Buxom gay-marriage opponent fires Army officer for being gay; Update: Video added
posted at 9:27 pm on May 7, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
No, not Miss California. The other buxom gay-marriage opponent. The one whose supposedly good intentions are starting to wear thin.
Say, isn’t he required by law to fire him? Well, even if he was, he’ll have a filibuster-proof majority in Congress soon to change that law if he likes. But, strictly speaking: No, he’s not required.
A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members’ sexuality.
An executive order would not get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time.
I spent a day with Dan Choi last month, and he is not someone we want to fire from the military. He loves the armed forces. He served bravely under tough combat conditions in Iraq. His Arabic is excellent, and he used his language skills to diffuse many tough situations and to save lives, both Iraqi and American. All of his unit mates know he is gay, and they have been very supportive of him. But he doesn’t want to live a lie.
Choi’s being interviewed on Rachel Maddow’s show as I write this; I’ll update with video once it’s available. It’d be nice to see the president of the United States, for once, face 1/1000th of the heat Carrie Prejean’s taken for voicing her opinion at a beauty pageant.
Update: As promised, here’s the video from tonight’s show.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Cough… recovering Rock star here… Kind of difficult to do… /pant pant…
doriangrey on May 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM
This thread needs theme music,
Heaven’s on Fire,by KISS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nuyy9NnQ&feature=related
canopfor on May 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM
We have done well with our military just the it is! No, we do not need to abolish “Don’t ask, Don’t tell!” If it were abolished, make it the way it was before “Don’t ask Don’t tell” that would be fine with me.
You can not have it both ways. Either a gay man is sexually attracted to other men or he is not! If he isn’t,,, then he’s not gay!!! If he is,, they why would you want to have one shower and sleep with you??? Are you saying that, as a straight male, you could control yourself showering and sleeping with some attractive army women??? But somehow gay men,, are just so full of discipline and so far above us all that they would never ever get excited at the thought of showering with a bunch of other guys??? right! Just like your average straight Joe would never ever jump at the chance of showering with a bunch of females!!
sure,, it’s not about sex,, it’s all about duty and honor!! Sure,, well, we all know how the homosexual community has done a good job of proving it’s not about sex,, it’s all about courage, duty and honor! go visit a gay pride parade and tell my it’s not all about sex!!
JellyToast on May 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM
I’m not gay, and I cannot remember a single time when I had to hide my sexual preference. I do have a close friend who’s gay, he came out after we’d been friends for a few years. I appreciated and felt almost honored that he’d chosen to tell me, but we are pretty good friends. Having said that, I do not understand why gay people must shove their preference in the faces of total strangers. I don’t go around talking about my love life, I never have, with the exception of close friends, it’s no one’s business but my own. So unless someone is a friend, I really don’t want to know about their sex life, hetero or not.
4shoes on May 7, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Crap,gotta glitch snafu on music link thingy,Ugh!
canopfor on May 7, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Being deeply conflicted is a sign of an intelligent individual of deep conscience. I salute you sir….
doriangrey on May 7, 2009 at 10:33 PM
You and Choi make think it’s a lousy regulation but it’s a regulation none the less. Choi choose to make himself a martyr. My personal opinion an active soldier shouldn’t use their position to influence change in policy in through the media. If Choi felt that strongly about it, resign then lobby or become an activist for change.
lowandslow on May 7, 2009 at 10:33 PM
JellyToast on May 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Yup
artist on May 7, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Could the limit the area of service? I know that they did that for conscientious objectors and it doesn’t seem like a bad solution but it might be called discriminatory.
Cindy Munford on May 7, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Funny, I live with a son that’s a wannabe Rock star.
Cindy Munford on May 7, 2009 at 10:36 PM
but it might be called discriminatory.
Cindy Munford on May 7, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Might?
heh
artist on May 7, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Obama: “The real issue here is that we’re losing another ARABIC speaker in Iraq when he could be in Afghanis– wait, they don’t speak Arabic over there? What do they speak? Austrian??????”
battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Cue Olbermann-village-voice-idiot-Musso riffing about obama so dumb he sits on the tv and watching the sofa in 3… 2… 1….
oh wait, obama is a leftist.
then,
Cue bending-over-backwards-that-Obama “INHERITED” this ‘distraction’ Lt. Choi in 3… 2… 1…
battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2009 at 10:40 PM
I’m not a lawyer but uhm …
It’s not that easy.
