed services ...
...
Six Republicans – Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and George Voinovich of Ohio – broke with their party to give Democrats the votes needed to break a GOP filibuster. The measure subsequently passed, 65 to 31. Sens. John Ensign (R) of Nevada and Richard Burr (R) of North Carolina also joined Democrats on the final vote.
...
The House passed an identical repeal on Wednesday, 250-175, sending the bill to the White House. At least 60 days before the law takes effect, both the President and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have to certify that ending the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy won’t adversely affect military readiness or morale.
... and with time you will see that this was not as big as a problem as some thought.

Sure, the activist will be a pain as they over-reach - but we'll deal with them as they come over the ridge. It will be nice to say, "Now What?" to the ROTC haters.

It is also,
IMAO, the right thing to do.

200 comments:

Stu said...

Next up, "transgendered."  

Bank on it.  

andrewdb said...

CDR -

You have a very high profile blog.  Thanks for being such a voice of reason on this subject.

James said...

<span>"Sure, the activist will be a pain as they over-reach - but we'll deal with them as they come over the ridge. It will be nice to say, "Now What?" to the ROTC haters."</span>
<span></span>
<span>Holy crap, never thought of that. Now lets see what excuse they use to ban ROTC and recruiters from Berkley.</span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"...<span>with time you will see that this was not as big as a problem as some thought."</span>

That will certainly be the official DoD and US Navy position, no matter what adverse effects on unit cohesion and combat readiness occur.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

I would not be surprised if it was to become a bigger problem than anticipated, with the establishment of a protected class in the military.

Commodore97 said...

http://theothermccain.com/2010/12/18/lawyer-for-accused-columbia-professor-compares-incest-to-homosexuality-calls-daughter-accomplice-not-victim/

Libertarian side of me is always glad to see the Gov't take a less active role.  However, we just moved the line with this decision.  I am not a fan of the military being used to influence social policy.  Repeal of DADT opens up a ton of questions and issues wrt gay marriage and 'significant other' benefits (does having a partner entitle them to BAH w/ dependents?).  And once these fights get underway, then the other issues will begin to surface, such as the Columbia incest issue posted above.  The lawyers are already comparing that case to homosexuality.  Agree with Stu re:transgender.

andrewdb said...

The non-discrimination language was stripped out of the bill a year ago.  This does not expand the list of protected classes.

cdrsalamander said...

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Liberty will now be so wonderful

UltimaRatioRegis said...

The fact that there is a list of Protected Classes should tell anyone who pays any attention that the language of the bill will make no difference whatever.  Gays will be a protected class, and their rights and considerations will be yet another ahead of someone who doesn't self-define into a politically protected victim group. 

Vlad The Impaler (although in a different context) said...

While I know a number of reasonable people in the military (ARMY and Marines) who most probably are DADT, you can't consider the effects without thinking about the immature idiots who join. Enough people who join are responsible and want to do the job, more just behave like high school or kindergarden. This will have no impact on those who value professionalism and treat people decently but will have a huge impact on sexual behavior among E1-E4s.

There have been enough concerns over females (within my unit, the junior enlisted males were a little irritated at the amount of time the E6-E7s were spending with a few female E3s. I doubt it would be very obvious but the fear of fraternization would increase, immature sexualized touching would increase (and is already #@$ irritating in the barracks) and wouldn't make any positive difference for the mature DADT personnel. The immature idiots would get a little paranoid about sexual touching and might behave violently towards suspected homosexuals. Short term effect, chaos. Long term effect, mutual suspicion.

It sounds nice if one assumes that people in the military are exclusively mature and reasonable adults. Many are. Many more are not and cannot be expected to behave like civilized human beings and obey the rules.

OldCavLt said...

That it's the absolute wrong thing to do will become evident sooner than you might think.

cdrsalamander said...

It already is in Germany; but they seem to be muddl'n through it fine.  Though the gender absolutists disagree - transgender is a whole different kettle of fish than gay.  

I find thin, whispy red-heads highly attractive - that and women with naturally curly dark-brown hair and a curvy 40s/50s pinup figures distracting to the extreme.  Thats just me.  I'm an adult about it, and though I work with women like that - I don't pant every time I have a meeting with them or sniff their chairs when they leave the office at the end of the day.  Mrs. Salamander would beat me if I did, and I fear Mrs. Salamander - plus that's mental.

If one day I decided that I really, really, wish I were a cat and then went to an surgeon and had him start to form my face, eyes and other things to a more feline shape, surgical implants of whiskers and teeth filed to a point - and then asked that everyone call me "a nice little pu55y" and install a litterbox at work for me to do my business in during the day - that is totally different.  

If we don't have the leadership to stand up to the more radical part of the gender-agenda absolutists - then bad on the leadership.  We shouldn't punish 99% of normal gay men and women who just want to serve and stop telling lies about who they prefer to spend a quit evening with.

In any event - the die is cast.  It is done.  The republic will survive.  I'm tired of talking and hearing about what people do with their tender viddles anyway.  Straight, gay, monosexual or omnisexual - I just don't want to hear about it.  350# sweaty, balding female, or 160# full-body-waxed triathlete dude; I am equally uninterested.  If you want to take one or both to a command function - fine, just make sure they dress appropriately and can handle their alcohol.

Don't ask, don't tell - I don't care.

Get to work.

JSunTzu said...

I prefer leadership implement a phased approach to implementation.  First, allow gay women to serve.  Give that plan about a decade to pan out and then bring in the guys ;)

JST

Eric Palmer said...

Which month will be DOD gay pride appreciation month?

JSunTzu said...

March...of course.

C-dore 14 said...

Thrust me, they'll find one.

C-dore 14 said...

James, Berkeley has ROTC units...it's the Ivy League that's a problem.  And, trust me, they'll find a reason.

Cupojoe said...

The fact of the matter is that there will be some (not many) soldiers and sailors whose homosexuality will be incompatible with service. There's a big difference between the guy who is gay and does a good job, and the guy wearing his uniform on a float at a gay pride parade with his buttcheeks exposed.

How do we move these folks out now? Personality disorder?

C-dore 14 said...

Having had my hands tied as a CO regarding my options when somebody used "the phrase that pays" just prior to deployment, I would have welcomed the opportunity (as the good CDR suggests) to have looked across my desk and said "You're gay?  So what.  Get back to work".

UltimaRatioRegis said...

You don't move them out.  You are stuck with them.  And senior leadership will display the same moral courage in weeding them out that they did evaluating Holly Graf's first command tour or Major Hasan's fitness for service and promotion. 

Mullen and Roughead are gutless political sycophants.  And they are grooming a whole generation of officers to be just like them.

Vlad The Impaler (although in a different context) said...

As far as I know (mainly from UCMJ briefs), there has to be cause to discharge a person IN ADDITION to their homosexual behavior. The previous law wasn't a "get out of the military free" card, just that it was a reason for discharge. DADT policy meant that they could only be discharged if their behavior was in addition to other serious behavior warranting discharge. That doesn't look like tied hands to me.

C-dore 14 said...

Vlad, DADT was in effect for my last 7 years of military service.  During that period I was in command for 4 years and was a CVBG COS for 2.  The individuals that I had dealings with in this regard ALWAYS stated that not only were they gay but that they had engaged in homosexual activities (in one case two of them "outed" each other).  The decisions I made were based on the advice of four different SJAs, all of who advised that the individuals be separated.  In my final command, an NROTC unit, my guidance was to separate the individual if the declaration was made prior to his/her senior year.  While in my CDR command prior to DADT, I had the option of applying my judgement as to whether the individual was really gay or trying to work the system.

UCMJ briefs are one thing...command is another.  Oh, and BTW, I've supported the repeal of DADT for many years.

Therapist1 said...

"Conduct Unbecoming" is always an option for someone who disrespects the uniform.

Therapist1 said...

I have never seen the big deal of having gays in the military.  They are in every other profession, they were in the military as well, and the same rules apply.  If you are straight, it should not be a challenge to your masculinity, heterosexuality etc.....  What is the big deal??  Please explain.

Vlad The Impaler (although in a different context) said...

Admittedly this is coming from the enlisted side but I've nevery known an NCO who would bring it up the chain of command unless he thought it would be an issue. Even homosexual intercourse (mainly guessed by people "showering" together) was not considered grounds unless fraternization concerns were present. There weren't that many legal people around and my chains of commands at my various units were pretty clear that so long you worked and didn't cause problems, it wasn't an issue. I can't even imagine any NCO or officer in my chain of command ever urging seperation exclusively for homosexual conduct.

That might have been skewed by it never having been an issue in the various units but I'm sure they weren't that unusual. My father (who was a NAVY O5 and who had commanded units) never discharged anybody exclusively for homosexual conduct even before DADT. Nobody seemed to have made an issue of it to him so he felt confident using his judgment.

