They already serve

posted at 4:58 pm on May 14, 2010 by J.E. Dyer

You think you know what’s coming.

Of course, this post is about gays in the military.  But its point is that even with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) in place, gays already serve.

That’s right.  They are not prevented from serving by DADT.  They are not prevented from being gay by DADT.

They are prevented from telling by DADT.  And the military is prohibited from asking.

What will change if DADT is repealed is the “telling” part.  What proponents of repeal want you to believe is that this will mean no more than that quietly gay servicemembers will be able to mention their partners at work and maybe bring them to command events – and who could be scared of that?

But that’s not what telling will mean.  It will mean what it has always meant in US society:  complaint and litigation.

Most gay servicemembers probably would not do anything very different from what they do now.  Many of us have been proud to serve with them, and haven’t cared what their sexual orientation was.

But it doesn’t take more than a few to cause disruptions, narrow the scope of command prerogative and discretion for the worse, and menace the civil rights of others in uniform.  All it takes is one “case.”  And there will be more than that.

Ask yourself this.  Should military families be forced to live in housing, shop at commissaries, and use recreation facilities where gay men, when they’re out of uniform, hold hands and kiss in public, demand to hold gay events, or demand gay-themed products or advertising?  Don’t you have the option to not do that, in your civilian life?  Do you understand that for many military families, exercising that option is either literally impossible – depending on where they are stationed – or at least financially so?

Ask yourself this.  Should soldiers in a unit be required to show support for Gay Pride Month, at the risk of being accused of creating a hostile work environment if they don’t?  Because they will be asked to do just that.  Other federal agencies already celebrate Gay Pride Month.  DOD will begin doing so immediately on repeal of DADT.

Ask yourself this.  Should unit leaders – COs, XOs, command senior NCOs – be required, as a matter of professional promotability and fitness for leadership, to affirm a positive view of homosexuality?  Should they be denied promotion and higher leadership positions if they cannot, in good conscience, agree to a formulaic endorsement? If you believe these should be professional criteria, why?  What is your rationale for this as a military requirement?

Because this will happen.  It will happen even if the initial implementation of a DADT repeal specifically states that it won’t.  Attrition through lawsuit and Congressional witch-hunt will take care of that.  Military policy will be aligned to avert trouble from political activists – as we have seen already.

See here and here for longer pieces, with complete documentation, justifying these predictions.

Remember, the question is not whether gays can do the same job as straights.  They are already doing it.  That question has been the principal one relating to women in the service, and it’s why women are still excluded from some military jobs.

The question is not whether gays have full equality as humans.  Of course they do.  The question is not even whether straights can “stand” to serve alongside them, although since the divisive issue is sexual orientation and expression of it, there is more justification for concern about that than there was when the issue was the segregation of blacks into separate military units and the limitation of their eligibility for occupational specialties.  We as a nation rightly decided that the military would not cater to militarily meaningless prejudices about skin color and race.  Expression of sexuality – not “orientation,” per se, but expression of it, which is what is inherently at issue here: that is a different matter.

But ultimately, the question, in the case of gays, is not whether people should be admitted to the military, it’s whether the military’s culture should change.  And as distasteful as it is for many of us vets to think of soldiers or sailors going out to march in gay pride parades, displays of that kind aren’t even the worst change in culture portended by repeal of DADT.  Worse than that – worse than families having to deal with gay PDA at base facilities, worse even than the flood of lawsuits to get DOD to recognize gay unions as “marriage,” and no doubt to perform such weddings in base facilities – will be the introduction of a gay-affirmation litmus test for those aspiring to advance as officers or senior NCOs.

Should the US military be in the business of affirming specific ideas about people’s sexuality?  It will be, if DADT is repealed.  That’s what this is about.  It isn’t about military readiness; it’s about getting the military to affirm the expression of sexual orientation.

There is no such thing as quiescent tolerance in the military.  If something is acknowledged at all, the military has a policy on it, and positive adherence to policy is required.  Gay activists will ensure that the military’s policies entail positive affirmations – and of many kinds of behavior that you, in your civilian life, can choose to avoid or ignore.  The people in the military will no longer have that option.

Americans, this is your decision.  It isn’t something for just the military to decide.  I say that even though I know what the military would decide if its uniformed members settled the question by the one man, one vote method.  What I ask is that you take the trouble to understand what you are deciding, and preparing to impose on your armed forces.

This isn’t about being vaguely tolerant of gays, at the comfortable distance most people choose to maintain most of the time.  It isn’t about the great majority of gays who live unostentatiously and won’t take offense if their department head doesn’t set aside applause time for their gayness every morning at 0730 during Gay Pride Month.