You see – “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a CLINTON-enacted policy that was meant to “temper” Article 125 of the UCMJ … “SODOMY”. What I’m saying here is that homosexuality was AGAINST THE LAW for persons subject to the UCMJ even before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). DADT was meant to allow gays to serve in the military. The deal was – we wouldn’t ASK them their sexual orientation and they would not TELL us.
No one in the military has done “investigations” into sexual orientation for over a decade – because a Commanding Officer risks his career in doing so. The Gays being discharged now are the ones that failed to live up to their end of the “Don’t Tell” bargain. If you broadcast the fact that you are gay – or you get accidentally caught – then you get discharged. But no one in today’s military is “hunting” for gays – that is just too fraught with peril.
Now – suppose Obama gets rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ???
Well … that just puts us back to the “Pre-Clinton” era … Article 125 is still there. It has to be repealed by Congress. Sure, Obama can order that no investigations be performed – but there aren’t any happening now. If two males are caught on the quarterdeck of a ship in a compromising position though – they can still be prosecuted under Art. 125 and they SHOULD BE prosecuted.
I’m not a lawyer – but I was an elisted Master Chief in the Navy before I retired. This is the way I understand it.
HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 10:40 PM
That’s a similar excuse the muslims use to keep their women covered up: Men are weak, and women seductive, and thus must be kept hidden because men cannot control their passions.
That’s BS, and you ought to know it. If you can’t keep yourself zipped up, you really need some help.
respects.
AW1 Tim on May 7, 2009 at 10:41 PM
I just realized that this might be the first REAL DECISION obama has to make…. the pirate thing was based on pre-exsting rules of engagement, and from Chavez’s book to the special olympics, he hasn’t made any decisions, just kinda stumbled around.
I for one am interested to see it.
You don’t cross “TEH GHEY” anymore, even if 90% of the country is on your side.
Obama is in a pickle! Maybe the TOTUS will have a clue what to do…
battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Generally no. Sometimes yes.
Women aren’t in combat arms (apart from aviation), so it could possibly be done that way. It’s a can of worms no matter how you look at it. I think both sides of the argument have merit to them.
BadgerHawk on May 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Personally, I would welcome the end of DADT. However, not having served in the military, I rely on those with military experience, especially in the most sensitive combat situations.
Loxodonta on May 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM
sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Thanks for the info sven.
“blazing beds” – wasn’t that a Farah Fawcett TV movie? :-)
KS Rex on May 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Do him a favor, hit him in the head with a cast iron frying pan until he cant remember wanting to be a rock star, trust me it will be a kindness… ;p
doriangrey on May 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM
The official languages are Pasto and Dari. (Afghan Persian/Farsi
thomasaur on May 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Heres a thought,with Obama as President,and his
Community Organizing ability,what I think might
be going on,is a lot of people see Obama as an
‘Activist’ in Chief!!!!!!!!!!!
And in such,its embolding a lot of people,to
think its safe and for what ever reason,to
start going on some from of political crusade’s!
canopfor on May 7, 2009 at 10:43 PM
For the record, I too “Came out” to my friends a while back. All were surprised, most were “accepting” right off, some it took a while, and I lost one close friend who won’t talk to me anymore.
If you’re straight, you don’t have that problem.
Try being gay, Catholic, and Republican. Talk about conflicted…
JetBoy on May 7, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Do they want us to believe that if homosexuals are serving openly that they won’t be having sex with each other at every opportunity?
I guarantee you that if young men and women were serving together in the same barracks that there would be sex going on all the time, so am I supposed to believe that homosexuals are somehow better able to control their sexual urges than heterosexuals?
Buddahpundit on May 7, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Master Chief,
I concur wholeheartedly. The UCMJ exists for a reason, and unless and until the Congress of the United States sees for to amend it, violations can and must be prosecuted for the good order of the fleet.
respects,
AW1 Tim on May 7, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Christ. How many hail mary’s do you have to say each day? :P
lorien1973 on May 7, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Back in the 70’s, we had a NCO who was a real horn dog…couldn’t keep his hands off any female troops within miles…and after careful consideration, command had him transferred out of the unit to another one.
His activities were detrimental to unit morale, efficiency and combat readiness. Same as a few NCO’s and one officer who were clearly alcoholics. We had several gay troops; we knew who they were, the tells were obvious, but it was accepted…and they knew that one step over the line and the other troops might take care of the problem themselves…which would negatively impact unit morale, efficiency and combat readiness.
My take on DADT is that it does require members of the armed forces to lie.
The UCMJ has provision for handling any breech of military regulations, Articles 82, 91, 98, 125, among others, and if commissioned, Article 133, all punitive Articles.