Vlad The Impaler (although in a different context) said...

You also have to live with them at 2, 8, or 60 to a room with shared toilets and showers. Frequently, these are not older and more mature people but young 18-20 year olds who frequently touch other people whether they like it or not. While no one has done it to me or in my platoon, another kid in my company put his scrotum in another PVTs mouth while he was sleeping. That is the sort of behavior I fear will increase dramatically.

Andy said...

What is being lost in the discussion is that the Constitution does not provide a citizen the right to serve in the Armed Forces.  Military service is, to borrow an analogy, like a professional sports team.  "Not all need apply and very few should expect to join.  Any shortcoming in performance should threaten a soldier's place on the team." (Rethinking the Principles of War)

It is a person's inability to separate, in this case, their sexuality from their duty to follow orders that is the reason for their denial of admission/dismissal from service.  Furthermore, those individuals who enlisted/were commissioned with full knowledge of the rules governing homosexual acts and then violated the orders are most certainly not the sort of people that should serve in the Armed Forces.  They should not serve because their loyalties are obviously split between following orders and indulging in sexual activies in violation of DADT.  Additionally, they have violated their oath to obey the orders of those appointed over them and are only partially dedicating themselves to the service of their country.  They are in essence saying, "I will obey these orders, but not these.  Oh, by the way, you have to keep in your Armed Forces, never knowing which other orders I might fail to follow." 

It is not in keeping with the level of honor, courage, and committment that is demanded of service members by their countrymen.

This argument applies equally to those who fail to pay bills, commit adultery, assault another person, are disrespectful to a superior, etc....

Vigilis said...

President Obama stated , “It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly.”

Will someone please explain how recognition of meritorious sacrifice, valor, and integrity has previously been withheld from anyone due to sexual orientation. We can be certain that gays received medals commensurate with same.  We can also be fairly certain that many forfeited the opportunity to demonstrate further sacrifice, valor and integrity for their nation by becoming casualties of both combat and peacetime endeavors through no fault of their own.

The only ones I can think of any orientation who ever forfeited the opportunity to demonstrate further sacrifice, valor, and integrity for their nation were those caught disobeying military regulations.

To say repealing DADT is "the right thing to do" is like legislating the right to discretionary abortions is the right thing to do.  It is not right, it is merely politically correct during the dominance of desperate politicians who wish only to retain power. 

Does trifling with the rote explanation it is "the right thing to do", mean no satifactory explanation obtains?  Maybe some have a gay brother, sister, etc. and agonize over difficulties their lifestyle(s) bring.

It may be better to remember history's inevitable pendulums, than to cheerlead hollow victories for today's "Lawyer-Political Complex". 

Andy said...

<span>What is being lost in the discussion is that the Constitution does not provide a citizen the right to serve in the Armed Forces.  Military service is, to borrow an analogy, like a professional sports team.  "Not all need apply and very few should expect to join.  Any shortcoming in performance should threaten a soldier's place on the team." (Rethinking the Principles of War)  
 
It is a person's inability to separate, in this case, their sexuality from their duty to follow orders that is the reason for their denial of admission/dismissal from service.  Furthermore, those individuals who enlisted/were commissioned with full knowledge of the rules governing homosexual acts and then violated the orders are most certainly not the sort of people that should serve in the Armed Forces.  They should not serve because their loyalties are obviously split between following orders and indulging in sexual activies in violation of DADT.  Additionally, they have violated their oath to obey the orders of those appointed over them and are only partially dedicating themselves to the service of their country.  They are in essence saying, "I will obey these orders, but not those.  Oh, by the way, you have to keep me in your Armed Forces, never knowing which other orders I might fail to follow."   
 
It is not in keeping with the level of honor, courage, and committment that is demanded of service members by their countrymen.  
 
This argument applies equally to those who fail to pay bills, commit adultery, assault another person, are disrespectful to a superior, etc....</span>

Jay said...

What a GREAT day for the services, and the gay folks currently serving, or now thinking of joining up. BZ to POTUS, SECDEF, CJCS, the Congress, and the many others who worked to make this day possible!

mark said...

Damn, scrotum in the mouth is trusting in your fellow soldier a bit too much.  Bite reflex a bit strong for me to follow that line of thought. 

LT B said...

Dude, it just gives the diversity fascists another tool with which to degrade military readiness and fighting capabilities. Just like women, set the standards and hold them but there will be double standards and lawsuits degrading unit readiness and trust.

Redeye80 said...

Vlad,

Sounds like your dad had command when the Navy trusted commanders.  Those days have long since past.

Southern Air Pirate said...

LT B hit the nail on the head. I could care one way or another whether or not some dude is in love with another dude or some girl likes to get busy with another girl, ditto for if someone wants to dress up like another sex.
The only thing I am afraid of is in 60 days, I will have to attend mando training on how some word/phrase/hand jesture will be some form of sexual harassment or considered a mando-hate crime and leads to me having to sit through some mando-CMEO lecture from some divserity bigot that I am not careing enough about someone else's feelings cause of said word/phrase/hand jesture.

Skippy-san said...

<span>
<p> In retrospect, I think the DADT compromise was necessary in 1993. There was just too much change, coming too fast,  to the military. It was bad enough that women were being allowed to enter combat units-but to then throw in this particular change was just too much to absorb or deal with. As it was,  the Navy did not deal with the other change very well-and it still doesn’t. Witness the existence of the Diversity bullies.
</p><p>But on the whole society is changing and will continue to change-although I do think that change is occuring slower than gay rights advocates wish to admit. When you have a significant minority of citizens frothing at the mouth over a liberal, black President-are they really ready to have Jim and George move in next door? Or have two guys kissing on the pier at the end of the cruise?
</p><p>I’m not sure-but I think we will just have to find out.
</p><p>The transition, when it occurs,  will not be pretty. Gay partners will find themselves excluded pretty much from most support groups-all rhetoric to the contrary. The <span>Knives </span>Wives club can be pretty brutal at times.( Although those wives might dress better in the presence of someone who actually knows something about good clothing sense).  And I do worry about how the demographics will be tracked-will there now be “GLBT” stamps on service records and their promotion statistics tracked as other minorities are? Will their be quotas set for the requisite numbers of gay CO’s and other such nonsense?  Regrettably, I think there will.
</p></span>

C-dore 14 said...

Vlad, Let me clarify that all of the personnel that I dealt with after DADT was enacted "outed" themselves and were not turned in by a third party.  In all but one case they were trying to avoid something whether it was a deployment or active duty following completion of their college education.

Ironically, I never discharged anyone for homosexual conduct while in command before DADT.

Deployed Navy Reservist said...

I think this sucks big time. Yet another protected species fast tracked for promotion, awards, and SOQ/SOY. Also, how will the military quarter homos and straights? Does a straight E3 have to bunk with a homo? Do you put the homos together? With the women? This decision is shit. The military separates males and females in all but the most austere conditions for a reason. Now, which this hare brained decision there will only be more unit drama.

C-dore 14 said...

Redeye, Guess that's the point I've been trying to make.  Prior to DADT it was my call as a CO as to whether the individual who simply claimed to be gay was processed.  After DADT, I was provided with "guidance".

Redeye80 said...

The repeal is nothing more than a boost to those pandering for votes to stay in power.  Saying this is the right thing to do is just a joke.  We can't even say we have integrated the races or the sexes, ask the diversity bubbas about that. You think we have problems with the diversity industr now, wait until this hits the fan.  The "fill in the blank" card carriers just got another card to wave in everyone's face.

Sal, you are going to have to designate another day for the problems associated with the repeal of DADT. Good luck with that.

Southern Air Pirate said...

Skippy,

Don't forget that the professional knife throwers also use to exlcude the LDO/CWO wives, the divorcees, and those who were not college graduates. Up where I am at, I don't see the spouse's clubs not doing as much out on the public scene as they use to do when I was a kid. I also remember the spouse's club running some food trailer during airshows at Chambers Field or Oceanbanana, usually running a couple of holiday bazaars to help raise money for the command Christmas party. Heck, I even saw the O's wives get together and help to pay for some junior enlisted spouse fly out and meet her husband at the last port prior to home coming. In the last few years I haven't seen as much from any of the spouse's clubs at any of the three commands I have been at. The other question I would ask yourself is how may of the spouses would handle a spouse who is named Skip M-F during normal work hours, and then from the cocktail hour and all day Sat and Sun likes to wear a glitter dress and some ruby red slippers and be called Skipper (like Barbie's younger sister)? Let alone could you imagine a couple like that walking into the Breezy Point O'Club?

Grandpa Bluewater said...