This is about setting the military up for gay activists to recruit plaintiffs from, and changing military culture to be hostile to independent thought and personal reservations about homosexuality.  Today, those in authority who believe homosexuality is wrong do keep it to themselves.  It never has to come up as a matter of personal belief or preference.   The repeal of DADT is what will ensure that it will.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Ask yourself this. Should soldiers in a unit be required to show support for Gay Pride Month, at the risk of being accused of creating a hostile work environment if they don’t? Because they will be asked to do just that. Other federal agencies already celebrate Gay Pride Month. DOD will begin doing so immediately on repeal of DADT.

This is already happening at the State Department. When I was working at the embassy in Baghdad the State Department thought it would be a great idea to have a Gay Pride parade. In Baghdad. On a Friday. Yes, I’m serious. And people wondered why I didn’t want to extend my contract and spend time with these geniuses.

Guardian on May 14, 2010 at 5:04 PM

The more this issue is talked about the more opposed I become and I wish I had just 1/2 the common sense of J.E.Dyer.

fourdeucer on May 14, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Bullseye. CEP zero. On target.

OhioCoastie on May 14, 2010 at 5:07 PM

When I was working at the embassy in Baghdad the State Department thought it would be a great idea to have a Gay Pride parade. In Baghdad. On a Friday.

Oh, I remember that… but I had no idea it was on a Friday… talk about cultural insensitivity…

ninjapirate on May 14, 2010 at 5:08 PM

If the military were gender/orientation segregated as the Marine Corpse still is, I – and I’m sure most other “homophobes”- would have no problem with it at all.

abobo on May 14, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Exactly right here. I was a Command Master Chief in the Navy and retired after 24 years. A CMC is like a Sergeant Major. Gays already serve and yes, Gays will even bring their “partners” to command events. If you want to know why people want DADT overturned you simply have to look at the people who most voraciously fight to overturn it. Extremely few of them have military backgrounds or are even well known to support the military. Most of them are people who have hated the military. You find a lot of San Francisco type liberals who want to overturn the policy – and they don’t really care what it does to readiness – for them, they just want to feel good and …

litigate.

Hey … what happens when a servicemember wants to marry his significant “other”, overseas, in a military chapel? Sounds like a lawsuit right there huh? I mean – this thing has tenticles beyond belief.

Don’t do it.

HondaV65 on May 14, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Here’s another clear-thinking post along the same lines.

OhioCoastie on May 14, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Yeah, and look how having openly gay men and women to serve has destroyed the Israeli army….oh wait.

It's Vintage, Duh on May 14, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Let any qualified individual serve. As long as they can do their job and ….oh yeah…kill the enemy, they’re OK with me.

john1schn on May 14, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Gay rights and liberal activists in general will fight to repeal the policy and then leave the military to clean up the mess afterward.

There isn’t going to be a major flood of gay recruits suddenly comfortable with serving in the military, and certainly not one large enough to replace those soldiers who’ve said they’ll leave.

That question has been the principal one relating to women in the service, and it’s why women are still excluded from some military jobs.

The military isn’t summer camp, nor is it the social working organization it’s been made to be as of late. It’s a fighting and killing machine. Its job is to defend the country — not be all progressive and new age.

amerpundit on May 14, 2010 at 5:13 PM

There is no place that political correctness will cause more destruction than in the military.

JohnJ on May 14, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Yeah, and look how having openly gay men and women to serve has destroyed the Israeli army….oh wait.

It’s Vintage, Duh on May 14, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Try again – we are BETTER than the Israelis.

If it ain’t broke … don’t fix it. We have the best armed forces in the world. Every armed force that allows gays to serve openly are beneath us on the ladder looking up.

Fact.

HondaV65 on May 14, 2010 at 5:15 PM

But that’s not what telling will mean. It will mean what it has always meant in US society: complaint and litigation.

Zactly! It’s all about creating privileged subclasses out of the “unum”–the society entire. It’s nothing but a divide-and-conquer manueuver by the progressive/socialists primarily, and secondarily by the gay lobby who serve as the marxist’s tool.

Western_Civ on May 14, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Yeah, and look how having openly gay men and women to serve has destroyed the Israeli army….oh wait.

It’s Vintage, Duh on May 14, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Sounds like those who justified socialized health care here because the UK has it, and hey, look how wonderful that is!

Military service is mandatory for all non-Arab Israeli citizens over 18. Shall we implement that here as well? I mean, if we’re going to go the way of the IDF….

amerpundit on May 14, 2010 at 5:17 PM

The point of “telling” is a “look at me look at me look at me” attitude. It will be disruptive.

Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Yeah, and look how having openly gay men and women to serve has destroyed the Israeli army….oh wait.

It’s Vintage, Duh on May 14, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Brilliant…considered they have compulsory service and live under existential threat every day. And then there is scope…

Inanemergencydial on May 14, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Did the US MIlitary make up the DADT policy and impose it upon itself ? If not the Military, then WHO did it to the Military ?