DADT is a fraud.
coldwarrior on May 7, 2009 at 10:46 PM
I just went to a show last Friday. Personally I think it is just an attempt at postponing real life. He’s got it made.
Cindy Munford on May 7, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Just keep the queers away from our children!
/
carbon_footprint on May 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM
ROTFLMAO… Oh I feel your pain brother. Try being the one person in your high school everyone is convinced is the schools only openly flaming gay dude and being 100 percent unable to convince anyone you are straight…
doriangrey on May 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Heh,
Same with me. Then he realized he liked having money in his pocket. Now he’s an infantryman with the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Go figure.. :)
AW1 Tim on May 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM
It’s been noted by others, but this guy knew he risked being kicked out for announcing his orientation on TV.
Apparently for him, his desire to publicly announce this was greater than his desire to remain in the military.
He made his choice- Let him live with it.
cs89 on May 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Thanks, i was just kidding though ;). our dear leader would just be plumb embarrassed and say parlez vous francais /sarc
I know you can get by with dari in most places, but that the minor ones like hazara (or ‘larger’ minor ones like pashtun) will help you in some of the northern valleys, etc.
battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Indeed….it is personal slang that some of us use in the community….
my favorite story from my wife being on a LTF in ‘ghani was the day that a BAH Marriage went wrong at FOB Kandahar and led to a gun aided shouting match that was broken up by about 14 NCOs….
the gal was renting her favors and the male mechanic who shared a tent with his “wife” had decided “why no we really ARE married”…..
rampant promiscuity also led to the “how not to kill your spouse” briefings that all soldiers must endure upon return from OIF/OEF since the 82d and Sci-FGi guys at Bragg developed a wife killing habit when the lil’ darlings were being flagrant about their deployment “sub-contracting”….
hetero sex antics are bad enough adding in openly gay/bi antics would be at a minimum additional drama and potentially multiplying drama….
sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 10:48 PM
I swear – political correctness and the tyranny of the minority is going to sink the Western world.
Look – it’s like this …
Straight men are attracted to Women – any kind of women – even attractive homosexual women. For this reason – we don’t allow men and women to berth together – or share communal baths in the military. This is proper – as both women and men should have some right to privacy.
Homosexual men are attracted to men – any kind of men – even attractive heterosexual men. How the hell does anyone propose to give heterosexuals their “right to privacy” here? What are you going to do? Treat the Gay Men like women and have them share facilities with the women? That’s stupid too – as such a policy would cause the number of supposedly “gay” men in the military to shoot up tenfold – or more.
Why are we infringing the privacy rights of the majority for a population that makes up less than 10 percent of the population.
You can argue they are there now – and that’s true – but they are not allowed to openly say they are gay and the hetero’s do not know for sure.
HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 10:48 PM
I am fairly certain that the fury is harder from your left than your right if my log cabin republican friends’ experience is the norm….
sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Sigh…. I know not what to say. I leave it with this quote from Dean Wormer, Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son…
doriangrey on May 7, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Being gay is the least of your problems…
coldwarrior on May 7, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Let’s just say I get my rosary at the Home Depot by the yard…
JetBoy on May 7, 2009 at 10:51 PM
I tend to think that you, in active duty, are really the best judges of this situation. This man sounds like a valuable asset to the service. At the same time as Loxodonta posted from Hawkdriver, it would depended on experiences and individuals. But isn’t all of life like that?
Cindy Munford on May 7, 2009 at 10:52 PM
The Navy has those. They are called “Deployment Widows”. Made me sick. A squadron would deploy, and all the wives would be there kissing them goodbye, crying with their kids and all that heart-tugging Hallmark-moment stuff.
That evening, a good portion of them would be all dolled up and strutting their stuff at the club looking for a “good time”.
It’s one reason why I refused to get married while on active duty.
AW1 Tim on May 7, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Yeah, but skinny, long hair and girls all over you seems to be pretty inviting. At least for him.
Cindy Munford on May 7, 2009 at 10:54 PM
i wont speak for those that have served, as i havent, but i have had both male and female close close friends in iraq (much more iraq than afghanistan) off and on (usually with the guard) since about 2003. my female friends talk about how they are constantly propositioned by eager males, in every hall corner, etc. (literally), and my male friends have mentioned what you have — the story of the ‘we think he’s gay but aren’t sure’ guy getting caught with another guy very quickly into deployment.
forgive my ‘bigoted’-sounding voice, but i find it hard to believe that gay men, who have been constantly demanding ‘freedom of expression’ for pda, will suddenly dry up and be puritans when deployed. my gay friends in college (that i knew of from high school and and few others that came out in college) hooked up more times than any of my straight buddies, and i ran with a wild crowd.
again, im not trying to sound bigoted, im just saying, i think the original commenter is right — males (straight or gay) of 18-20sish won’t have any “not yet honey” females to “regulate” their activity, so it will be a greater frequency of the deed with male-male
battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Funny!!