My, I am getting old. It is good to be long retired, I wouldn't know whether to go blind or draw small stores. Doubtless clarification will be forthcoming. What is the status of the UCMJ in this fine new day?

IMO it would be somewhat helpful to good order and discipline if the UCMJ was revised to remove homosexual acts as an offense. Perhaps it was and I just was unaware.

If they still are, on paper, what other offenses are not to be charged? Can one pick the ones he or she disagrees with and just skip those? Espionage (and lesser included offenses comes to mind, if one is a Wilsonian Democrat. Open covenants openly arrived at, free Julian. Hollywood approves, isn't that enough?

Is lying about one's sexual orientation, prior to the change in policy, conduct unbecoming? I would think not, at a guess. What is the precedent with reference to aid and comfort to the enemy. Is that OK as long as it is undetected until after the peace treaty is signed?

Can the XO and the Ensign get married on liberty in a jurisdiction recognizing gay marriage without prior fraternization?  Does the Ensign move into the XOSR or get left ashore FFT?

Does this mean "The Sisterhood" can be fired for fraternization after they come out of the closet? Is sauce for the straight, sauce for the gay?

What is the status of Polyandry as long as no marriage occurs?

The lawyers and instruction writers are going to be busy.

Coming next, SA Polly Igamy, who goes home to Arizona City to get married,  then applies for ID cards and quarters for her husband, two wives and 7 children, and six months later applies for conscientious objector status because her husband told she couldn't deploy. (Just kidding, I hope...)

Complications. Tsk, tsk , tsk. Good thing this whole business is a force multiplier, greatly improving readiness and combat effectiveness.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.

Me, I want to buy the Commandant of the Marine Corps a drink. He may need one, I know I do. URR can come too. No Admirals included.

(I do like the bit about the Ivies, though. Cut off all their government grants when they turn back a Recruiter.)

sid said...

Ok Gay Pide bubbahs....

You are equals now.

Will you dipense with the displays of public sex?

I am betting on no.

So be prepared for such scenes at your next airshow.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

The guest on Coast to Coast AM tonight was a guy who believes he is a horse trapped in a human body.

USAF Mike said...

Article 125 has been basically non enforceable regarding consenting adults since Lawrence v. Texas got the government out of the business of legislating what consenting adults can and can't do in their bedrooms.  It is only used regarding forcable sodomy because of the way the rape Article is written (it only refers to sexual intercourse, so if someone rapes another individual but it is something other than vaginal you legally couldn't prosecute them under that Article.)  Even before Lawrence, it was rarely enforced because the military has better things to worry about than where people put their naughty bits in their off duty time.

And any straight male getting a blowjob was just as guilty of violating Article 125 as a gay couple, so I think there were more than a few straight males that were VIOLATING THE LAW as well.

So stop with the "OMG WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THE UCMJ ANYMORE BECAUSE OF TEH GHEYS" talk, because its completely irrelevant.

USAF Mike said...

....really?

Really?

I'm sorry commander, we can't engage the enemy, the troops are too busy engaging in public sex with each other because as everyone knows, gays are completely incapable of self discipline and therefore engage in massive orgys at the drop of a hat.

*roll eyes*

Anonymous said...

My money is on the "unit drama" being the product of some of our folks who weren't really the most professional to begin with.  We all know who those people are.  If this convinces them that maybe the military isn't for them, I'm not going to be all that sad about it.

sid said...

Global Force For Fun!

sid said...

<span>If we don't have the leadership to stand up to the more radical part of the gender-agenda absolutists - then bad on the leadership. </span>

CDR, if there is one thing you have amply demonstrated over the last couple years is a current USN to CJCS leadership that has trouble standing up for the priorities one has always associated with an effective military.

sid said...

<span>gays are completely incapable of self discipline and therefore engage in massive orgys at the drop of a hat</span>

Never said that...

But show me a "Gay Pride" parade where somebody did not literally show their ass.

Now there will be some expectation that such behavior will be considered acceptable.

Byron said...

Mike, since when did the civil code apply to the UCMJ?  No offense, but that was a dumb argument.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Therapis,

You think so?  Try enforcing it in any command that has a spineless CO whose knees would shake at the very mention of ACLU/DACOGITS.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Ahem, broadly speaking, back in the (ancient) day the Navy concerned itself with incidents on the ship or in the field. Not sailors bedrooms off base.

The involuntary discharges I knew of, back in the bad old days when the policy was that the homosexual life style was incompatible with military service, were for public or shipboard sex. I never knew of it being done on the the basis of homosexual sexual harassment of a straight by a gay, although I heard rumors of a murder or two over on carriers and amphibs.

Back then the Navy has the idea that a homosexual life style incorporated predation, multiple partners and covert sexual politics, and had historically been associated with picking and promoting favorites, and cases of espionage. Doubtless there was nothing to such notions, since President Clinton asserted such when he imposed DADT.

Fortunately, nothing in the current press indicates such goings on, no big scandals involving the unwarranted promotion of favorites, or huge compromises of classified material, or problems with the spread of dread venereal diseases involving gays, so we can get about the business of blighting the careers of those who might disagree with the new policy with a clear conscience.

The (admittedly satirically intended) point is that if the article is irrelevant by virtue a landmark case, shouldn't the code be revised? I'm sure we will continue to SELECTIVELY enforce the code, even more than now.

So fairness will be improved thereby. You just have to know which rules aren't rules any more, and to whom not to apply them. How you do that, I'm a little unclear, I guess ask your JAG (makes them just essential, doesn't it?). Doubtless additional guidance will be forthcoming.  Because, as you say, consistency is completely irrelevant to leadership, or efficient administration.

Every day we come closer to becoming the best of all possible worlds. What next? 

James said...

Really so its ok to have ROTC a berk but not recruiters? That makes little sense at least to me.

Yea i remeber now that a few ivy league ones denied them for that reason.

Schools full of lawyers find a way to deny rights? No.....not possible.

James said...

I'm not that worried about the navy aspect of it.The Navy from what i've seen is th most tolerant of sexual preferences. Plus the enviroment of the navy is alot different than say a outpost in afghanistan different types of people in some ways.

What i worry about are army and marine units. Not that the navy is somehow better or more intelligent simply a different attitude and enviroment.

Thats where i think we will see the problems. Face it both can be considered pretty socially conservative as far as views like gays and such. And while they may deal fine with them in civilian life, putting them around em 24/7 for a year will cause problems.

Me i really dont care if a person is gay i cant say i understand or like it but i would get over it in time. Part of the problem is im from tennessee which is a pretty conservative place socially. Only people i have a problem with as far as sexual prefferences is flamers. But then i've met gays who make me look like a angel in that area.

DeltaBravo said...

So true Grampa BW.

We're about to find out the law of unintended consequences that will go with this.   Should be fun. 

CDR Salamander said...

OK Sid, that is funny - I don't care who you are.  Even Mike and Andrew have to chuckle because ... it is true.

DeltaBravo said...

It will muddy the waters when people are trying to assert "conduct unbecoming" without appearing to be discriminating against the new protected class.

milprof said...

Actually, Harvard, Yale, and Columbia have all issued statements this weekend indicating that they support the return of ROTC to their campuses.  SEveral of the Ivies already placed policies on their books in the last several years saying that as soon as DADT is gone, they'll start discussions to bring ROTC back.

Here's one news item on the subject:  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/12/the-ivy-league-makes-peace-with-rotc/68251/

DeltaBravo said...

Which half of the horse?

Someone_Blogged said...

I'm confused, is there not a former enlisted man among you who knows what it's like to live in a 60-80 man berthing aboard ship? 
 
 
I have lived in such accommodations on several ships. I have also had the pleasure of stopping unwanted homosexual advances in these berthings on more than one occasion; albeit, I was an E-5 or below at the time and as a CPO I would handle a situation like that much differently. 
 
 
To be clear and not keep you guessing, in one case the incident involved a gay male returning from liberty and verbalizing his sexual desires toward a young Sailor in the berthing who was in a towel and flip-flops returning from the shower to his rack. Cornered in the berthing, the offender kept advancing toward the Sailor reaching towards him while continuing with sexual language. From the crew lounge I could hear my name being yelled by my Sailor, the young Sailor, and ran out of the crew lounge and stopped the aggressor, ordered him back to his rack, and when he did not comply, used soft-control techniques and escorted him to his rack. Once I got the offender in his rack, I sternly told him, "YOU COULD GET KICKED THE F*CK OUT FOR THIS!" You're a cool guy ______, don't ever do something like this again." 
 
 
The second incident involved two males, a PO1 and a PO3. I will not bore you with the details, however, the PO1 waited until the intoxicated PO3 male fell asleep and began performing oral sex on the younger Sailor. The younger Sailor awoke, horrified, pushed the PO1 off of him and ran out of berthing. Days later, just prior to CO's mast, I took a knife away from the PO3 who intended on stabbing the PO1 at his first opportunity. 
 