Can the US military repeal the DADT ? If no, the WHO can ?

macncheez on May 14, 2010 at 5:20 PM

the repeal of DADT will usher in a new front of further benefits using the “the military allows it” rationalization to further push the agenda, particularly in red states where military bases are located whose laws may not be as liberal as a new military policy would be.

this isn’t about military service. It’s about degrading an institution of the United States and pushing an agenda right along with it.

ted c on May 14, 2010 at 5:20 PM

This is already happening at the State Department. When I was working at the embassy in Baghdad the State Department thought it would be a great idea to have a Gay Pride parade. In Baghdad. On a Friday…

Guardian on May 14, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Wow.

amerpundit on May 14, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Yeah, and look how having openly gay men and women to serve has destroyed the Israeli army….oh wait.

It’s Vintage, Duh on May 14, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Service in the Israeli army is compulsory for every citizen of the country.
Invalid argument.
If you want to be “out” and homosexual, don’t join the U.S. military.

Repealing DADT is merely one more ploy of the Left to weaken and destroy our military strength and this great nation.

Jenfidel on May 14, 2010 at 5:20 PM

As far as I know there is a ban on PDA on military installations anyway, no matter if it’s hetero or homosexual activity.
So I don’t really even know why there are people trying to force gay service members in admitting their homosexuality.
It’s rediculous.
Keep it the way it has been.
Things are working just fine.

Badger40 on May 14, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Military service is mandatory for all non-Arab Israeli citizens over 18. Shall we implement that here as well? I mean, if we’re going to go the way of the IDF….

amerpundit on May 14, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Well, it wasn’t that long ago that we had the draft. Strangely enough, the very same people that opposed it in the 1960′s are coming out for a draft now. For the record, I don’t oppose gays in the military, because I’ve known a few that have served and they are some of the toughest SOB’s I’ve met. As long as they can do their job and kill the enemy, everything should be copacetic. If their lifestyle becomes a distraction, well, then we’ll know better.

john1schn on May 14, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Well, it wasn’t that long ago that we had the draft.

john1schn on May 14, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Indeed, and you probably know better than I how much the guys at the top would just love to return to a military suddenly infused with John Kerrys.

amerpundit on May 14, 2010 at 5:25 PM

There is no place that political correctness will cause more destruction than in the military.

JohnJ on May 14, 2010 at 5:15 PM

And I still think women in any type of position that could be even remotely considered ‘combat’ should have to pass the same PT test that a man does.
Better yet, get women out of combat all together.
I’m such a sexist to my own sex.
Men do not deserve to have to worry about a woman during combat.

Badger40 on May 14, 2010 at 5:26 PM

HondaV65 on May 14, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Your generalizations are off the mark. There are plenty of people like myself who think DADT ought to go the way of the dodo and are a) conservative, b) veterans and c) are very supportive and appreciative of the military.

But if stereotypes make you feel better, then don’t let me stop you.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 5:27 PM

This is just one of those things where you want your little country to be competent enough to have gay people in their military openly cause it’s the future.

Soldiers what can’t handle it can go do other stuff not in the military cause unadaptable losers like those ones are not the future.

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 5:27 PM

DADT is working but really I served before DADT and we knew who was gay. There have been gays in the military as long as there has been a military. Gays are fine just no flaming gays they creep me out.

freddybone13 on May 14, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Indeed, and you probably know better than I how much the guys at the top would just love to return to a military suddenly infused with John Kerrys.

amerpundit on May 14, 2010 at 5:25 PM

As long as they bring back keelhauling, it wouldn’t be so bad. Keelhauling cures a lot of insubordination issues. Flogging might not be too bad either.

john1schn on May 14, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Your generalizations are off the mark. There are plenty of people like myself who think DADT ought to go the way of the dodo and are a) conservative, b) veterans and c) are very supportive and appreciative of the military.

But if stereotypes make you feel better, then don’t let me stop you.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 5:27 PM

This issue is like same sex marriage: it is up to the ones doing the complaining (i.e. homosexuals) to prove that a change in public policy is needed to effect positive change(s) and so far, homosexual activists haven’t met that burden.

There’s an old rule in management theory: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
We have the most effective, powerful military in the world and it ain’t “broke” by a long shot.
How’s about this? When the Russians allow homosexuals in their armed forces, we do, too.
I wonder if that day is around the corner? Heh-heh.

Jenfidel on May 14, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Soldiers what can’t handle it can go do other stuff not in the military cause unadaptable losers like those ones are not the future.

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 5:27 PM

No one uses “what” in place of “that” except the Brits.
You’ve already been outed as an illegal alien on here, crappyfeet.