Cindy Munford on May 7, 2009 at 10:55 PM
My only concern regarding the military: if service personnel disclose to others (whether it be heterosexual or homosexual) their preference; what if someone who doesn’t like homosexuals and then being in a muslim theatre and the person who doesn’t like gays gives up the gay service member to muslims? Would UCMJ cover this under giving up information of another service personnel or would UCMJ cover it as voluntary manslaughter because the muslims don’t like gays and would lead to certain torture/death?
It really worries me. Don’t want to put you on the spot but if you would like to comment I would appreciate it.
Branch Rickey on May 7, 2009 at 10:56 PM
That’s a tough one.
4shoes on May 7, 2009 at 10:57 PM
It is. Although I wouldn’t join a group like LCR. I don’t want to be a “gay Republican”, just a Republican who is gay.
I just don’t do the “gay group” thing.
JetBoy on May 7, 2009 at 10:58 PM
See I wish the FRGs would brief in the deployment “harlots” on being more like the Navy wives not that I like that the Navy endures it….
the crisis is a lot of the GIs marry strippers or barely out of high school girls who go nuts when they realize, “wow he really just got a 6,000 dollar check”….
not that I am an expert but in my experience the “Fleet Widows” tend to be sublime, have the house cleaned and not be too free with their real phone numbers so that when the Ship comes in they can “squelch” the marital interference easier…..
the army wives tend to be really addicted to live action roleplaying soap operas, never quite grasping hubby is coming back from an environment where he has been using a VERY streamlined threat assessment matrix…
1)is it a threat
2a) no then watch the issue
2b) yes-*bang*
the divorce rate gets to be about 30-40% after most deployments with people married less than six years….
sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Heh heh heh, yea, but when they find out you’re broke and living with mommy…… Not so good… ;p
doriangrey on May 7, 2009 at 10:59 PM
That was then – this is now. “NOW” quite means you possibly get slapped with a “hate crime” for rebuking the advances of a homosexual who’s allowed to be in the shower with you – and who you have no choice but to shower with.
That’s just wrong dude.
And – uhm – I was in the military for 24 years. Were there people I suspected that were Gay? Yep. Were there “tell tale” signs? Yeah. But I didn’t know for sure if they were gay or not and the fact that homosexuality was (and still is via the UCMJ) illegal – they didn’t step across the line.
Take the line away though and …
Nothing against Gays here – but I’m tired of the militant Gay minority forcing itself into ridiculous situations. Sorry – they’re “rights” don’t trump the privacy rights of the majority.
We’ve given enough to them.
For instance – if you contract a disease that makes you “non-deployable” – you are discharged – probably with disability or medical retirement. That is – unless you have AIDS. In that case – you are allowed to serve a full career in the armed services. You never have to deploy. Never have to fight for your country. You are placed in support roles stateside and the military isn’t allowed to hold that against you on promotion boards. That’s ridiculous. But we do it because of the militant Gay minority in this country. Total BS.
HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 11:00 PM
That is why I respect you even though I have different beliefs.
thomasaur on May 7, 2009 at 11:00 PM
um, that sounds like near-treason, “give up another serviceman to an enemy”
i dont care if they are the illegitimate child of jeremiah wright and nancy pelosi, you don’t “give up” a fellow soldier…
battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Hi Hawkdriver, I am not sure you will see this but I can’t send greetings on “The Quote of the Day” because it is about Megan McCain. Again. Since I don’t post on those threads, here I am. It was so great to hear from you today. I don’t exactly understand the “bunkers” part of your post but it worried me a touch. Take care and hopefully we will be posting at the same time again soon.
Cindy Munford on May 7, 2009 at 11:02 PM
sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 10:58 PM,
Concur. I’ve seen it too many times to count. I honestly wish I had an answer, but other than prohibiting married folks from serving, I don’t know what that might be.
Respects,
AW1 Tim on May 7, 2009 at 11:03 PM
It’s revenge. Dan Choi spurned Obama’s advances.
Daggett on May 7, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Why do they all have to shower together anyway? Hasn’t the army heard of cubicles? No, I’m not gay, but I’d value competence at the job over sexual orientation any day.
Fortunata on May 7, 2009 at 11:05 PM
The UCMJ Article 125 addresses homosexual acts.