 
And now that I think about it, I have actually dealt with three incidents of gay males losing control of themselves in a male berthing aboard ship. This is why we keep males and females in SEPARATE berthings. So, I ask you much learned gentlemen, will we now be modifying our surface fleet during their next availability for "GAY/ TRANSSEXUAL/ TRANSGENDER BERTHINGS"? 


 <span></span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

You are simply a homophobe.  Such things will never occur.  Why?  Because Mike Mullen says they won't.  Steely-eyed warrior of a sailor that he is. 

No matter the seriousness of the unintended consequences, nor the detrimental effects on recruiuting, retention, or combat effectiveness of our war-fighters, this experiment will be a rousing success.  How do I know?  The language for the future "studies" and official DoD leadership commentary is already being crafted. 

And who is to implement?  Clifford Stanley.  A classic "diversity" General who owed his rank to his pigment.

DeltaBravo said...

Seriously... as stories like that increase and anecdotal evidence builds that such incidences occur more frequently how many parents will actively dissuade their 18 year old sons from enlisting if it's going to put them in such situations?

Skippy-san said...

Well back in the day-I saw a couple of strippers wearing ruby red slippers in Breezy Point O'Club. But that was before it became a crime to like women.

Your point about spouse clubs is well taken-and the point about spouse clubs not being what they once were is good too. I'm not sure that's a good or a bad thing-but they probably had more value before e-mail and Skype.

I guess I have resigned acceptance that is going to happen-but I don't like it much. I especially don't like the fact that some guy will get cashiered for having sex with a maid on a Sunday afternoon in Hong Kong-but our pal Skipper there will be on the fast track to CNO.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Wonderful comment over at Lex's Place:

"Now everyone gets to go home and congratulate themselves on their exquisitely correct sense of moral rectitude. Great victory, and that. Historic. Now that the heavy lifting has been done, the chattering classes and punditocracy is now free to ignore the military completely, the brutish beasts. Leave it to the forces to negotiate the tawdry little details of implementation. Which it’s not like they’ve anything better to do.  Rarely has the moniker “lame duck” been so well earned."

Surfcaster said...

Hehehehe

Stu said...

<span>If we don't have the leadership to stand up to the more radical part of the gender-agenda absolutists - then bad on the leadership. </span>
------------
I'm going to actually enjoy watching the mental gymnastics of those who supported lifting the ban on gays when confronted with their own arguments for any restrictions on transgendered.  Either everyone is welcome or they aren't.  

But now we do have more diversity to measure.  

andrewdb said...

USAF Mike is correct. 

The US Supreme Court ruled in _Lawrence v. Texas_ that state sodomy laws are basically unconstitutional. The USSC is also the court of last resort for UCMJ cases, and the Constitution still applies to the military and the UCMJ, even if not entirely.

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled in the _Marcum_ case that UCMJ Art. 125 is not enforcable unless there is a "military element" - how they added an additional element to a statute is a bit of a question, but the end result is that today you can't have a 125 prosecution without also alleging a violation of good order and discipline.  Marcum was an USAF case (sorry Mike!) that also involved some frat, so they ended up tossing him out.

The Joint Service Committee (the DOD-wide committee that does UCMJ revision suggestions) has recommended that Art. 125 be amended, but Congress has declined that opportunity for several years now. 

The way Art. 120 and 125 are written is just weird, but under the current language you have to have a woman and a man to violate 120.  125 basically outlaws anything not the missionary position between a man and a woman, and something like 90 of the last 93 Article 125 cases in the military courts of appeal involve hetero sex. This isn't odd, as if it were homo sex they would be on their way out the door with an administrative seperation, not a court martial under 125.

The Pentagon Working Group report on the repeal of DADT talked about this - they understand that 125 as written can't be used any more.  I agree it would be nice to change the law, but Congress needs to be the one to do that, and they aren't even going to fix 120 and its unconstitutional provisions about shifting the burden of proof in hetero rape this year (the NDAA just passed by the House earlier this week doesn't have the fix - the Senate version does, but they filibustered that one and its pretty much dead - we'll see if the Conference Committee puts it back in, I am not hopeful.)

Last night at a Christmas Party I spoke to a very senior Navy NCO who talked about all the ways they had used other methods to get people out of the Navy so the DADT numbers wouldn't go up.  That individual also said that one of the CVNs has almost 20 DADT discharges on hold today as a result of the SEDDEF's new rules that came out a couple of months ago.  The idea that servicemembers are not at risk of being thrown out, even this morning, just because of who they love is bunk.

andrewdb said...

Skippy - I would encourage you to look at the Pentagon study.  It had some very interesting stuff in the sections about the Family Support Groups. I wasrather surprised at the wives' reaction - a lot of them did not seem to think this would be a problem.

Anonymous said...

<span>'It is also, </span><span><span>IMAO</span></span><span>, the right thing to do.</span> '

In my opinion, it's absolutely NOT. This day is a day of infamy for the United States military.

I'm sick of it all. That fella in Amsterdam who raped toddlers, he was MARRIED to a male. For those who are incensed at my suggestion that male homosexuals are more prone to such disgusting behaviour, keep your flytrap SHUT. I say that's what you get. This is NOT about repealing DADT. It's about allowing even more leftist crap. For every decision like this one, repealing DADT, you allow people in the US military whose primary concerns are not combat effectiveness. You allow, you facilitate, and you foster a leftist mindset. I've seen it happen in Europe, it will happen in the US.

Outlaw Mike said...

Guest was me, Outlaw Mike.

andrewdb said...

Likely June, to match the rest of the Federal government.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-month

UltimaRatioRegis said...

So Andrew, if the family support groups don't think it is a problem, but the Combat Arms soldiers and Marines do, then we should take the opinions of fanily groups and set aside those of the combatants that do the fighting?

Unbelievable.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Guest,

Some of those who object are fighting in the infantry regiments in Helmand Province right now.  Sure, let them leave the service.  We son't need 'em.  You can take their places.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

<span>Guest,  
 
Some of those who object are fighting in the infantry regiments in Helmand Province right now.  Sure, let them leave the service.  We don't need 'em.  What value is a highly trained and combat-tested Marine compared to a gay Farci speaker?  But over in Helmand, you can take their places.</span>

andrewdb said...

Sigh. 

I keep typing this, but you don't seem to read it.

On Page 6 of the Working Group's report (available here:  www.defense.gov/dadt  - the link is on the right side of that page ) they found that:

"...when those in the overall military were asked about the experience of working with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, 92% stated that their unit’s “ability to work together,” was “very good, “good” or “neither good nor poor.”18 Meanwhile, in response to the same question, the percentage is 89% for those in Army combat arms units and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high percentages.19 Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special operations force warfighter told us, “We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”20

So 84% of the Marines who actually know what they are talking about had no problems.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Uh huh.  Tell it to Jim Conway, and the Marines in 2/5.  But then again, what would they know?

andrewdb said...

The military will quarter gays and straights after implentation the same way they did yesterday.  Remember, this is about honestly serving, not whether gays and lesbians can serve - they are already serving.

andrewdb said...

Jay -

You and I don't agree on a lot, but after working on this issue for 18 years now I posted this on my FB page yesterday (Mike, this is for you too) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skgrFTu6KTI

andrewdb said...

This was a decent article in the Washington Post yesterday.  They didn't use the name, but I understand they talked mostly to members of OutServe, a group of Active Duty folks -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121802815.html

milprof said...

So do you think the Marines answering the survey lied, or that the authors of the report lied and made up numbers?

Anonymous said...

I don't see this as an insurmountable problem.  Establish a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment and kick people out with an OTH when they violate it.  Of course, that will never happen, because it would mean more straight males being booted than gay ones.

Southern Air Pirate said...

"Establish a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment and kick people out with an OTH when they violate it.  Of course, that will never happen, because it would mean more straight males being booted than gay ones."

Hey thanks for playing boyo, but there already is a zero-tolerance for sex harassment. People are already being ushered out for sex harassment, if not that they they are being ushered to "make work billets" until the discharge/retirement papers go thorugh.

Southern Air Pirate said...

"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics' " - Mark Twain

UltimaRatioRegis said...

This will be about honestly serving for about thirty minutes.  Then it will be about championing the gay cause, making them a politically protected self-defining group within the military, then actively promoting the lifestyle and culture. 

Kiss DOMA goodbye, for which repeal of DADT is only a way-station.  Meantime, the US Military will have to wrestle with the easy-to-ignore cultural and morale effects of this instead of maintaing and increasing combat effectiveness.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Oh heavens no, Milprof.  Nor would the survey be skewed in the questions asked and the manner of asking them. 