Jenfidel on May 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM

This is just one of those things where you want your little country to be competent enough to have gay people in their military openly cause it’s the future.

Soldiers what can’t handle it can go do other stuff not in the military cause unadaptable losers like those ones are not the future.

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Didn’t you read the article? There arealready Homosexuals in the military. They’ve been serving honorably in the military. What you want is the corruption of America’s military. By the way, America is not a little country. We are the greatest country in the world.

kingsjester on May 14, 2010 at 5:35 PM

As far as I know there is a ban on PDA on military installations anyway, no matter if it’s hetero or homosexual activity.
Badger40 on May 14, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Not sure about on post, I never really paid attention… but you couldn’t in uniform.

upinak on May 14, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Jenfidel on May 14, 2010 at 5:32 PM

I guess you didn’t get the memo, but it is broke! Our military can benefit from the contribution of gays who are discouraged from serving because of DADT. For example, just consider the rather famous case of the Arab language interpreters who left the service because of this silly policy. They provided valuable skills in the military intel arena.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 5:36 PM

In the ideal world of my imagination – gays and straights both serve openly, no big deal. Sexual orientation is not an issue, everyone behaves properly, no rape, no sexual harrassment, no leering in the showers, no off color jokes, rainbows and kittehs for all.

In the real world…there are TOO many lawyers in America, and we have this tremendous grievance/victimhood culture that other nations really don’t have as much of.

So…Democrat Congress and President should repeal the DADT laws that THEY passed on the very same day that this country becomes the kumbaya land of my imagination.

Until then…it’s only a little broke, let’s not fix it.

Less on May 14, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Your generalizations are off the mark. There are plenty of people like myself who think DADT ought to go the way of the dodo and are a) conservative, b) veterans and c) are very supportive and appreciative of the military.

But if stereotypes make you feel better, then don’t let me stop you.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 5:27 PM

While in the military I had to attend black history month events, mexican pride events, native american events, women’t events, and had to spend at least 12 hours a year (even in Iraq) in EO classes telling me how, as a white male, I had to tolerate bs from people that weren’t white males because of the past. Non-christian soldiers even were required to attend Christmas functions.

All of these distractions took away from soldiering skills, MOS related training, time on the range and all that.

But, according to you, whether out of ignorance or wanting to feel good about yourself, the military should have yet another distraction to deal with instead of its primary mission.

Blarg the Destroyer on May 14, 2010 at 5:41 PM

yes there are already homos in the military but apparently there are an even greater number of bigots, kingsjester.

Our little country can do better than that I think.

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 5:44 PM

I guess you didn’t get the memo, but it is broke! Our military can benefit from the contribution of gays who are discouraged from serving because of DADT. For example, just consider the rather famous case of the Arab language interpreters who left the service because of this silly policy. They provided valuable skills in the military intel arena.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Those homosexuals weren’t interested in serving their country. They knew the rules and wanted to cause a ruckus. One, they weren’t interpreters. They were at Monteray, meaning they were in school to become linguists. They could have easily joined the NSA if they wanted to translate Arab.

Blarg the Destroyer on May 14, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Blarg the Destroyer on May 14, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Of course I said no such thing, but that’s typical of a HA thread. I don’t want a gay pride day for the military and I’m with you that all that other malarkey should go. I simply want this stupid DADT policy to go away as well, for the reasons that I provided.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Of course I said no such thing, but that’s typical of a HA thread. I don’t want a gay pride day for the military and I’m with you that all that other malarkey should go. I simply want this stupid DADT policy to go away as well, for the reasons that I provided.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 5:45 PM

I haven’t read a reason from you aside from the linguists, but that came after my initial reply to you.

Blarg the Destroyer on May 14, 2010 at 5:48 PM

I guess you didn’t get the memo, but it is broke! Our military can benefit from the contribution of gays who are discouraged from serving because of DADT. For example, just consider the rather famous case of the Arab language interpreters who left the service because of this silly policy. They provided valuable skills in the military intel arena.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 5:36 PM

There are far, far fewer homosexuals who are allegedly “discouraged” from serving than there are fine citizens who will either not re-enlist, refuse to serve or never consider serving if “out” homosexuals are allowed in our military.

As for those translators, they knew the rules.
Perhaps it’s a loss, but it’s not worth forcing the millions of men and women in our armed forces to put up with open homosexuals and all their attendant problems for a couple of translators.
Let them work for the State Department (Hillary and her crowd love homosexuals!).

So, you still haven’t made the case that repealing DADT is necessary, beneficial and productive when we’re at war on 2 fronts.

Jenfidel on May 14, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Those homosexuals weren’t interested in serving their country. They knew the rules and wanted to cause a ruckus. One, they weren’t interpreters. They were at Monteray, meaning they were in school to become linguists. They could have easily joined the NSA if they wanted to translate Arab.