However, one can be gay and not engage in violations of Article 125 while in service. To punish a soldier for being gay, with no accompanying act, seems to be counter to the most basic concepts of the rule of law.
coldwarrior on May 7, 2009 at 11:05 PM
So far that doesn’t seem to be a problem. Darn it. He has a real job to. Thanks for joking with me about it. His dad likes to give him stern dissertations on moving on to “real life” and then buys him a new guitar. *eye roll* It won’t last forever.
Cindy Munford on May 7, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Actually that is the problem… It might… He might have just enough success for the dream to survive for his entire life, yet never quite materialize.
doriangrey on May 7, 2009 at 11:11 PM
How do you get evidence of homosexuality without the act?
Oh … uhm … that’s right – the Gay service member “announces” it. Without a self admission – or an overt act – there’s nothing to investigate or punish.
No Problem.
The problem is that Gays want to go around and shower with other men and tell them they’re gay – and the hetero’s can go to hell with their silly notions of a “right to privacy”.
HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Thank you sir. I thought people would take my comment there a different way, but I don’t do that either!
I would hope the UCMJ would see that incident as what it is…one US serviceman giving up another to a “hostile” enemy, for the purpose of having that enemy kill the US serviceman.
Gay, straight, whatever. Any serviceman who would do that should face court martial. IMHO.
JetBoy on May 7, 2009 at 11:12 PM
the only gays I think of as a group are groups of gays who march around and burn things….
sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 11:14 PM
No, some do, not all. Hell I’d like to shower with hot woman and tell them to go to hell with their silly notions of a “right to privacy”.
doriangrey on May 7, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Would you favor prohibiting soldiers telling others they have a girlfriend?
radiofreevillage on May 7, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Shot me now!! Just kidding. I am calling it a night. Sweet dreams everyone.
Cindy Munford on May 7, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Thanks, I just didn’t know and that clears it up for me.
Branch Rickey on May 7, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Goodnight sweetheart… ;)
doriangrey on May 7, 2009 at 11:17 PM
I have a hunch that homosexual men of the sort who volunteer for military service are often good snipers. Does anyone have experience or reported statistics to support or refute my hunch?
Kralizec on May 7, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Apples and Oranges – the problem is – the admission of a straight relationship doesn’t violate anyone’s privacy – since straight men and women are, by policy – segregated with respects to living quarters.
Not so with Gays. Admission of a homosexual relationship immediately infringes the rights of the hetero’s he or she is forced to cohabit with.
HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM
Either court martial or let a few of us “gun nuts” be judge :)
Branch Rickey on May 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM
I can guarantee you that had something like that happened when i was on active duty, that soldier would be lucky to make it to trial. Odds are that his command would transfer him to a secure facility for his own protection while awaiting trial.
AW1 Tim on May 7, 2009 at 11:21 PM
You’re joking right?
HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Why is Allahpundit always pushing this gay abomination? Is he gay himself?
.
I thought that this was supposed to be a Conservative leaning site.
FactsofLife on May 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM
I’m military and don’t know a single person who is bothered by gays in the military. My husband knows some of the combat arms guys who have problems with it, but on the whole this seems more of a political issue than a personal issue. The big problem is logistics. I mean, seriously, if we are going to separate women and men (when possible), then we are going to have to make accomodations for gay and straight men. That is just the way it is going to have to be. And, good Lord, cuts in the Defense budget isn’t going to fix it. Of course, O seems great at policy without considering details (Gitmo). But one of the best soldiers I have served with was a gay woman. We need more people to serve and yet find ways to exclude some of the ones we need most.
And I am not buying this friggin’ argument that they are throwing it in our faces. That’s BS. I’ve lived in the barracks. Straight guys and girls love to talk about their exploits and conquests, but gays do it and all of a sudden they are rubbing our noses in it. Horn dogs are horn dogs, no matter their sexuality.
XWing5 on May 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM
It was clearer on preview :)
Branch Rickey on May 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Seriously, I don’t know why a lot of gay people think straight people don’t know they are gay. My brother (gay) has told me that I have one of the best gaydars he has ever seen. I believe most people just “know”. Therefore, if they “know” the soldier next to them is gay, but he does his job, he is not flaunting shit at people, according to the posts here, they seem to be accepted in the unit.
It is the person who becomes that anamoly that creates the problem, thus possibly puts a unit in danger if it affects their mission or readiness.
While “don’t ask, don’t tell” might be stressful on someone who wants to serve, being a military member is a higher calling and hopefully that mission is respected, with the behavior modified accordingly. I honor all who want to serve. We also have to remember that the mission and readiness trumps an individual’s need to shout, “hey look at me, I like different things than you do”.
