Pentagon halts DADT enforcement while filing appeal

Again, one of the ‘hot button’ topics that makes people lose their freaking minds, along with any sense of perspective. And provide them a convenient excuse to rant on the innertoobs.

My favorite line from the coverage I’ve seen so far – the commander of the deployed 101st in Afghanistan, when asked about the ‘effects’ of the ruling on his troops: “probably the furthest thing from their minds right now”. Bingo.

I’ve also noticed that the most vehement critics of the policy of allowing gays into the military, who happen to be military themselves, usually come across to me as the special kind of quasi disciplined jerks that allow themselves to be distracted from what is paramount, i.e. the mission (remember that?), simply because the THOUGHT that someone around them MIGHT be gay completely consumed their thought processes. Well, that, and a whole host of other ancillary topics not directly related to mission accomplishment. They’re cheered on by folks that haven’t been in the military, and have thought processes which remind me a lot more of Fred Phelps than anything else.

From my own experience, I’d have to say that such OCD driven buffoonery is the ‘problem’ here, not the presence of gays, or who they may or may not be diddling, or think has a cute little pooper. Gays were certainly less of a headache, in the extracurricular stupid sexual shennanigans department than the heteros, based upon my experiences. And I’m fairly confident that a whole host of female military members would back me up on that one.

The saying goes that there are no atheists in foxholes. By the same token, there are no homos, either. Just soldiers. Or airmen. Or Marines.

I’m hetero, and am aware that there were several gays that served alongside me – and it was never a problem. I was proud to have them stand shoulder to shoulder in the defense of our nation. And would do it all over again. Because they were professionals – not whiny crybabies having a fit about who might see their tushie in the shower.

And it’s coddling to the crybabies, imho, that makes this an issue in the first place.

Wind Rider on October 15, 2010 at 12:51 PM

As an addendum – no, there is no real reason to re-invent the wheel here with regards to ‘acceptable personal conduct’ between servicemembers. That ground has already been covered, and re-covered dealing with the interactions between male and female service personnel. Bottom line is that EVERYONE should be treated with professionalism and respect, and should be able to conduct their duties without unwanted sexual harassment, regardless of point of origin. There already exist guidelines (as mentioned in another comment) regarding ‘public displays of affection’. And if anyone has been paying attention, they’d note that for the most part, with the exception of non-utility or combat uniforms, most of the clothing is already ‘unisex’.

Further, for those whining about an ‘activist judge’ turning the status quo on its head, well, did you really expect any other outcome? There were really only two paths to the repeal of this policy – via Congress, which is THE government function responsible for passing the laws that form the UCMJ, or via the judiciary, on Constitutional grounds. Smacking Skippy around for his ‘failure’ in this department is actually pointless – it isn’t his call, and any ‘executive directive’ fantasies are simply erroneous, and would have created a situation more likely to get the judicial smackdown. The Democrats ARE the most guilty party here for promising the moon, and then, even with majorities in both Houses of Congress, and control of the Executive, for not ‘handling’ the situation. It’s easy for them to play the blame game and point across the aisle at the Senate Repubs, but Scary Harry really needs to look in the mirror and point at himself for mashing the issue together with the poison pill ‘DREAM’ act that was the true source of the NO votes. Not that it will ever be reported that way by their MSM enablers. And far from ‘creating a compromise’, Billy Jeff just kicked the can down the road, saving his own bacon for trying the ‘executive directive’ path (an over reach of his authority) in the first place.

If he’d done it right, and gotten the ban overturned in the first place, we, now, almost 20 years after the fact, would think nothing more of the presence of gays in the military than we do of African Americans serving with equality, or Women performing the roles they are capable of.

This isn’t a bucket of stupid, it’s a whole damned lake of the stuff.

Wind Rider on October 15, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Nice try Fatal. You completely miss my point that those wheels have already been invented – the EEOC structure already exists. So, what I gather from your take on it is that there are some folks that are just fine with continued intolerance and bigotry, especially if it is of a nature that they may ignore, or at least don’t have to deal with.

As for your ‘likely greater exposure to HIV, etc in a combat situation’ – please, oh please tell me the last deployment you went on where an HIV test wasn’t part of the pre-deployment checklist.

I’m ‘reducing’ the sorts of concerns you’re banking on to right where they belong – in the same category of consideration I have for people with hang-ups about serving with blacks (or hispanics or asians or fill in the blank) – ignorant prejudicial fear that distracts from the mission, that needs to be disdained, not fostered and encouraged.

The ONLY times I saw sexual orientation be an issue in 24 years of service was the occaision where some morally righteous individual got themselves in a twist about it, with the result being that talented and dedicated individuals were removed because their Commander was given no choice in the matter, or when younger troops that decided that the military wasn’t their cup of tea popped up and proclaimed themselves homosexual, as it was the quickest and painless method to get out of their contracts.

And if a commissioned officer is of such a nature as to have these things at the forefront of their concerns, then I would submit maybe they’ve got their priorities out of whack, and perhaps they should step aside, resign their commisions, and make room for someone focused on accomplishing the mission, instead of protecting and polishing their own precious career.

Wind Rider on October 15, 2010 at 3:39 PM