Gay ban repealed, but restrictions remain

[AllardChardon]

Gay ban repealed, but restrictions remain

By ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer

WASHINGTON – While President Barack Obama this week is expected to clear the way for gays to serve openly in the military, the new law won't go into effect immediately and unanswered questions remain: How soon will the new policy be implemented, will it be accepted by the troops and could it hamper the military in Afghanistan and Iraq?

The historic action by Congress repeals the requirement, known as "don't ask, don't tell," that for the last 17 years has allowed gays and lesbians to serve, but only if they kept quiet about their sexual orientation. Ending that policy has been compared in its social implications to President Harry S. Truman's 1948 executive order that brought racial equality to the military.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

After Obama signs the legislation — passed by the Senate on Saturday — into law, the Pentagon must still certify to Congress that the change won't damage combat readiness.

So, for the time being the restrictions will remain on the books, though it's unclear how fully they will be enforced. Some people believe gay discharge cases will be dropped as soon as Obama signs the law. Military leaders, who have been divided on the issue, gave indications that the policy change will be aggressively pursued.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, who had argued against the policy change, said in a statement Sunday the Corps "will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new policy" and that he would "personally lead this effort, thus ensuring the respect and dignity due all Marines."

The issue of gays in the military has been a contentious one for decades. Until 1993, all recruits had to state on a questionnaire whether they were homosexual; if they said "yes," they could not join. More than 13,500 service members were dismissed under the law.

In the 17 years since the "don't ask, don't tell" policy went into effect, views toward the gays in the broader society have evolved. Gay marriage is now legal in five states and the District of Columbia. Opinion surveys say a majority of Americans think it's OK for gays to serve in uniform.

Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who commanded a brigade in Iraq, said he believes the military — from top commanders to foot soldiers — will accept their new orders.

"Pretty much all the heated discussion is over and now it's a matter of the more mundane aspects of implementing the law," Mansoor, a professor of military history at Ohio State University, said in a telephone interview.

Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara said only three steps are needed to assure a smooth and quick transition: an executive order suspending all gay discharges, a few weeks to put new regulations in place, immediate certification to Congress that the new law will work. But he said the military may require months of education and training well into 2011.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has supported the change but has stressed a go-slow approach, said "successful implementation (of the new policy) will depend upon strong leadership, a clear message and proactive education throughout the force."

A leading opponent of repealing the 1993 law, Elaine Donnelly, has called the expected certification a "sham" because it will be done by three people who already have stated their support for the change: Obama, Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

While gay rights activists say the complications and uncertainties are being overblown, others predict problems.

"The acceptance of open homosexuality and the creation and enforcement of new policies could be far more difficult to implement than repeal advocates ever envisioned," said Richard L. Eubank, a retired Marine and Vietnam combat veteran who leads the 2.1 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars.

A yearlong Pentagon study on the impact of repealing the 1993 ban said that issues of sexual conduct and fraternization can be dealt with by using existing military rules and regulations, and it found that two-thirds of service members surveyed didn't think changing the law would have much of an effect on military effectiveness. Of those who did predict negative consequences, most were in combat elements such as the infantry.

 

[TxRad]

These same questions came up during Viet Nam with the racial problems and unrest back in the US. The Commandant of the marines Corp. came out with a statement to the effect that no longer were Marines black, white, red, brown, or yellow. That all Marines were green and would be treated as such.

It might sound like a stupid wishful statement but to the marines it was directed at, it got their attention and refocuser them on the importance of comradeship. Which was it's intent and purpose.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

For those quaking in terror of being 'hit on' by a gay fellow soldier, no change in the anti-sexual harassment law has been made. Sheesh, what a bunch of sniveling maggots. Note the deliberately chosen 'm'!

 

[TxRad]

For those quaking in terror of being 'hit on' by a gay fellow soldier, no change in the anti-sexual harassment law has been made. Sheesh, what a bunch of sniveling maggots. Note the deliberately chosen 'm'!

A Marine DI's most favorite word.

 

[lloyd_5]

Allard, despite the blatant hypocrisy of 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, it seemed to solve a really important issue in the military.

In civilian life, companies rightly worry about relationships (of any sexuality) taking place in the same department. Both for controls and effect on other personnel. It is even more acute a problem in the military.

With the growing deployment of women in the front line, there have been concerns that a hetero relationship could be a problem. At the cutting edge, would a soldier, male or female, place personal attachment above loyalty to the unit in a life or death situation.

As someone who recognizes he would struggle with the dichotomy, I have great sympathy with the problems senior frontline officers face. The UK navy has finally allowed female crew to serve aboard submarines but the separation arrangements are a harkback to Dickensian boarding schools.