Remember, we have an all volunteer service. If a gay person has an issue with those rules, there are other ways to serve the country. Volunteer in the community, help old people get to their doctor appointments, etc. Everyone can serve this country in their own way.
however, it is going to be fun to see what Bambi does about this. He steps all over the land mines by trying to be a social engineer. I am willing to bet he regrets closing gitmo so quickly, since Europe just told Holder to go take a hike when he went there to ask for help with these detainees.
karenhasfreedom on May 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM
This Choi all of a sudden coming out is a bit too convenient timing wise. This is a political stunt. It seems curious that in the last several weeks the gays have been screaming about abolishing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (in fact, didn’t Robert Gibb hint that Obama was going to take action on this issue?). Then you have this Choi guy who all of a sudden outs himself publicly on MSNBC no less. I would wager this was a set-up to force the issue on the public. I mean the gays are on a roll with gay marriage being accepted in at least 5 states now so they might as well go whole hog on their agenda.
KickandSwimMom on May 7, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Back in the dark ages of the early 70’s, I was a company commander in the 3d Armored Division (after two Vietnam Special Forces tours).
Anyway, one Friday evening I had one of my SP4 team leaders go to the club, get liquored up, and invite his team members to use his back side. Three of them did.
So, I was faced with a situation where I could discharge four guys or one. I chose to get rid of the one.
Everyone in my unit knew of this incident, and controlling it was a real command problem. Personally, I don’t have a problem with gays in the military but they can cause problems that don’t have to be problems. Back at the time, I preferred to be ready to react to an attack from the Soviet Union.
Special Forces Grunt on May 7, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Good to see your choice of source is the ABC. I’m confident that if I sourced a PBS article critical of the US Army you’d lap it up as totally objective and factual, too.
That being said, the only conclusion I can come to by your linking that is it’s much better for soldiers to harrass other soldiers they suspect of being gay?
Once again not sure what you’re trying to get at here. The main concern raised here that I’ve seen is that if gays serve openly in the US Army that, to quote, they will start having “gay military pride” parades amongst other things (apparantly only gays have orgies, or at least are unable to control themselves enough that they have to have orgies all the time, or something)
The news articles linked listed a short poll about people (329 people) saying they were harrassed ‘at some point’, the majority being ‘verbal’, the other was a personalised account of someone again being abused verbally and, supposedly, getting the short end of the stick from the higher-ups.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here. Is the problem being percieved as ‘now that the gays are allowed to serve openly that they are in turn allowed to complain about being harrassed?’ That ‘now that gays are allowed to serve openly that they’ll… act all gay-like?’ That ‘now that gays are allowed to serve openly they’ll harrass others?
Or perhaps it’s a bit of a snarky response to my admittedly snarky reponse to some of the other posts I saw here.
But really.. Let’s see.. *rummages through the internet*
Now, ways to dismiss that link..
- “It’s out of date!” Well, it’s from 2005 which is still more recent than the ABC article, but it’s the most recent example I could find. Actually, looking at it again, the IDF article is 3 years old, too..
- “It’s about women in the military!” Aha, yes, which once again is why we need to clarify what our problem is with gays in the military. Are we concerned they will be harrassed? Or that they will harrass others? Perhaps even more worthy of note in that study is that reports of harrassment against women went up, as noted in the quote, so what would the solution be? Hell, what would the easiest solution be? After all, I can’t help but suspect that one of the main.. ‘concerns’ is that both gays and women will bombard straight males with complaints about some form of harrassment.
Now I’m not one who thinks the military is somehow on the same level as your ‘average workplace environment’ and as such shouldn’t have the same amount of PC thrust upon it if it hinders the ability of it to carry out it’s task. It’s obviously somewhat easier to keep the guys seperated from the gals, but if gays are already serving then I’m not sure what the concern is if they are suddenly allowed to serve without fear of being discharged. Surely common sense can be applied here, both in regard to fair treatment and of applying common sense to obviously frivolous complaints.
We could cherrypick links all day, but rather than get involved in another gays in the military argument I’ll take your replies onboard and look further into the issue
Both females and gays keep joining the military, the latter knowing that in doing so they could be discharged for their sexual preference. It would be interesting to find out just what sort of person joins the military in the first place, and obviously especially interesting to find out what sort of female or homosexual joins. It’d also be interesting to know why, both from those who are part of it and those who are opponents of them either being there and/or wanting to serve ‘openly’
Reaps on May 7, 2009 at 11:25 PM
whooops, my apologies for slipping in a bad word above. Mental note to self – use preview!!!
karenhasfreedom on May 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM
‘Nite all.