Whom do I believe about the tone and tenor of how Marines think?  Mike Mullen or Jim Conway?  Politically motivated sycophant after his next plumb assignment or Commandant and war fighter focused on his Marines? 

I dunno.  A toss-up.

Wharf Rat said...

Bullshit - there are more straight males than gay ones

Vlad the Impaler (although in a different contxt) said...

<span>You're right it may have been a time issue. He left the Navy just as the Clinton era was starting.</span>
<span> </span>
<span>I suspect that he could get away with enforcing the rules his way because his superiors could see his unit was performing very well without significant problems. He sole overriding concern was unit effectiveness. Enforcing the rules was essential to it but mercy was also essential. While there might have been forms of "advice", ultimately he viewed it as his call and he would live with the consequences. His superiors didn't seem to expect it but weren't particularly irritated.</span>
<span> </span>
<span>As DADT was explained to me by a Navy LT (2006), if someone outs themselves just to get out of something, he wasn't going to believe it or pass it up and it wasn’t grounds for discharge. In his words “It isn’t a get out of the military free card”. The NROTC issue might be a little different because officers are expected to be role models.</span>

Wharf Rat said...

Okay - the liberals have held all 3 branchs of government for two years.  They could have done this any time in the last two years.  Conservatives didn't have the votes to stop it.  But when did they finally do it?Right after they took the smack down of all smack downs. 

This was a 'stick it in your eye' to the voters who just threw the bums out.  For all the bloviating about repealing it, honestly, do you think they would have done it if had electoral consequences?  The liberal/demorat leadership is political, and if they still were in the majority, no way do they do this.  They wanted the issue to bloviate, to use as a 'compassion' issue, etc.  Now that they got hammered in the election - it wasn't passed out of compassion for gays in the military, it was to stick it to the voters who threw them out.

And this was another good reason to throw Sen M from Alaska out.  Too bad she's back. 

Skippy-san said...

There is a generational difference here-my coworker has a son in the Navy and he does not think its that big a deal. My own son who is not in the service-says much the same thing. So too does my daughter and her Navy nuke husband. Sample size of four does not prove much I know, but I really don't think you could have done this 25 years ago. Then again-they will never know how great it was to be in an environment that was single gender and didn't have to worry about posting Playboy pinu-ups in the line shack. :-D

Anonymous said...

Rape is illegal regardless of sexual orientation.  How about the straight guys that raped girls in Japan?  Get a grip.

Anonymous said...

Good thing straight males never assault women on ships.  If they did, you wouldn't have a point.

Stu said...

<span>Meantime, the US Military will have to wrestle with the easy-to-ignore cultural and morale effects of this instead of maintaing and increasing combat effectiveness.</span>
---------
Is it a coincidence that the same leadership in the military that has championed this nonsense has also mismanaged just about every acquisition program during their tenure as well?  

Anonymous said...

If I had a nickel for all the harassment of women, I'd be a rich man.  Too bad leadership is so poor we can't get people to behave.

Anonymous said...

Can you stop dragging gay people to the straight strip clubs?

Southern Sailor said...

There already is a zero tolerance policy.  And we see how effective that is.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, we should be tossing bigots that can't deal with peers out on their ear.

Vlad the Impaler (although in a different contxt) said...

<span>As an E3, it is a relief to see someone point out the impact on the enlisted side. Officers have more space, are expected to behave like adults, and have more freedom to engage in their desires. Enlisted guys have to live in very different conditions. Females (despite all the talk about equality) get their own tents (usually better than ours), and are kept separate from us Combat Arms enlisted guys. Even despite those precautions, fraternization is a problem (with locations as varied as your local MRAP).</span>
<span> </span>
<span>As for unwanted homosexual advances getting prosecuted just like heterosexual ones, remember that most instances will be with men. Not only will men be highly reluctant to come forward but I've NEVER heard of anyone bothering to prosecute a case where the male was the victim. I've seen a case where a male PO1 was attacked by his wife who was sick of caring for him in his cancer). Guess who the command sided with. Her.</span><span> </span><span>Don't count on any equality in enforcement of sexual harassment restrictions.</span>

Vlad the Impaler (although in a different contxt) said...

And if the victim is male, will anyone care?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

So out goes Roughead, Mullen, Hasan, and the entire of the Diversity Directorate.  NNOA, and DACOWITS staff, too.  Latino Engineer Association?  Gone.

And now, anyone championing gay servicemembers over straight ones.  Wow.  That ought to do nicely. 

Oh wait, I bet you meant heterosexual males, didn't you?

milprof said...

Let me just get this straight, URR, you actually are arguing that the figures reported to us are falsified -- that what's in Westat's survey report is not what they actually got on the survey forms returned to them but is instead just made up data, right?  That's really what you think went on?  

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Stu: We are in the very best of hands.

Anonymous said...

Obama's plan was always to wait until after the 2010 midterms to push this issue, to avoid Clinton's fate.  Had the Dems retained majorities in both houses, you are correct that they would not have pursued this until 2011.  They just didn't count on getting waxed in 2010 for other reasons, and given the commitments he'd made on DADT repeal, it was the lame duck or never.  I also have a hard time thinking this was about liberals trying to poke conservatives in the eye given the 8 Republicans who voted to repeal.

In the end, I don't really care why they did the right thing, and you don't really care whether they had any compassion for gays in the military.

milprof said...

Yes, implausible.

milprof said...

I guess you'll have to ask Gen. Conway, since apparently his opinions trump empirical data.

Stu said...

Implausible?

Not really.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

<span>The USSC has also ruled that military law exists to ensure the good order and discipline and combat  effectiveness of the Armed Forces. The application of civil case law to UCMJ cases is by no means cut and dried.</span>
<span></span>
<span>What the above means to the GED equipped PFC/SA is that there is no law, just corrupt politicians and corrupt lawyers misreading plain text and corrupting the officers to enforce it. Yea, yea, I know, that's not a correct interpretation of the law and regulations, which is  the result of sophisticated interpretation by the finest of legislative and judicial minds. </span>
<span></span>
<span>Enjoy the Art 32 for SA Budd. Will that be an isolated case?  No. One. Knows. But...., the ranch is in the pot and now the rest of the cards will roll up.</span>
<span></span>
<span>Glad I'm long retired.</span>

LT B said...

Not just generational but the Marines I work with are livid and disgusted by this. We shall see.

Outlaw Mike said...

CDR, all, I have this quote from over at American Power:

"You know what is irritating… while I 100% understand and support anyone who will now leave the military or refuse to join, because they don’t like the PC bullsh!t with which it has been infested, this then plays right into the Left’s hands.

Now, with conservatives leaving or not joining the military, it allows the Left/progressives to take it over and destroy it from within… just as they have done with the MF-ing media, with our grammar schools, high schools, universities, Hollywood, etc.

Just as they did with all those organizations, they are now going to take over the military and make it a liberal PC utopia. And, just as they don’t care about results in the other organizations (don’t care about facts in the MF-ing media, don’t care about education of children in schools and universities, don’t care about making money in Hollywood, so long as they get their message out, etc), they won’t care if the military becomes inefficient.

This is their goal. Take over the military from within, destroy it with PC bullsh!t."


That commenter is EXACTLY RIGHT.

I've seen it happen here. Hell, I been LIVING through it!

CDR, I fail to understand how you can endorse such a travesty. The US military is going to europeanize, DON'T - YOU - SEE - THAT???????

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Empirical data?  You ain't seen the football since kickoff, ace.

LT B said...

I have only seen false assault claims. So your pointed and sarcastic attacks do not really carry a lot of weight with me. This does not improve readiness and despite the media's allusions, every gay does not speak Arabic.

JSunTzu said...

If DADT had been working properly, PVT Bradley Manning would not have been serving and we would have avoided tons of classified data being released. 
JST

Anonymous said...

You're right, not every gay speaks Arabic.  A lot of them carry rifles, and drive ships, and fly planes, and fix radios, and deploy multiple times to places like Iraq and Afghanistan.  I think those people have earned the right to be judged on their competence and professionalism.

Anonymous said...

I suppose you're right, and this could all be part of a leftist plot, or I could go with the simpler and more likely answer that in general people think discrimination is bad and no longer saw a compelling reason to discriminate against gays in this way.

I've never understood people who complain about the diversity bullies but then use their conduct as an excuse to do the same thing, which is judge people by something other than their merit.

Stu said...

<span>I think those people have earned the right to be judged on their competence and professionalism.</span>
---------
Odd how they seem to then want to make their homosexuality the big issue.  

Anonymous said...

Never in 23 years did I see anyone serve to make a social statement and almost nobody ever re-upped/stayed past their required time that didn't have some degree of commitment to the Navy.  Why would we think that now there will be a great rush of people to join that aren't equally committed.  If anything they'll be doubly committed to show the US that they can serve our country and do it well as they have for years in secret.

Wharf Rat said...

Responses:

8 Republicans voted in favor - look at them:  None could be considered a conservative, and most can be considered Rhino's.  To be fair, some might have conservative positions on economic issues, but no one would be considered conservative on social issues.   This was absolutely designed to poke a finger at conservatives.  It was conservatives (most of the country btw) that gave them an historic smack down.  To be sure, the lame duck is going after other issues too that will not have a snowball's chance of winning in the next congress.

I still believe they needed DADT as a bully pullpit issue to show how 'bigoted' we conservative white guys are (morality of course has nothing to do with it).  They could have had that issue for years, just as they've pulled the 'race' card for years.  And still will. 

I'm trying to understand the last half of your last comment 'you don't really care whether they had any compassion for gays in the miltary'.  Uh - yeah.  I would say that a few liberals really believed it was wrong to exclude gays, but liberals are such political animals this was about revenge more than helping out a 'constituency'.

And what is missed - GAYS COULD AND CAN right now serve.  DADT was about keeping your mouth shut and doing your job.  Since when did sexuality have anything to do with working a flight deck on a carrier????  Or being a tank, or tanker, driver.  I watched an F-22A Raptor demonstration this summer, met the pilot, etc.  I don't give a rats....... if he was gay.  Just do your job.

Anonymous said...

They just want to be able to serve without losing their job if someone finds out that they have a significant other of the same sex.  I don't think that qualifies as making their homosexuality a big issue.  Quite to the contrary, some of the over-the-top rhetoric I'm seeing here suggests that they gays aren't the ones who see their homosexuality as a big issue.

James said...

Some, i'd say alot of the people who disagree with repealing DADT dont do it out of malice towards gays but because of other reasons.

Not everything in this world is about racism, sexism or some other form of bigotry. Sometimes its just seeing what you believe could be a problem.

Kinda like why i dont think most women should be in combat roles in some form of the service. A women simply isnt built as big as a man. thats not sexism thats simply reality. Few women can carry the load a infantrymen today does, not and hump it the distanced that are required. Some can but those are few. Of course in fields that dont require so much physical labour thats different.

Then there are the extra problems integrating men and women bring. Then add that to the problems integrating gays and straights. And no that doesnt just mean fights or threats or harrasment. That can be taken care of.

sid said...

<span>Can you stop dragging gay people to the straight strip clubs?</span>

Personally, haven't been to a strip club in over 20 years, as I always did find them somewhat offensive, and a waste of time.

Besides -in EVERY case for strip clubs- <span>THE POLE STAYS INSIDE</span>

Just a simple google search of "Gay Pride Pictures" confirms that the central tenent of the movement is to take it outside and shove it in everybody's faces....


The inequality in your comparison is vividly obvious.

Stu said...

As Chesterton commented with respect to "choices" during election time:

<span>"Detect some difference between the two persons in frock-coats placed before you at this election."</span>

sid said...

Oh, BTW

That was with "SafeSearch Moderate" enables.

For some real fun...Turn it off.

Stu said...

Haven't once in my life ever seen anyone thrown out because someone found out that they are homosexual in the private lives.  This has nothing to do with wanting to be judged on competence and professionalism.  This is all about wanting to be openly homosexual in hopes that society calling a lifestyle "normal", at least on paper, will somehow make it so.  

It won't.  

sid said...

Puts a whole new context in the term "Hybrid Sailor"....

Quartermaster said...

Cdr Salamander really doesn't care. He says he loves the Navy, yet endorses something that bids fair to destroy it. At the absolute minimum it is one more heavy straw on the back of the camel.

News coming back from the field tells me many were not able to give their input to this travesty. Mullin and Gates lied through their teeth.

Combined with the barbaric practice of putting women in combat seats, the military is now in the balance for real. In the end the message become even stronger to decent young men - STAY AWAY FROM THE MILITARY IF YOU VALUE YOUR LIFE OR SANITY. The rot is truly setting in.

USAF Mike said...

Only if it's accompanied by a wrist flip.

Dunno if any of you watch The Venture Bros (if you aren't, you should...hilarious show) but that definitely reminded me of something the character Shore Leave would say.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Inevitable, if things don't change.  There is a culture of hedonism in the world now, that is promoted by hollywood, and the pop music industry, that I am not sure can be stopped, as there is no effective way to get our viewpoint out.   The entertainment industry sure won't allow anything other than hedonism to be shown.  When Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart are considered legitimate news sources, we may have passed the Point Of No Return.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Well, the Marines are still Warriors.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Man, we are gonna wind up with big ships, with all the different berthing areas we will need.

USAF Mike said...

Yeah, thanks for the further clarification...it was late and I was too lazy to go dig up the additional cases but I knew there were military specific cases that had for lack of a better word "applied" (yeah, that's not the right way to explain it from a legal standpoint but good enough for government work) Lawrence to the UCMJ generally and Art 125 specifically.  There was another one beyond Marcum, I think it involved Coast Guard personnel...maybe if I'm bored tonight I'll go look it up.

I agree with everyone here that the statue should be changed, but unless you're willing to actively prosecute every single hetero individual that has gotten or received oral (or anal) sex, you really need to lay off the double standard/things are unclear argument.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Of course Mullin and Gates lied, they are politicians, not warriors.

USAF Mike said...

Yeah, thanks for the further clarification...it was late and I was too lazy to go dig up the additional cases but I knew there were military specific cases that had for lack of a better word "applied" (yeah, that's not the right way to explain it from a legal standpoint but good enough for government work) Lawrence to the UCMJ generally and Art 125 specifically.  There was another one beyond Marcum, I think it involved Coast Guard personnel...maybe if I'm bored tonight I'll go look it up.

I agree with everyone here that the statue should be changed, but unless you're willing to actively prosecute every single hetero individual that has gotten or received oral (or anal) sex, you really need to lay off the double standard/things are unclear argument.

andrewdb said...

The active duty Marines I know are delighted.

USAF Mike said...

Do I really need to drag out all the cases of individuals who have been booted for something that had nothing to do with their performance at work?

Here's one, Victor Fehrenbach.  Falsely accused of assault, but since he was required to out himself during the investigation, he's was processed for discharge.  19 year decorated fighter pilot with combat service in 3 wars, but hey, he puts his private bits in a different place than "normal" people, so out with him because we just can't subject our precious little ones to the nefarious HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA.

USAF Mike said...

"<span>I'm sick of it all. That fella in Amsterdam who raped toddlers, he was MARRIED to a male. For those who are incensed at my suggestion that male homosexuals are more prone to such disgusting behaviour, keep your flytrap SHUT. I say that's what you get."</span>

Ah, yes, the classic rhetoric technique of "SHUT UP I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG LALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

So on the basis of this, I yield to your obviously superior intellect...all gays are just seconds away from snapping and raping toddlers.  Hell, if that's the case, why are they even allowed on the streets?  Lock them all up and process them for execution, I say.

Is that seriously the best argument you have to offer?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

You don't know many, andrew. 

andrewdb said...

Grandpa - its no different than any other law - when the court rules something unconstitutional the language of the statute doesn't change.  I'm too lazy to find the link, but there was an article awhile back about some NY state law that had been overturned and the NY DAs had obtained convictions of hundreds of people for a law that had already been declared unconstitutional by the highest court in that state.  I completely agree with you that they  should change the language of the statute!

andrewdb said...

You mean the _Smith_ case?  I'm sorry, when the guy tells her he wants naked pictures "to build trust" she should not believe him.  I wish I could find the UCMJ article for criminal stupidity; that's what they should have convicted her of.

Southern Air Pirate said...

<span>"If I had a nickel for all the harassment of women, I'd be a rich man.  Too bad leadership is so poor we can't get people to behave"</span>

Oh yea good thing that there aren't sexual predators on both sides of the sexual aisle, through out all of the world. Too bad we can't get good leadership through out the rest of the world to prevent things like sexual predators from being in big business, education, the military, etc.  For as many men that I have seen be-bop through women, there have been just as many women I have seen be-bop through men. I have seen both Officer and enlisted senior women pick up some junior male sailor and use them during a deployment cycle and then drop them at/near the end of the deployment. I have seen just as many women work through using and abusing thier sexual appeal to get young dumb full of cum sailors to get them to do their jobs.

andrewdb said...

MCRD and Miramar are both inside the city limits, and with Pendleton let's just say Marines are not rare in San Diego.

Anonymous said...

OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!

NO RED BLOODED AMERICAN WILL EVER SERVE WITH THE GAYS!!!!!!!

Ecept you're wrong.

actus rhesus said...

gues = me

actus rhesus said...

actually the majority of sexual abuse of minors involves heterosexual assault on females within the household.  Let's kick out anyone with step daughters...just to be safe.

actus rhesus said...

well I've seen real ones, so my anectdata trumps your anectdata.

LT B said...

Yes, but some will be decorated FABULOUSLY!  Sorry, it was too easy. :)

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Well then.  That certainly trumps the numbers of Marines known by the Commandant and SgtMaj of the Marine Corps, and any I might know in my 28 years of service. 

LT B said...

It is a tougher charge against many females where it is mixed gender (Tailhook, USNA 05 Courts Martial, etc), I forecast that gayness will also impede the "conduct unbecoming" charge.  Remember, many FOGOs are, in fact, moral scardy cats. 

Skippy-san said...

Well look at the bright side-now you guys have another issue to teabag these eight guys back into conformity with the GOP party line.

Stu said...

Fehrenbach wasn't REQUIRED to out himself.  What was private, became public during an investigation and is thus an issue.  Now, do I think he should be able to retire honorably?  Yes.  But such cases don't justify legitimizing a disordered lifestyle.  Same sort of logic went from "mildly criminal acts at Tailhook" to the "remedy" of  "women in combat." 
    

USAF Mike said...

Yes, he actually was.  What was private was REQUIRED to become public in the interest of, I don't know, him not going to jail on a completely false accusation.

So no, he shouldn't be able to "retire honorably" just because he's gay, he should be allowed to continue to serve because where he puts his private parts on his own time has absolutely nothing to do with his duty performance.

USAF Mike said...

Haha, just saw this.  Nice.

USAF Mike said...

The Air Force is (was, anyway) in the process of revising our service dress.  I'm glad that was suspended until after DADT was repealed, because I'm looking forward to some fabulous new designs.

I was a little amused to hear OM disparage the media for not caring about the facts when the facts on the matter (as laid out time and time again by andrew) show that there will be a minimal impact on the military, even among combat arms.

Of course, as our own URR has conclusively proven (i.e., his opinion) the study was nothing but LIES to further the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA.  Because, you know, a couple of MARINES gave anecdotal data and as we all know MARINES are the absolute arbiters of truth, forget actual data.

(I have nothing against Marines, I have an issue with blowing off actual data by anecdotal appeals to authority, which is pretty much the only way URR operates.  "Oh yeah?  Well *famous Marine* and *some Marine unit* disagree with you, so there!")

Stu said...

"REQUIRED"..."NO"

"Compelled" in his own interest, more likely.  Life often presents such challenges.   

USAF Mike said...

"<span> Life often presents such challenges."</span>

Hahaha...well, I'm looking forward to the next time you're required to choose between potential jail time and ending your career over the simple fact that you are married.

But of course, I forgot, that's normal and homosexuals are icky, so never mind.  I guess it's okay, they should have to make those choices while normal folks aren't burdened by them.

Stu said...

Stop being such a drama queen.

Life is full of challenges and choices one has to make on principle.  Feherenbach isn't the only person ever in life (normal or homosexual) to be placed in such a situation.  Get over yourself.

USAF Mike said...

"<span>Get over yourself."</span>

Could say the same to you regarding the horror of serving with someone who is openly gay.

Stu said...

I don't have "horror" in serving with someone who is a homosexual no more than I do an adulterer.  I've done both.  I do have issue with changing the policy and accepting a disorder as normal.

Homosexuals see this as all about them, their disorder and wanting others to affirm that disorder.  Others, like myself, see this in terms of both society as a whole and the most effective fighting force. 

Redeye80 said...

Or my 30.

Redeye80 said...

So, Skippy what do you call getting the Dems back inline?  I mean they could have passed this back in 2009.  Oh yeah, they were busy passing the mother of all bailouts which helped keep all those Americans employed.  I forgot as I head to the unemployment line again.

Skippy-san said...

Redeye-could they have really passed it? When the Senate only had a filibuster proof majority for a few weeks? Remember that the House had already passed repeal in the Defense Appropriations bill a long time ago. The Senate declined to take it up. I'm no fan of repeal of DADT either-but they didn't just do this in the lame duck. Its been effectively blocked until they were able to introduce it as a seperate measure.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Mike,

You are free to now ask any guy you want to the cotillion. 

You refer to the Commandant and SgtMaj as "famous Marine" and the units fighting in AFG as "some Marine unit".  I know them well, and when they speak, I trust them.  I don't trust Mullen.  I don't trust you.  Neither of you know a damned thing about war.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Mike: I don't care who did what with which to whom. None of it is now enforced, except as a cherry on top of the tin roof sundae of a half baked trumped up case some overzealous prosecutor built to further his career. Clean out court nullified articles of the Code, if they really are nullified. To not do so is to undermine two of the fundamental precepts of successful discipline, to wit: Have as few rules as possible, enforced always for all; and, Never give an order you know will be disobeyed.

A key point you seem innocent of is the harsh fact that a Navy Commanding Officer must live with the consequences of every mast and courtmartial in his command during his tour. Civilian judges never do.

Unforseen consequences? Guaranteed. But it's the ones that one refuses to forsee that really bite.

Fleet sailors tend to see the law as something to be obeyed and enforced. Politicians see it as a game to be manipulated for their own advantage. Junior enlisted rely on uniform enforcement of the rules for their own protection and/or reason not to break them. They frequently see the politician's view, when acted upon to their detriment, as betrayal. They tend to freelance thereafter.

IMO a Navy whose sailors see the rules with a politician's view will not likely be victorious or trustworthy. Both what the high command does and how it does it matter.

milprof said...

Ironic post.  You offer as examples a number of cases of advocates either making claims that are unsupported by the existing scientific data, misuse those data, or in the case of your first link (re abuse and PTSD), flat out make stuff up and cite articles that don't even exist.  They were not examples of people supposedly conducting studies but really faking them, but of commentators writing opinion pieces and improperly using real studies or just making them up.  Your links refuting those examples of untrue claims rely on survey data (collected in very much the same way as Westat's DADT survey) or other statistics to disprove them.

We can do an easy check.  In your first example, the author's cites didn't even exist.  If you're suggesting the DADT reports show that level of dishonesty, then check the footnotes in the Westat report or the similar RAND study and see if they point to real articles or not and if they fairly summarize them.  Five minutes should do it.  See if the statistical techniques reported are valid, and if the results seem internally inconsistent or at odds with similar results from other studies.  I'm still waiting to hear on what basis you or URR believe that the reported attitudes do not accurately reflect the options of those surveyed.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Like it or not, surveys are not easy to construct to provide reliable information, and are easy to misinterpret, spin and manipulate to support a foregone conclusion. Nor are opinions reliable predictors of subsequent events.  Tell me the reliability measures used in question construction and survey presentation and I'll know if it can be taken on face value.

In any case, it's pretty much a lead pipe cinch the folks building the survey knew what answers the head shed waa looking for. After that, its a question of professional integrity. So you can believe it as much or as little as you like.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

milprof,

You cannot be that naive.  The question of "have you stopped beating your wife" is such an example of slanting the questions to obtain the desired response.  And you know it.

Ever wonder how all those Cold War communist dictators garnered 99% of the vote?

So knock off the willful stupidity.

Southern Air Pirate said...

<span>"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics' " - Mark Twain</span>

chet (latent infantry NCO) said...

Unlike  M. Obama, for the first time in my adult life I am really ashamed of my country. Sickened is more like it.  

Still waiting for those that think this is the right thing to do, like the good CDR, to tell the taxpayers what the strategic benefit to our country will be in empirical terms. We know it will cost plenty money. But what to do get in defense capability? Oh that's right....Nothing. I guess moral superiority must be as good as air and surface superiority these days. Well ,as long as we fight an enemy who hasn't mastered toilet paper, I guess it will be good enough. Good help us otherwise.  
   Next time you folks invoke the phrase "I support the troops", think about the young infantry NCO that has yet another angle to his job down range that really has nothing to do with winning. Crack all the jokes you like about homosexuals.  I am sure the young NCO dealing with an armed love triangle downrange wiill laugh right along with you. Turn your nose up at that suggestion if you like, but recall why so many Naval commanders have been sent packing this year - oh yeah, it was sexual issues with subordinates, wasn't it? Since the leadership failures of E4's are rarely quantified in Stars and Stripes we'll just have to extrapolate. Any casualties will be justified as the moral high ground is important as we all know from our studies of theoretical tactics.

I guess since the military has the market cornered on courage, it is only right to ask them to do things before society does. How many colleges force straight and gay to co-habitate? None. How many universities force straight men to shower with gay men? None. And these are the self same ivory towers that hatched these ideas but they are too chicken to implement themselves. Too much booster money at stake I guess.  "Well, screw it. We'll get the military to do it. They'll do anything we tell 'em to." Some of you bought the hyprocrisy hook,line and sinker.  I am sure the jokes help diminish the reality of what is happening which is nothing less than the unwinding of the very best all volunteer force this planet has ever seen. Experiment with it at your own risk, Americans. Be glad the risk is as low as it is right now.

Future rants about the diversity bullies and their new raison d'etre will be read with a decidely jaundiced eye, Sal.

Therapist1 said...

Most molestation occurs by straight male family members [fathers, uncles, cousins, and grand fathers] all stop!!!

Therapist1 said...

So these things happened without DADT correct??  Regardless of them being legally permitted to enter service, sexual assaults occur.   Separate and prosecute for the sexual assault as you would on any other human being.

Therapist1 said...

By the way, are you sure this sailor considered himself gay?  I point to the book "War" which the movie "Restrepo" was based.  One of the more masculine members of the platoon said that a male in an all male environment would have to have sex with men because to go without sex is totally unmasculine.

Therapist1 said...

They do use Supreme Court cases for precedent.

Therapist1 said...

This protected species crap does concern me as it appears the Navy clearly favors some over others.

Therapist1 said...

Welcome to the rest of the Government!! :)

Stu said...

It begins.

Marine Corps Commandant Has to Go

The Usual Suspect said...

The Tyranny of the Homosexual Minority begins by calling General Amos a bigot.  There is going to be a steep curve and several flashpoints.  This was neither the time nor the place for this experiment.  CDR, you worst fear is about to be realized.  They are going to be given preferential treatment and less is going to be expected of them.  All they will have to do is cry about some percieved injustice done to them and Adm Mullen will be there to hold their hand.  Read up on the last days of ancient Rome...mass unemployment, debauchery, and other distractions.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Stu:

Try this on.

Redeye80 said...

It will be interesting if this gets any traction. I am sure if he speaks out again, he might have to go.

But then again, if he leaves standing behind his principles, he might make a big splash. It won't happen but I'd love to see a few Flags retire in protest.

andrewdb said...

The CMC has smartly saluted (perhaps with clinched teeth) and is off to implement the new law.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/12/marine-amos-dontask-donttell-122010w/

I am sure if he thought it was the wrong thing to do he would offer his resignation, right?

andrewdb said...

Or the hundreds of thousands of servicemembers, including Marines, questioned by WESTAT?

andrewdb said...

URR - right, 4 star Admirals are nothing but political hacks, but 4- star Generals are war fighters.   Maybe in your world, but I think both of them tend to be "very politically aware" or they wouldn't make flag.

USAF Mike said...

"<span>How many colleges force straight and gay to co-habitate? None. How many universities force straight men to shower with gay men? None."</span>

That's out and out bullshit.  I went to a land grant university (Iowa State, if you must know....rather conservative, generally speaking) and I showered every day my freshman year with a gay man.  Because he lived on my dorm floor.  His roommate was a straight dude.  And it wasn't the end of the world, he somehow was able to avoid raping all of us straight dudes...how he managed it, I'll never know, because as everyone here has shown me with their empirical data (wait, did I say empirical data?  Sorry, I mean their anecdotes and scare tactics) all gays are seconds away from snapping and raping anything with two or four legs.

USAF Mike said...

Andrew, your empirical data (sorry, LIES to FURTHER THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA) is trumped by anecdotes from MARINES.  Why can't you see this?

/sarcasm

USAF Mike said...

That was me agreeing with T1 and vehemently disagreeing with Someone Blogged, just so we're clear.

Byron said...

I'd be a LOT happier if more flags retired in protest of things like illegal preferences for minorities and the absolute disaster in our shipbuilding program. Gays in the military won't get people killed...the others surely will.

Byron said...

A Marine will always salute, say, "Aye, Aye, sir!" and faithfully carry out his duties, no more, no less. What did you expect Gen. Amos to do, bring dishonor to the Corps?

LT B said...

It wasn't forced.  If the straight raises enough of a stink, they get moved.  Trust me.  I worked the housing issues at a liberal college.  They will room them, but let the kid's parents call and they are moved.  Full Stop.  You guys chose to live like that.  Not an issue, nobody was shooting at you, no fighting holes relied on it, etc.  The Marine sitting next to me just told me one of the Marines in his group was dismissed for blowing a Haji.  Now that DADT is no longer repealed, how would they handle it?  Do you honestly think they could dismiss the Marine and there not be political blow back?  No pun intended.

LT B said...

The rest of the government doesn't run on 4 hours of sleep, get shot at, run through drills to save the ship or disengage from the enemy, shower and sleep together.  But, that is the point, the politicians, having never served, see us as just another part of the government. 

LT B said...

There will be issues.  I know how to solve them, but will the senior executives, er, officers have the backbone to follow through on these simple ways of solving problems.  Set the standards, announce the standards and enforce the standards.  No double standards, none of that crap.  Honor, Courage, Commitment in how you deal with it.  If you receive rudder orders to treat someone different for political expedience, tell them to shove it, out them for the politician they are and move on.  It won't happen though.

Stu said...

Where did you go, ADM Denfeld...

UltimaRatioRegis said...

We were discussing all the Marines you knew.  And your somewhat loose definition of "empirical data". 

I don't trust Mullen.  He is a politician who wears his uniform as a costume.  DADT is only one such example.  Do I trust any "survey" he authorized?  Not hardly.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

<span>Andrew, </span>

<span>We were discussing all the Marines you knew.  And your somewhat loose definition of "empirical data".   
 
I don't trust Mullen.  He is a politician who wears his uniform as a costume.  DADT is only one such example.  Do I trust any "survey" he authorized?  Not hardly.  </span>

I do trust General Amos, and General Conway before him.  And the voices of the Marines I do know.  When they tell me something, I believe it.  Mullen hardly has the track record to rate such faith.

Stu said...

Well played, URR.

Stu said...

When Mullen was a one-star at the Pentagon, myself and the other LTs had him pegged as such way back then, 

sid said...

<span>The Air Force is (was, anyway) in the process of revising our service dress.</span>I'm glad that was suspended until after DADT was repealed, because I'm looking forward to some fabulous new designs. 

Here yah go! 

chet (latent infantry NCO) said...

Exactly so, LT. AF Mike would like to assume that since he was good with it, everyone else should be too. But, the reality is, when you boil it down to policy writing, cohabitating homosexuals and straights is no different that cohabitating make and female heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with whether or not a percentage of your people are good with it, it has to do with whether or not it affects your ability to wage war. We already know that it does because we continue to separately house and head call male and female servicepeople. If that was no longer an issue, then we could safely assume homosexuals would not present an issue either.  But since we repeatedly have large scale, command detroying issues simply by putting heterosexuals together, why would we ADD to that issue further by adding yet another sexual element to the complexity of the issue.

From a military standpoint, I am willing to resign all of my personal moral disagreements with the issue. I am waiting for someone on the other side to give me the same courtesy and tell me in empirical terms how I can expect more victory from my small units with this new policy. Anyone? Buehler?

Grandpa Bluewater said...

<span>Mothers more typically kill the kids. Just read the papers. But we digress.</span>

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Mike:  I do not pretend what you advise me not to. I don't see that I even implied it.

SOME gays and girls have always screwed their way to the top, unless they got caught, unless they had protectors. Sally Quinn, QED. Relative frequency between the two is just demographics. For most of history on this continent, gays and girls in uniform got sent home upon detection. Some always tried, anyway.

Nobody has ever been free to rape whoever they want, unless they were immune from the revenge of the raped. Rapists prey on the weak, or those with less (local and illegitimate but real) standing before the law. Like Officers, sometimes. Rape is about sadism and power more than sex.  As to the revenge of the raped, my OPINION is that guys are more likely than gals to strop the knife and wait for the opportunity to present itself on a dark night. Sailors miss muster in mid Pacific from time to time. Up til now, demographics meant the sample size of known cases is too small for data, other than tales told on the midwatch.

I just have this silly idea that the rule of law includes punctilious administration of the administrative details, and sloppy legal work is corrosive to the rule of law, which is bad for good order and discipline, which degrades combat effectiveness of crews in naval vessels.

The homosexual agenda doesn't address such concerns.

Someone_Blogged said...

<span><span>USAF Mike</span> 
<span>"That was me agreeing with T1 and vehemently disagreeing with Someone Blogged, just so we're clear."</span>
</span>

Really? Reading is fundamental. Show me where I stated my position that you vehemently disagree with? I wrote the post and I can tell you that I have not yet revealed my position on DADT. The question I posed was if the Navy would be building separate berthings for these individuals. We do not bunk males with females because of privacy and the temptation being too great for some members of the opposite sex to berth together.

sid said...

The story to which Stu references....

When I was growing up, it was literally these guys who set the standards I aspired to...