Blarg the Destroyer on May 14, 2010 at 5:45 PM

If the DoD didn’t need interpreters as well, those positions would not have been available. So no, that is not an answer. Perhaps you weren’t aware, but the DoD has its own intel resources and is not completely reliant on the NSA or CIA.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 5:49 PM

If the DoD didn’t need interpreters as well, those positions would not have been available. So no, that is not an answer. Perhaps you weren’t aware, but the DoD has its own intel resources and is not completely reliant on the NSA or CIA.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 5:49 PM

I am very well aware for the need to have DoD linguists. If they wanted to be in the DoD, they should have kept there mouths shut.

Blarg the Destroyer on May 14, 2010 at 5:51 PM

If the DoD didn’t need interpreters as well, those positions would not have been available. So no, that is not an answer. Perhaps you weren’t aware, but the DoD has its own intel resources and is not completely reliant on the NSA or CIA.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 5:49 PM

One of the problems with homosexuals in a nation’s security and defense services is that they tend to be easily “turned” to work for the Enemy.
Research “Cambridge Spies” (who worked for the KGB as double agents in Britain’s MI6) if you want more enlightenment on this subject.

Jenfidel on May 14, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Yeah, and look how having openly gay men and women to serve has destroyed the Israeli army….oh wait.

It’s Vintage, Duh on May 14, 2010 at 5:11 PM

The American military culture is vastly different than the Israeli army. Israeli army allows fraternization, in fact. Soldiers marry each other. The American military controls your behavior and doesn’t allow fraternization.

Culturally speaking, it has nothing to do with gays being inferior. It has to do with the fact that it would change the culture of the military, and would impact–negatively–the readiness of the military.

Enoxo on May 14, 2010 at 5:55 PM

How can gays serve in the military? According to the leftist orthodoxy all gays are liberal and liberals hate the military.

AaronGuzman on May 14, 2010 at 6:08 PM

I’m just not convinced that gays will be knocking down the recruiters doors to be a Marine Grunt. I think this is all ado about nothing, and it’s going to cost a lot of money. The manpower analysis for this one alone should be mind boggling.

gator70 on May 14, 2010 at 6:17 PM

I served for 27 years in the Army. There were gays and lesbians in nearly every unit I was in. They performed their job, were not harassed, and did not try to show off their orientation. When you do away with DADT then you will allow the gays who want to force the world to accept them in their most outrageous way. I fear for the safety of a gay soldier who insisted on running around in makeup and woman’s clothing. The way it is now even the most anti homosexual soldiers do not pay attention to gays in the unit but if it changes then it may well cause problems. What about the guy that wants to be a female? Is he going to be able to get his sex change paid for by the taxpayers? Is he going to be allowed to use the female showers and living area even before the change? Where do we draw the line? It would soon be like some collages, just pick a roommate and have fun just like living together in your own home. Foolish to change the system at this point.

old war horse on May 14, 2010 at 6:24 PM

You forgot that people will be running screaming, “we’re all gonna die!!!!”

Seriously you must be one of the folks that get erections looking at guys and whip yourself for being gay. The word “homophobia” is very much overused, but your post isn’t homophobic, its utterly obsessed with the idea that somewhere a penis might be touching an anus.

I especially enjoyed this nonsense:

Ask yourself this. Should military families be forced to live in housing, shop at commissaries, and use recreation facilities where gay men, when they’re out of uniform, hold hands and kiss in public, demand to hold gay events, or demand gay-themed products or advertising? Don’t you have the option to not do that, in your civilian life? Do you understand that for many military families, exercising that option is either literally impossible – depending on where they are stationed – or at least financially so?

Soldiers/Sailors/etc. are supposed to be professional. The military, is supposed to take young men, teach them discipline, warfighting, turn them into men, and get them ready for the real world. To be professional in the real world you are going to have to get used to the idea that gays exist and we don’t burn them at the stake anymore. They will also have to work with gays in the real world.

LevStrauss on May 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM

Many of us have been proud to serve with them, and haven’t cared what their sexual orientation was…

The question is not whether gays have full equality as humans. Of course they do. The question is not even whether straights can “stand” to serve alongside them,

Absolute nonsense. The author ignores the obvious reason gays should not be able to serve and invents a half dozen others with next to no support.

There is only one good reason that gays should not be allowed to serve. They’d either 1) have to be given preferential treatment (special duty assignments), 2) the military would have to provide physical privacy for every serviceman or 3) the privacy of servicemen would have to be compromised.

The first options are unfair, second is very expensive, and the third is oppressive to the straight servicemen.

elfman on May 14, 2010 at 6:30 PM

One of the problems with homosexuals in a nation’s security and defense services is that they tend to be easily “turned” to work for the Enemy.

actually that’s probably more of a problem when homos are kept in the closet by military bigots

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 6:33 PM

actually that’s probably more of a problem when homos are kept in the closet by military bigots

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 6:33 PM

“military bigots?” That’s the UCMJ.