I leave you with:
Happy Trails to you,
Until we meet again…
Happy trails to you,
Keep smiling on til then!
Who cares about the clouds when we’re together…
Just sing a song an’ think ’bout sunny weeeaaather,
Happy Trails to you,
Til we meet again!
JetBoy on May 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Being a professional is expected, but not hiding who you are. Again, I go back to the fact that I got earfuls of unwanted info regarding sexual exploits from the straight folk, but heaven forbid a gay person talk about their private life. Professionalism should have nothing to do with sexuality. Are these talkative heterosexuals any more or less able to do the job demanded of them. Sorry, but in the Army, or the military as a whole, it is hypocritical. It’s ok for one group, but not for another. It is about getting th job done in a professional manner. Or rather, it should be.
XWing5 on May 7, 2009 at 11:31 PM
I refuse to discount this. Something in my gut tells me you are correct.
SouthernGent on May 7, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Uhm … yeah .. hmm .. well that is what the military is primarily designed around … THE COMBAT ARMS.
How are you going to segregate Straight Men, Straight Women, Homosexual Men, and Homosexual Women … on a MINESWEEPER?
How are you going to do that on a SUBMARINE? We are trying to solve the privacy issues so that we can put women on Subs – but now you want to create FOUR groups – each with privacy considerations?
If you segregate gay men with gay men – don’t you get a very high probability of sex?
Just ludicrous.
I was a Command Master Chief on a Cruiser – an integrated (male / female) cruiser and I can tell you the challenges were LEGEND. It was a constant leadership issue – keeping the men and women under control. It was doable – up to 40 days deployed because although the men are ready to “go” as soon as the ship leaves the pier – it takes the women about 40 days to get to the level of sexual tension of the men. After that – it’s a free for all that you have to really stay on top of to keep it under control.
Allowing gays to serve openly does NOTHING to enhance combat readiness of the services – and that … make no mistake – is the purpose of those services.
HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Mr. Choi being forthed to be thumthing he doethn’t want to be . . . *sniff* so horrible.
Cry me a river! ARE YOU IN THE ARMY TO DEFEND THIS COUNTRY OR IN IT TO F*CK?
Ryan Gandy on May 7, 2009 at 11:34 PM
SouthernGent -
Give the activists an inch and they’ll take a mile . . .
KickandSwimMom on May 7, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Look dude – you’re arguments are great but you are neglecting the fact that you are violating the privacy of the straight service members.
Do you even care?
What’s your solution? Four berthing compartments – two of which would hold copulating populations? Give me a break.
HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 11:35 PM
XWing5 on May 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Reaps on May 7, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Homosexual men who have left the service would be free to talk to a scholar about their service, so I think the question is reasonable, even as regards statistics. But if you mean only to say that your opinion or intuition is opposite to mine, I can’t think of a use for that information.
Kralizec on May 7, 2009 at 11:37 PM
yay for not using preview. Basically I wanted to list
HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM
XWing5 on May 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM
As I think they both raise the same concern I do, but obviously with more personal experience on the issue
Reaps on May 7, 2009 at 11:37 PM
These threads always bring out the bigots. Good times, good times.
I am a straight man. Does that mean I am uncontrollably sexually attracted to every woman I see to the point where whenever I am forced into close confines with one, say on a work project or a softball team, I can’t control myself and behave inappropriately? Of course not. ESPECIALLY not if I have the self-control and discipline required to join the United States Armed Forces. I don’t see how this scenario could possibly be read so differently as to bar me from the armed forces if I happened to be attracted to men instead of women.
jimmy the notable on May 7, 2009 at 11:38 PM
All thinking people should be conflicted. In fact, they should be conflicted on most major issues. When there are two clear sides to an issue, there is usually some merit to both. I never trust people – on either side – who think they have all the easy answers. And this one ain’t easy.
I’ll be an infantry platoon leader in Iraq (or more likely Afghanistan) by next spring. So how do I just completely ignore this LT’s experience; how do I disrespect his West Point record, his combat service, his willingness to volunteer for the same thing I’m doing … and just dismiss him as worthless? How do I do that?
I know all the arguments, and – in the abstract – I generally agree with them. I know he knew the score before he went to West Point; he knew the Clinton-era rules. And I have plenty of worries about the effect on discipline of gay soldiers in the ranks.
(Aside here: a friend who works at the Pentagon told me stories of dealing with this quite a bit while deployed. He had serious love triangles going on between lesbian soldiers. Nobody trains us on how to deal with that kind of thing! WTF?)