The problem isn't being 'hit on' (by any sex) but comradeship being compromized by emotional relationships. In the most extreme circumstances, how would you react if a his/her comrade was going out on an Afghanistan patrol with her/his significant other?

The problem isn't sex but love.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Allard, despite the blatant hypocrisy of 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, it seemed to solve a really important issue in the military.

In civilian life, companies rightly worry about relationships (of any sexuality) taking place in the same department. Both for controls and effect on other personnel. It is even more acute a problem in the military.

With the growing deployment of women in the front line, there have been concerns that a hetero relationship could be a problem. At the cutting edge, would a soldier, male or female, place personal attachment above loyalty to the unit in a life or death situation.

As someone who recognizes he would struggle with the dichotomy, I have great sympathy with the problems senior frontline officers face. The UK navy has finally allowed female crew to serve aboard submarines but the separation arrangements are a harkback to Dickensian boarding schools.

The problem isn't being 'hit on' (by any sex) but comradeship being compromized by emotional relationships. In the most extreme circumstances, how would you react if a his/her comrade was going out on an Afghanistan patrol with her/his significant other?

The problem isn't sex but love.

English is a clumsy language to discuss love in. We try to use one word for what the Greeks had at least four. Am I correct in interpreting your post as that of a concerned civilian? If so might I point out that the loving husband/wife bond is a fragile thing compared to the total interdependence of a combat fire-team. The former pales in comparison when everyone's very life is at stake.

 

[AllardChardon]

It is true, love is inadequate to describe the emotion, for a man or a woman, whose views may be miles apart at any given moment. A nasty argument before going on duty would be no better than puppy love on patrol. When emotions of affection are involved, clear thinking can go elsewhere, quickly. It is a fair concern.

 

[AllardChardon]

Re-enlistment choice looms for discharged gay veterans

Re-enlistment choice looms for discharged gay veterans
By Liz Goodwin

The main concern on the minds of two discharged service members now that "don't ask" is repealed: hitting the gym.

"If I'm going to go back to the Army, which I plan to, I need to get in shape," Lt. Dan Choi tells The Lookout. "I've been doing a lot of nonstop media stuff, so I'm not at the level. ... I used to do 100 push-ups in two minutes. I've got to get back."

Michael Gerson, who was discharged in 2005 while in naval submarine training, says he's going to get into shape to take his mind off waiting for repeal to be "certified."

"Realistically, I'm looking at the timetable, and I haven't really done much in the past six years, so I'd have to do something to get back in shape," Gerson of Stockton, Calif., told The Lookout. Both Gerson and Choi tried to re-enlist in October when a federal judge refused to enjoin her decision striking down the law as discriminatory, thus in legal terms creating an opening for would-be re-enlisters who are gay. The new law does not specify that discharged members may re-enlist, but the Pentagon's report on "don't Ask" recommended it.

Choi, who outed himself on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show and was later arrested for chaining himself to the White House fence to protest "don't ask, don't tell," says it will be difficult for him to integrate the past two years he's spent as an activist with the more regimented life of an Army officer. He says his fellow discharged veterans and activists are wrestling with the full implications of finally being allowed to join up again.

"We really are getting in the mindset of, are we ready to go back in the military? It's a tough question, because our country discriminated against us," he said. "There's a PTSD involved with getting kicked out." PTSD is post-traumatic stress disorder.

More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the law since it passed in 1993.

Choi expects that many of them will rejoin, but he points out that age requirements for enlisting may prevent some. The Marines' age limit for enlistment is 28. The Army's age limit is 41. It's still unclear whether exceptions will be made for soldiers discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" who now want to reenlist.

"If it takes 12 years, I won't be able to go into the Army," Choi says. "I hope it doesn't take even one year."

Choi said that this interim period will be a time for reflection and preparation. There's "a lot of contemplation, a lot of reflection, still a bit of euphoria" among people, he said. "We all know [that during] this interim period we have to stop and reflect on what service really means."

According to various news reports, discharged Marine Tim Smith of Memphis, Tenn.; discharged Army Sgt. Anthony Wilfert of Nashville, Tenn.; and discharged seven-year Army veteran Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., are seriously considering re-enlisting.

Gerson told The Lookout that his re-enlistment plan is to focus on "physical fitness, pay off some bills and everything else, make sure everything's squared away so nothing's going to hinder me."

 

[3113]

The problem isn't being 'hit on' (by any sex) but comradeship being compromized by emotional relationships. In the most extreme circumstances, how would you react if a his/her comrade was going out on an Afghanistan patrol with her/his significant other?

The problem isn't sex but love.

When emotions of affection are involved, clear thinking can go elsewhere, quickly. It is a fair concern.

You do understand that we're taking about WAR which is where you put ordinary men and women under the most intense psychological and emotional stress a person can be put under...and you're worried about the "complication" of two such people feeling affection for each other? THAT is your big worry? THAT is what you think is going to cause big problems?