The traditional marriage and family is a fundamental strength of America and it’s only right that our military reflect this as they serve globally.

Jenfidel on May 14, 2010 at 6:39 PM

actually that’s probably more of a problem when homos are kept in the closet by military bigots

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 6:33 PM

People that keep your ass safe, you call bigots. That says volumes about you.

Blarg the Destroyer on May 14, 2010 at 6:45 PM

“There is no such thing as quiescent tolerance in the military. If something is acknowledged at all, the military has a policy on it, and positive adherence to policy is required.”

This is an important point, and one I had not thought of.

Thanks for a well-reasoned article, J.E. I don’t know if I agree with it completely, but it’s excellent food for thought.

notropis on May 14, 2010 at 6:46 PM

I’m just not convinced that gays will be knocking down the recruiters doors to be a Marine Grunt….
gator70 on May 14, 2010 at 6:17 PM

If at 18, I could have showered and bunked with woman Marines that were in the kind of shape that their male counterparts are, I’d have been dreaming of enlistment from the age of 6.

As an kind of shy, earnest “pretty boy” at 19 year old, I had two or three run-ins with gay Marines. But they could not admit to their intentions so I was never intimidated. If on the other hand we had to share showers and bunk with openly gay horn-dogs, life for people like me serving in the Marines would have been unbearable.

elfman on May 14, 2010 at 6:48 PM

“There is no such thing as quiescent tolerance in the military. If something is acknowledged at all, the military has a policy on it, and positive adherence to policy is required.”

This is an important point, and one I had not thought of.

Thanks for a well-reasoned article, J.E. I don’t know if I agree with it completely, but it’s excellent food for thought.

notropis on May 14, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Unless someone can produce a “policy” on when a serviceman can date or have sex with his girlfriend or wife, it’s absolute nonsense.

The military does not have a policy on every aspect of your life.

elfman on May 14, 2010 at 6:54 PM

It’s just wrong when a guy in the military can talk about boffing the filthiest Christian skank he can find and they won’t kick him out but a lesbian can’t talk about her long-term relationship with her perfectly nice decent respectable professional educated girlfriend.

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM

It isn’t about military readiness; it’s about getting the military to affirm the expression of sexual orientation.

Exactly. This is a forced upon litmus test as a gateway to federally legalized homosexual marriage.

Fletch54 on May 14, 2010 at 6:58 PM

You guys have restored a chunk of good faith in HA by promoting this. I’m not kidding when I say I could care less about the sexual orientation of the person I’m working with.

The “affirmative” nature the author writes about is a real problem. We don’t have the luxury of simply ignoring or merely tolerating something the military affirms. We have to openly affirm the same values, regardless of what our conscience demands. This is a serious enough issue that I can seriously see significant numbers of troops–and mark my words, myself included–will refuse to re-enlist should DADT be repealed. Future administrations will have to shell out more money to entice others to take our place, and will be considered just a necessary cost of having a more politically-correct climate that 5% of our population would prefer.

Alexander on May 14, 2010 at 7:01 PM

It’s just wrong when a guy in the military can talk about boffing the filthiest Christian skank he can find and they won’t kick him out but a lesbian can’t talk about her long-term relationship with her perfectly nice decent respectable professional educated girlfriend.

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Happyfeet, check out the UCMJ. There are provisions in place against just the kind of conduct you describe. Did you know there’s an article providing for lewd language as a punishable offense?

Alexander on May 14, 2010 at 7:03 PM

But they won’t kick him out, Alexander. How many military people are dismissed every year for lewdly describing how they banged a dirty Christian tart on leave?

How many of them are even punished?

Probably about zero I’d bet, but it sure isn’t the end of their military careers.

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 7:05 PM

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Allah P and Ed.

Why are you protecting this scum? I’ve seen other folks banned for less. Is this troll one of your inventions for comment bait or what?

Guardian on May 14, 2010 at 7:21 PM

To a lot of people, history is worthless, obviously, but all through history, before a big battle–a history-changing battle–there is some type of informal purification ritual that soldiers go through. There’s nothing said about it, there are no rules for it, but it happens automatically, almost entirely by instinct. Men want to face death as pure souls. They cannot get the full benefit of that while surrounded by unrepentant sinners, in other words, people who think homosexuality is just fine. It’s not just fine. It’s grave sin.

RBMN on May 14, 2010 at 7:31 PM

purification rituals sound pretty darn gay to me

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 7:34 PM

“filthiest Christian skank”

“dirty Christian tart”

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Somebody has some serious repression issues.

Abused by your pedophile public schoolmaster as a child, or what?

notropis on May 14, 2010 at 7:40 PM

One of the problems with homosexuals in a nation’s security and defense services is that they tend to be easily “turned” to work for the Enemy.
Research “Cambridge Spies” (who worked for the KGB as double agents in Britain’s MI6) if you want more enlightenment on this subject.

Jenfidel on May 14, 2010 at 5:54 PM

They are subject to being blackmailed simply because of policies like DADT which adds penalties and stigma on their ability to openly be who they are. Remove the penalties for being gay and you remove the bad guys’ ability to to use it against them.

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 7:47 PM

As far as I know there is a ban on PDA on military installations anyway, no matter if it’s hetero or homosexual activity.
So I don’t really even know why there are people trying to force gay service members in admitting their homosexuality.
It’s rediculous.
Keep it the way it has been.
Things are working just fine.

Badger40 on May 14, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Totally Agree, things worked fine when I was in… In the Military “everyone” is treated equal, no special treatment for anyone.

Individualism was not tolerated, now it’s not encouraged, as we were a team.

WhoU4 on May 14, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Mr. Dyer,
Excellent article, very thought provoking. The issue of affirmative support of homosexuality is just an issue that civilians do not understand as there is no analog in civilian life. This is not about casually mentioning your partner, it is about forcing this lifestyle to be supported by a command structure.

Political correctness is a lethal thing in the military, as we saw to our sorrow at Fort Hood. Hassan wasn’t even a very good doctor based upon his reviews, putting aside his ideological misbehavior (I.E. trying to indict patients for war crimes.) This guy should have been bounced out on his butt at many decision points in his military career. He was not. Why? He was a protected class, a Muslim.

As you describe quite well, gays already serve in the military, and have since Moby was a minnow. But using the military as a political platform for gay issues is immensely destructive. And repeal of DADT will have no other effect. It’s not about serving – it is about being vocal about one’s sexuality.

Frankly, that’s distasteful in any venue, but the special rules under which the military must live makes it much more than that. It is harmful.

skeeter on May 14, 2010 at 9:01 PM

J.E.

Being gay is not just about sexuality. A gay man could remain celibate his whole life and he would still be a gay man.

Substitute any religion or political view (if you believe being gay is a choice) or race (if you believe it is not a choice) and you have a very racist, anti Jew/Muslim/Catholic/Protestant/Mormon or anti conservative/religion post here.

The question is not whether gays Jews have full equality as humans. Of course they do. The question is not even whether straights Christians can “stand” to serve alongside them,

This isn’t about being vaguely tolerant of gays Jews, at the comfortable distance most people choose to maintain most of the time. It isn’t about the great majority of gays Jews who live unostentatiously and won’t take offense if their department head doesn’t set aside applause time for their gay Jewness every morning at 0730 during Gay Chanukkah Pride Month.

The military is not the place for social experiments, the rules must be followed and if that means limiting your actions (both gay and straight) that is a fact of life you chose. In addition you make the choice to join or not, I’m sure you and your family do many things you wouldn’t do in civilian life — that is part of the service you give to the Nation.

Should the US military be in the business of affirming specific ideas about people’s sexuality?

The military should be in the business of affirming the unit, corps, and the individual. Period.

Someday we will judge a man by his actions and not his differences.

Just for fun, which logical fallacies (more then one is acceptable) do you think best describes the argument made in this post?

LifeTrek on May 14, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Just for clarification, DADT is a policy, right? Unless the underlying law prohibiting open homosexuality in the military is repealed first, repealing DADT will just restore the situation to the way it was before DADT, and coming out of the closet will mean gays will have to continue walking until they walk right on out the gate. What did I miss?

opaobie on May 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

There is no place that political correctness will cause more destruction than in the military.

JohnJ on May 14, 2010 at 5:15 PM

.
See Ft Hood.

mrt721 on May 14, 2010 at 10:53 PM

J.E.

Being gay is not just about sexuality. A gay man could remain celibate his whole life and he would still be a gay man.

? Being gay is *specifically* related to sexuality. Sexuality has to do with a lot more than sex, which is simply an activity. You are right that a gay man could remain celibate and still be gay, but just because he didn’t engage his sex doesn’t change his sexuality – specifically a desire for a member of the same sex.

That’s fundamentally different than anything religious or political.

flashoverride on May 14, 2010 at 11:26 PM

You are right that a gay man could remain celibate and still be gay

It’s like how perverted Christer guys look at skanky Christian vixens and can’t help but think dayum I wants to hit dat. Even if they manage to control their dirty Christer impulses, it’s still gross.

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 11:38 PM

happyfeet on May 14, 2010 at 11:38 PM

Being repeatedly sodomized by that pedophile when you were not yet ten years old really caused you some major trauma, didn’t it?