But can I just dismiss this guy … apparently a good officer, who serves in the toughest most hoooah branch of all … and who, for God’s sake, has critical language skills that we really do need …?
Yeah, I’m conflicted, too. I can’t even process it. In the abstract, its easy. In reality, it gets complicated.
What do *I* do one day, if one of my men is an outstanding soldier, a solid team member, a valuable leader in the unit … and I find out he’s gay? Follow the policy – even if it weakens the platoon? Let him stay – and worry about unit cohesion?
At the end of the day, I guess I agree with Maddow on one thing: Clinton’s fence-walking strategy didn’t do anybody any favors. Either get serious about banning all gays from the military (FYI: you can be as gay as you want in the military, as long as you don’t act on it, make public statements, or try to get “married”) … or just get rid of the prohibition and let them serve openly.
The middle ground is a mess. Make a decision.
Professor Blather on May 7, 2009 at 11:39 PM
sexual politics are already enough fun with just the straights…
the primary job of the Armed Forces is the projection of US power and defense of US interests….the rest is just noise.
sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Don’t care how straight you are – or how “disciplined” you think you are – we aren’t going to allow you to shower with people you’re sexually attracted to – namely women.
Next strawman argument please.
HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 11:41 PM
I am not a “dude.” Look, I am not trying to be a jerk here. I am simply stating that everyone I know in the military and “most” people in combat arms my husband knows, don’t have a problem with it. I admitted that the problem was more of logistics, which is exactly what you are saying. No need to get snippy, as Algore would say. I think that simply admitting that you are gay is a stupid reason to not allow someone to serve, especially when we need people. HOWEVER, the problems associated with separating all the groups is daunting to say the very least. So get over yourself for a second, ok? Of course I care. But I am more interested in someone being able to cover my backside downrange, than if they choose to sleep with a man or a woman. And just because women aren’t infantry, it doesn’t mean we aren’t seeing our share of action.
XWing5 on May 7, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Try being an actor and coming out as a conservative. It’s caused people who previously thought I was a decent human being to decide that I’m a monster.
Kensington on May 7, 2009 at 11:45 PM
LOL!!!! I nearly fell on the floor when I heard this.
From the MSLSD video, Dan Choi says, “Telling us to lie [about our homosexuality] — that is an immoral law.”
What? It’s immoral to lie? Says who?
Dan, if the source of your moral authority about lying is God, then you better double-check what He says about homosexual behavior.
And.. if the source of your moral ideas about lying vs. homosexual behavior is just your own personal conviction, that’s fine, but you have no moral authority. The person next to you may conclude that lying is perfectly okay, but homosexuality is not, and he’ll have no more or less authority behind that statement than you do.
Daggett on May 7, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Okay, so men and women (all assumed to be heterosexual) have separate living quarters based mostly on, I guess, obvious sexual differences and sexual attraction. So, if we go to homosexuals serving openly, how do we separate everyone? We can’t put all male homosexuals together, because they are possible mates. Same thing with all female homosexuals together. Leaving things as-is causes the same problem. You’ll have female homosexuals together and male homosexuals together. Which is just like having men and women in the same living quarters.
So, how is this going to work to separate people based off of sexual attraction? There’s no possible way.
So I guess this means then that they do away with separating sexes from now on? Is that gonna work?
Michael in MI on May 7, 2009 at 11:47 PM
If you don’t like the discussion topics, feel free to drag your knuckles elsewhere. And since you’re interested in knowing for some reason, I think Allah likes girls.
As for the military, I think the politicians should leave it to the pros. They should be free to do whatever will best enhance their ability to kick ass, imo. They are not a social petri dish. They have business to take care of. Let them do it.
capitalist piglet on May 7, 2009 at 11:47 PM
I am personally of the mindset, mission first, mission second, mission third….
what I mean is in my opinion there is no issue right up until any issue becomes a detriment to my team being able to do the job….
the issue with Choi is he is playing political martyr rather than keeping on his game face….
I always signed off to my wife when she was downrange with:
Be safe(keep situational awareness and come home when you’re done), keep your eye on the ball(maintain motion to task), and keep on your game face(comport yourself with dignity and honor to make the tour as easy on your teammates as you can)…
he has violated through his foray into advocacy and identity politics 2 of the three and arguably even all 3 since in refusing to keep his eye on the ball and his gameface set he flamed out a useful career….
I used to think the infantry was the hardest billet in the simple combat arms, but friend you could not pay me enough to be in a leadership role in a BSB or BSTB HHC….
the drama is circles within circles.
sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »