Get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy?

[Soxy]

Time to end Don't ask Don't tell policy?

 

Personally, I think it's time to get rid of the policy (well, past time). But what does everyone else think?

 

Editorial from today's Trib:

Time to tell

 

Published January 15, 2007

 

For President Bush and others who would like to ramp up the size of the U.S. armed forces, this step is a no-brainer: Get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which has cost the country more than 11,000 military personnel in the last 14 years.

 

Last year, 742 men and women who had signed up to serve their country were kicked out for being gay. Besides the money it costs to replace and retrain gay personnel who are discharged--a 2005 Government Accountability Office report put that figure at $191 million since the policy began--"don't ask, don't tell" robs the armed forces of untold numbers of qualified candidates who never enlist.

 

Such a policy makes zero sense in times of peace and less than zero when the country is at war. Several U.S. House members have made clear their intention to revisit "don't ask, don't tell" this session.

 

John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997, said in a recent New York Times piece that while he supported the policy in 1993, the time may be right to reconsider.

 

"Don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise forged in 1993, after President Bill Clinton learned the hard way that the country wasn't ready to lift the longstanding ban on gays in the armed forces. The military mindset at the time was that allowing openly gay troops would compromise combat readiness by lowering morale, recruitment and unit cohesion. The policy, Shalikashvili wrote, was "a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve."

 

Under the compromise, gays are allowed to serve in the military as long as they keep quiet about their sexual orientation. At that point, apparently, the culture's attitude toward gays had evolved only from "Uncle Sam doesn't want you" to "Uncle Sam doesn't want to know."

 

Happily, we have evolved further. Last month, a Zogby poll of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan found that 73 percent said they were comfortable serving alongside gays; 23 percent said they knew for sure there was at least one gay person in their unit. A Gallup poll in 2004 found that 63 percent of Americans favored letting gays serve in the military; the same year, the Urban Institute estimated 65,000 already were. The 24 countries that allow gays to serve have had few problems integrating their armies. Last year, Britain's Royal Navy began a drive to recruit gays.

 

Mindful of the 1993 backlash--and of the fact that they probably don't have the votes--those who favor repeal are in go-slow mode. Though she is among more than 120 members of Congress who signed onto such a bill last year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House has more pressing national security needs at the moment. In his op-ed piece, Shalikashvili called for a "measured, prudent approach to change." But it would be a mistake to put off hearing the issue.

 

Most measures that could be taken to add more troops would take several years to make a difference. By that time it's not at all clear we'll need them. But eliminating "don't ask, don't tell" would have an impact right away. And it would remove, finally, the cruel and unfair burden placed on gay patriots who are forced to lie about who they are for the privilege of serving their country.

[Texsox]

Gays and Democrats should be a protected class of citizen and not be allowed to die for their country. I can't believe this is even a discussion. Anyone, regardless of their genitalia, eye color, religion, or sexual preference should be allowed to serve.

[jasonxctf]

agreed. eliminate the policy and let openly gay soldiers serve. easy fix. it's not 1945 anymore.

[Queen Prawn]

agreed. eliminate the policy and let openly gay soldiers serve. easy fix. it's not 1945 anymore.

 

I agree 100%.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

agreed. eliminate the policy and let openly gay soldiers serve. easy fix. it's not 1945 anymore.

 

 

I dont care if it's 1945 or 2007. Openly gay people serving was a bad plan then and its still a bad plan now. Openly gay soldiers are a distraction, their presence would undermine discipline and morale, and they themselves would be in danger ( Most soldiers dont exactly like gay people and despite any rules to "leave the gay guy alone" they would still be the victims of verbal and physical abuse ).

 

 

I dont know who that survey asked when they did their survey. In the grunt world I live in, if there was even the slightest suspicion someone was gay that person caught hell.

Edited January 15, 2007 by NUKE

[The Critic]

I dont care if it's 1945 or 2007. Openly gay people serving was a bad plan then and its still a bad plan now. Openly gay soldiers are a distraction, their presence would undermine discipline and morale, and they themselves would be in danger ( Most soldiers dont exactly like gay people and despite any rules to "leave the gay guy alone" they would still be the victims of verbal and physical abuse ).

Maybe the new strategy in Iraq should be "pretend the insurgents are all gay".

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I dont care if it's 1945 or 2007. Openly gay people serving was a bad plan then and its still a bad plan now. Openly gay soldiers are a distraction, their presence would undermine discipline and morale, and they themselves would be in danger ( Most soldiers dont exactly like gay people and despite any rules to "leave the gay guy alone" they would still be the victims of verbal and physical abuse ).

So, we shouldn't get rid of DADT because some of the soldiers are homophobic closet cases? (research has shown correlation that the people who are most virulently anti-gay are usually covering up for something)

 

Before 1940, the Navy would not allow anybody who masturbated into the organization. Before that, we even segregated the armed forces because many of the soldiers didn't like minorities and didn't want them there. Despite all the rules about not hurting the minorities, they still got it from some soldiers.

 

Times change and so should we.

 

I'd love to see concrete examples of gay soldiers being a distraction, undermining morale (and I'm not talking about the "Ewww...it's icky!" pseudo-outrage of people) and putting themselves in danger. It's the same bulls*** arguments given against integration that were intellectually devoid and failures then and they are the same now.

 

If they can do the job, they should be in there, no matter what race, gender, creed or sexuality. I'd highly doubt they'd be hitting on their fellow soldiers during a firefight. Just because a girl dates other girls or a guy dates other guys doesn't mean that they can't serve.

 

Since 1993, about 10,000 otherwise qualified servicemembers have been forced out, including those in crucial occupations such as code-breakers, intelligence and medical specialists, air traffic controllers and translators. At a time of tight budgets and stretched-thin forces, the Defense Department has spent $364 million to recruit and train replacements for those discharged, says a blue ribbon panel that includes former Defense secretary William Perry.

 

Think about that -- $364 million just because some homophobes want to be assured that Lt. Joe isn't checking out his ass during training.

 

If they're openly hitting on people and being obnoxious -- that's one thing (and that should be dealt with hetero or homosexual). If they serve and work well then that's all that should matter, not what orifice they like to pleasure when they're in the privacy of their own rooms.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Think about that -- $364 million just because some homophobes want to be assured that Lt. Joe isn't checking out his ass during training.

 

If they're openly hitting on people and being obnoxious -- that's one thing (and that should be dealt with hetero or homosexual). If they serve and work well then that's all that should matter, not what orifice they like to pleasure when they're in the privacy of their own rooms.

 

Thats more like 364 million just because some gay people couldn't play by a simple rule to keep their mouths ( or other orifices ) closed. Either that or they found military service distasteful and outed themselves simply so they'd get kicked out ( seen that happen a few times during my time ).

 

 

It's really easy for people like you to sit back and say ( ohhhhh thats so bad that they discriminate against teh gay people!!! ). Leave social engineering out of the military please........we have our hands full as it is.

[Rex Kickass]

As more and more evidence shows that homosexuality isn't a choice for most homosexuals, having to hide it sounds more and more ridiculous.

 

Saying that all Americans are equal and deserve to serve based on their merits rather than their sexuality isn't social engineering.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

As more and more evidence shows that homosexuality isn't a choice for most homosexuals, having to hide it sounds more and more ridiculous.

 

Saying that all Americans are equal and deserve to serve based on their merits rather than their sexuality isn't social engineering.

 

 

This was never a question of merit.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

This was never a question of merit.

Sure it is.

 

If they have the merit for the job and they were asked to leave because of their sexuality (as if that somehow inhibited their job) then it is everything to do about merit.

 

People who can do the job are asked to leave because of some closet case homophobes that don't want "icky" gays around.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Sure it is.

 

If they have the merit for the job and they were asked to leave because of their sexuality (as if that somehow inhibited their job) then it is everything to do about merit.

 

People who can do the job are asked to leave because of some closet case homophobes that don't want "icky" gays around.

 

 

No. It doesn't inhibit their job, it's a distraction that inhibits other people's ability to do theirs. I dont expect you to understand though. Your smug little "I'm not there but I'm still qualified to comment" reaction is about what I expected.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree that changing the policy, and allowing gays to be open and honest in the military, will cause problems in the short run. Significant ones. It will be a distraction, and there will be ugly incidents.

 

Except, the same thing happened in allowing various minorities in. Then integrating them into common units. Then allowing women into various parts of the military, then even more. There is a theme here - all these changes were difficult. But they ultimately have all benefited the military immensely.

 

When I go to the movies, there is a commercial for the National Guard. They refer to the Guard having people from all walks of life, like "the fabric of America". Well, that's great. Its as it should be. Those fighting and working to protect us should be a representative bunch. Therefore, its time to push past this and move on. The military needs to adapt in order to be its most efficient.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

No. It doesn't inhibit their job, it's a distraction that inhibits other people's ability to do theirs. I dont expect you to understand though. Your smug little "I'm not there but I'm still qualified to comment" reaction is about what I expected.

I fail to see how it's more of a distraction than the "I'm gonna f*** anything that moves" mentality of guys in general especially when stationed with women as well -- Especially when the armed forces have a huge problem with rape and sexual harassment (let's not forget Tailhook, Aberdeen and the AF scandals to say the least). I think that the rash of sexual harassment and rape is a bit more of a problem for morale (or maybe not since those are some real "macho" individuals, right?) And I can comment on that because I know a person who had to endure that unfortunate experience in regards to sexual harassment while in the military, so please take your smug holier than thou attitude and look at some simple facts.

 

Sexual harassment from heteros while in the military -- an unfortunate consequence but not really a distraction

Openly gay cadets simply serving their country without any mention that they'd attempt romantic relationships -- OMG! TEH ARMAGEDDON!

 

And you may think that my statements above are hyperbolic, especially about hetero sexual harassment. Well, you're going to say that the vast majority of soldiers don't do that. Correctamundo. JUST LIKE THE MAJORITY OF GAY PEOPLE DON'T JUST TRY TO f*** ANYTHING THAT MOVES, ESPECIALLY CO-WORKERS.

 

And the idea that we all have to be someplace before we can comment is absolutely f***ing laughable. Since you've never been a member of the Democratic party, then simply by applying your logic, you shouldn't be able to say a damn thing about Chappaquiddick, Kennedy, Kerry, et al. because you were never there.

 

Talk about smug. Look in a mirror.

[Balta1701]

If nothing else, can everyone here at least agree that removing some of the military's few Arabic speaking translators from the service during a time of multiple wars in the middle east because of their sexual orientation one of the worst ideas since invading Iraq?

[Texsox]

If the guy next to you doesn't want to f*** the same person as you, that's a distraction. Somehow the rest of the population can live and work alongside gays, yet the military can't. Is the big bad sergeant afraid that he may get gay cooties? I'll bet a gay man could hook up wire to a guy's nuts and torture someone just as well as any man or woman currently serving. Threats of violence towards their fellow soldiers? Wow, that's a code of conduct for you.

[Rex Kickass]

Reichen Lehmkuhl served in the Air Force under Dont Ask Dont Tell. He wasn't asked and he never told... but people suspected anyway.

 

So he was sexually assaulted somewhat regularly, he alleges.

 

While the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibited military personnel to question fellow soldiers about their sexual orientation, Lehmkuhl said it offered little protection for a gay captain hoping to maintain his privacy and his dignity.

 

"There was definitely an institutionalized acceptance of people being homophobic and telling gay jokes and making homophobic remarks — really, really mean homophobic remarks to the point of, 'Kill gay people,' " he said.

 

Speculation grew about Lehmkuhl"s sexual orientation until one night, when he said he was sent a message. He said he was sexually assaulted by the people he served beside everyday.

 

"A bag was put over my head," he said. "I was stripped of my clothes. I was forced to do things sexually with two other male cadets."

 

Lehmkuhl said that night he hit rock bottom and considered ending his life.

 

"That's when you start having suicidal thoughts, and that's when you start saying, 'Oh my God. I am so stuck in this situation. I can't go to anyone,' " he said.

 

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2596273&page=1

 

I guess we should protect the poor straight soldiers from having to rape their gay colleagues? DADT doesn't protect anyone, and it doesn't matter if you're gay or not. Suspicion is enough to make your life hell, or even get you discharged. If you're sexually assaulted, there's no protection - because you get drummed out too.

 

But hey, no social engineering necessary.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If the guy next to you doesn't want to f*** the same person as you, that's a distraction. Somehow the rest of the population can live and work alongside gays, yet the military can't. Is the big bad sergeant afraid that he may get gay cooties? I'll bet a gay man could hook up wire to a guy's nuts and torture someone just as well as any man or woman currently serving. Threats of violence towards their fellow soldiers? Wow, that's a code of conduct for you.

 

 

B..BBB.BBBB..BBut I thought some survey said servicemembers didn't have a problem with gay people!?!?!

 

 

Maybe they do and thats why they shouldn't be there.

[Texsox]

B..BBB.BBBB..BBut I thought some survey said servicemembers didn't have a problem with gay people!?!?!

 

 

Maybe they do and thats why they shouldn't be there.

 

The rest of the US has these laws about discriminating. LOL. The military said the same thing about women and minorities. Grow up. Being gay isn't contagious. You won't get cooties. They won't convert you while you sleep.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The rest of the US has these laws about discriminating. LOL. The military said the same thing about women and minorities. Grow up. Being gay isn't contagious. You won't get cooties. They won't convert you while you sleep.

Or maybe they will, Tex. Or maybe they will...::Twilight Zone music::

 

/watches as they scurry away camped out at my window when I look

[Texsox]

Or maybe they will, Tex. Or maybe they will...::Twilight Zone music::

 

/watches as they scurry away camped out at my window when I look

 

You know, I have wanted to meet Rex for a long time . . .

[Rex Kickass]

B..BBB.BBBB..BBut I thought some survey said servicemembers didn't have a problem with gay people!?!?!

Maybe they do and thats why they shouldn't be there.

 

Grown ups get over these problems and do their job.

 

I thought we wanted grown ups in the military.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Grown ups get over these problems and do their job.

 

I thought we wanted grown ups in the military.

 

 

We do want grownups......just not homosexual ones.

[Balta1701]

The rest of the US has these laws about discriminating. LOL. The military said the same thing about women and minorities. Grow up. Being gay isn't contagious. You won't get cooties. They won't convert you while you sleep.

Actually, I believe significant chunks of the U.S. do not have laws which ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is no national statute, and it is banned for federal employees only by executive order. Given some brief googling, here's a rough estimate of the status:

 

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Some of these states also specifically prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. (In addition, six states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only: Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, and Pennsylvania.)

So while significant chunks of the U.S. do ban that sort of discrimination, significant other chunks do not.

[Texsox]

We do want grownups......just not homosexual ones.

 

LMAO. Too bad y'all couldn't keep them uppity negroes out also. Shall we also have them stop paying taxes? I'm certain it must kill you to think they are contributing tax dollars to your salary. Nuke, being kept but a gay guy.