You should seek professional help, rather than blaming your mother.

notropis on May 14, 2010 at 11:46 PM

One of the problems with homosexuals in a nation’s security and defense services is that they tend to be easily “turned” to work for the Enemy.
Research “Cambridge Spies” (who worked for the KGB as double agents in Britain’s MI6) if you want more enlightenment on this subject.

Jenfidel on May 14, 2010 at 5:54 PM

So being gay makes one more likely to be a traitor?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA.

The Race Card on May 15, 2010 at 1:33 AM

What will change if DADT is repealed is the “telling” part. What proponents of repeal want you to believe is that this will mean no more than that quietly gay servicemembers will be able to mention their partners at work and maybe bring them to command events – and who could be scared of that?

The people who do our fighting and winning are largely post-adolescent males who live in a strong culture of machismo. Just how do you think morale will be impacted when the Platoon Commander shows up at the Marine Corps Ball with his gay partner?

quikstrike98 on May 15, 2010 at 8:55 AM

Mr. Dyer has it right. Don’t tell, Don’t ask works. Those on active duty know who is and is not gay in their unit or command and live and serve with them proudly as long as the gay member does not attempt to make others accept their lifestyle or flaunt it.

Any minority group is accepted within the military as long as they do not try to openly demand special treatment. The military is microcosm of U.S. showing U.S. that if your different you are welcome as long as you are willing to follow the rules that demand a higher level of discipline not to react irrationally in times of stress.

If repealed, there are those who will try to force themselves upon U.S. and to openly accept their lifestyle as normal. Then you rip the fabric of ‘esprit de corps” and cause a breakdown in good order and discipline. When order and discipline breaks down there will be those that demand equal time which will not be a favorable presentation of the Gay lifestyle.

For those not familiar with the term fragging gays demanding equality openly or not will be placed in the cross-hairs, whether they like it or not.

MSGTAS on May 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM

LifeTrek on May 14, 2010 at 9:29 PM

LifeTrek, as flashoverride points out, being gay is specifically about sexuality. It is meaningless to assert that it’s about “more than sexuality,” when the sexuality is what proponents of repealing DADT are entirely focused on. If they weren’t, there would be no reason to repeal DADT.

The situation today is, moreover, precisely that military men and women are judged by their actions and not their differences. Repealing DADT will change that, by forcing the institution to adopt a position on the matter of this particular difference. Today the military is able to operate without taking a position on homosexuality. With DADT repealed that will not be possible.

The military is not in the business of affirming units, corps, or individuals, it’s in the business of mission accomplishment.

As a final note, don’t lob specious anti-Semitism analogies if you want to be taken seriously.

J.E. Dyer on May 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM

But they won’t kick him out, Alexander. How many military people are dismissed every year for lewdly describing how they banged a dirty Christian tart on leave?

How many of them are even punished?

Probably about zero I’d bet, but it sure isn’t the end of their military careers.

WAAAAAAAA, cry me a river. It’s called the military lifestyle. Male bonding. I was in Marine Corps Combat Arms. You know what young men, out in the field, filthy, exhausted and bored talk about? SEX. SEX, SEX, SEX. CONSTANTLY. Get over it. Here’s a hanky.

quikstrike98 on May 15, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Whether it’s the Boy Scouts, marriage, or the military, it’s all about one thing – pushing for the acceptance of homosexuality in our society.

The Zoo Keeper on May 15, 2010 at 2:09 PM

macncheez on May 14, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Did the US MIlitary make up the DADT policy and impose it upon itself ? If not the Military, then WHO did it to the Military ?

No the military did not make up DADT.

Who did?

President Clinton by executive order/ Defense Directive.

Can the US military repeal the DADT ?

No, the military cannot repeal DADT

If no, the WHO can ?

The President of the USA by executive order/ Defense Directive.

Not nearly as complicated as the “End, Repeal DADT” crowd would like you to believe is it.

I wonder why that is?
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

DSchoen on May 15, 2010 at 5:12 PM

The point of “telling” is a “look at me look at me look at me” attitude. It will be disruptive.
Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2010 at 5:18 PM

So would you favor Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Don’t Accessorize?

DSchoen on May 15, 2010 at 5:27 PM

MJBrutus on May 14, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Humm? Really?

Are you sure?

Could it have been they “outted” themselves as gay, thus violating a lawful standing order?

Should we allow people who violate lawful standing orders to stay in the military?

Think about it, if you allow one to violate lawful standing order, how could you prosecute another for violating some other lawful standing order?

Discipline breaks down in a heartbeat.

DSchoen on May 15, 2010 at 5:51 PM

What did I miss?
opaobie on May 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Not much.
Before DADT there was DA (I’m not kidding)

DSchoen on May 15, 2010 at 5:56 PM