I appreciate your fairness of mind, Allard, but it is NOT a fair concern, it's a bogus concern. If you're going to worry about that, why not worry about two people who hate each other's guts? I mean, come-on! We're going to fret over a comrade is going out on patrol with a significant other but NOT about a comrade going out with someone who hates them with a passion and has a gun? Why? At least the significant others won't shoot each other!

And just FYI, the Spartans paired up with significant others deliberately and did rather well with that.

I mean if you don't want any emotional complications in the military, then let's switch to robots and do away with humans entirely. If you use humans then there ARE emotional complications especially in a war zone. There have been emotional complications and always will be emotional complications. There's a famous story about George Washington having an unfair blow-up and screaming at Hamiliton and really upsetting him. No sexual feelings involved, boys and girls, the two were very much hetero, yet it nearly destroyed their relationship--but it didn't stop either of them from remaining loyal to the revolution.

It sure as heck would have been better if emotions hadn't been involved there. But they were. Take out all the gays, all the women, all the minorities and have an army of pure white 100% heterosexual men (I do wonder how you'll get the 100% as most people aren't totally at one end or the other of the spectrum) and you're still going to end up with emotions of affection as well as everything else that will surely send clear thinking elsewhere.

And this doesn't even account for PTSD which too many in the military still dismiss as nothing, keeping suicidal men and women on duty. If you want a concern, THERE is your concern.

If the military was totally free of emotional problems and only gays would bring those in--and this could be proven--or if gays could really complicate things beyond handling, I think we'd know it by now. At the very least, it would be evident in all those other armies iwhere gays serve openly. Gays do not carry an extra "emotion" that is going to unbalance everything. Humans are emotional. And "love" between two people whatever their orientation is, at best, a drop in an ocean of the most intense emotions humans can feel in circumstances where clear thinking would be best...but may not be likely...because it's war.

Until we get a robot army, clear, unemotional thinking in a war is going to remain an ideal. And if we can't handle that extra "drop" of emotion we get with this, then we shouldn't be waging wars because, obviously, we can't handle the emotional disruption they cause in people and relationships.

 

[AllardChardon]

Is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secretly a Lady Gaga superfan?

I wholeheartedly concur that using a robot army is the best way and seems to be getting nearer to reality all the time. In the meantime, we have this dynamic going on amongst the non-military;

Is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secretly a Lady Gaga superfan?
By Holly Bailey

On Saturday, Reid twice messaged the pop star on Twitter — shortly before the Senate voted to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning gays from serving openly in the military and immediately after. In fact, his first Twitter message after the vote was to Gaga, who had previously lobbied him and other senators via Twitter to overturn the controversial policy.

"We did it! DADT is a thing of the past," Reid wrote to Gaga. (A Reid spokesman tells The Ticket that though Reid didn't hit send on the message, he asked a staffer to send the note for him.) The singer didn't directly respond, though she did mark the Senate's historic vote in a separate tweet.

But that didn't discourage Reid, who cited Gaga in a Sunday press release trashing Republicans for stalling ratification of the so-called START nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

The statement listed significant events that had happened in the world since President Obama first reached agreement on the pact with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April. Near the top of the list: Lady Gaga's meat dress, which she wore to the MTV awards in early September.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

One thing that soldiers generally do well is follow orders. They may not like the orders, but they follow them.

There will be some road bumps with this, but that's to be expected when you force change on any large group.

There was much the same furor when the service became integrated in the late 40's. It took time, but no one even thinks about it now.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

One thing that soldiers generally do well is follow orders. They may not like the orders, but they follow them.

There will be some road bumps with this, but that's to be expected when you force change on any large group.

There was much the same furor when the service became integrated in the late 40's. It took time, but no one even thinks about it now.

Precisely. That has been my point all along. Thank-you for putting it so concisely.

 

[AllardChardon]

Yes, and hopefully the transition will be easier than the repealing.

 

[sr71plt]

It's this just another one of those topics we've beaten to death on this forum. Perhaps we could just lay back for a while and see what develops?

This is getting a bit too much "some of my best friends are gay serviceman" for me. And the testimonies of the "doesn't mean a thing to me ain't I great" former solidiers on what is now multiple threads reminds me of the simplistic naive posing I encountered in my year at the Army War College. All sort of fantasyland. It doesn't trump the real world for those of us living in that real world.

 

[Edward Teach]

It's this just another one of those topics we've beaten to death on this forum. Perhaps we could just lay back for a while and see what develops?

Amen.

 

[AllardChardon]

I agree, let's see what develops, but I must admit I couldn't stop myself from posting that Harry Reid and Lady Gaga article. Life makes strange bedfellows, at times.