By For some reason there is a perception in some of the comment threads that I am for keeping Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in place. As I have stated repeatedly here on the ROK Drop I am for equal treatments of gays in the military, which means that I think the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy should be removed. However I caveat that by saying that it should be removed smartly which puts me in agreement with Defense Secretary Gates and other military leaders. So what does smartly mean? Well that is why the Pentagon executed the survey they recently did with US servicemembers to gauge their opinion on the issue. Instead of ramming things down the throats of Soldiers, the Pentagon is trying to make Soldiers part of the process, which will ultimately lead to addressing concerns they may have to make implementing the policy change smoother.
The first thing that needs to be resolved with a repeal which has been expressed by many troops is the shower and rooming situation. Some people don’t have a problem with this and others do. The militant gay activists just reflexively call anyone that doesn’t want to room or shower with gays bigots to shut them up because they cannot come up with a legitimate response to this concern when men and women are not allowed to room or shower together now. I have already offered a solution to this issue where shower stalls can be installed like those “bigot” Aussies & Dutch are already doing in Afghanistan. As far as the rooming situation I think that can be handled at the First Sergeant level by having gays room with people who don’t mind rooming with them. The thing people need to understand is that even after the change it isn’t like there is going to be a whole bunch of gays raising their hands saying I am gay! Most of the gays will likely continue to keep themselves with very few openly coming out. It will be this few that the room situation will have to be worked around.
The shower and rooming situation I think is not much a concern with most military leaders because it can worked; I think their biggest concern is that the militant gay groups want to create their own “special victim status” for themselves which could lead to things like gay promotion quotas and other special treatment. I can guarantee that the Dan Choi’s of the world will complain after any repeal that gays are being discriminated against by “bigot” promotion boards and vengeful officers and something needs to be done. You want to see some divisiveness against gays in the military this issue would do it.
The next divisive issue is spousal benefits. The way I look at it is that if a gay servicemember is legally married then their partner should get the benefits a normal military spouse would get. However the military should not be involved in a domestic political issue like gay marriage, but the militant gay activists out there after any repeal of DADT will next complain the US military is discriminating against gays by not giving them spousal benefits and demand the military recognize gay partners regardless of whether they are married or not. Along with promotion quotas if special treatment is given to gays to allow their partners to receive benefits regardless of being married, this to will create divisiveness in the ranks. The logical question many Soldiers will ask themselves is how come their girlfriends cannot receive benefits then?
Remember though that the Dan Choi’s of the world want divisiveness in the ranks so they call all of them bigots in order to push through their greater agenda of “special victim status”, special treatment, and gay marriage. They create further divisiveness on this issue by spreading disinformation among the public about gays being outed in the military. Often when you look into the background of people being outed a whole different story develops. I highly recommend everyone read this comment thread for further clarification on how gays are discharged in the military. Like I have said repeatedly the loss of overweight Soldiers is a bigger issue than the loss of gays.
The militant gays groups will create further divisiveness by instead of allowing the Pentagon to implement a time line to implement a change in the policy they are likely to try and ram the change through with a activist judge instead. The militant gay groups don’t care about military cohesion they just want to continue to be divisive and call people bigots in order to ram through their greater agenda and the expense of the military. Much like someotherguy’s prior comment on this issue, at least our President is not willing to play political games with the military and is instead allowing the military to handle this issue, but I guess he is a “bigot” too.
3:49 pm on December 14th, 2010 1
Obama, who has been outstanding on North Korea policy, is also outstanding on DADT. I'm confident he'll have the support of the ROK Drop community in 2012.
3:56 pm on December 14th, 2010 2
"The next divisive issue is spousal benefits."…and then a slippery slope argument.
Simple solution: allow gay service members to register their marriages in states that recognize same-sex unions. Those who chose not to can forget about getting spousal benefits.
3:58 pm on December 14th, 2010 3
GI Korea, Good Post. Kushibo has said in his comments on DADT repeal as you have that you hope that the homosexuals will not end up being another 'victim' group. Kushibo has not served in the military but you & I have so I can forgive his naivete but you should know better. I'd be willing to bet one month of my retirement check that at some point after DADT repeal that there WILL be either a explicit or perhaps unwritten quota for homosexual & lesbian promotions & assignments. Look at what has happened with racial minorities & women, come on! Another thing that will happen is that single troops whether they are really homosexual or not will SAY that they are to get these promotions, assignments, & family housing, etc. We'll have to celebrate 'Gay, Lesbian, & Transgendered History Month' & the Liberal media will go ballistic over the first 'Gay' chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff or SMA or other top enlisted leader of the other branches of the service. To me the number one concern is can we get enough heterosexual civilians to enlist & heterosexual troops to reenlist if & when this DADT repeal happens, particularly when the economy improves & other options are available to people instead of the service. The pole smoker poll just completed gives some hope in this area but we'll just have to wait & see.
4:46 pm on December 14th, 2010 4
I may owe you an apology, GI. In my reading of your posts, I felt that in calling Dan Choi a loon, that you were referring to all DADT repealers (spellcheck says that's a real word)as loons. This post suggests otherwise and I am sorry I made that mistake. I agree that DADT should be repealed but clearly see the need for preparation to handle the changes intelligently.
5:33 pm on December 14th, 2010 5
#3
"I’d be willing to bet one month of my retirement check that at some point after DADT repeal that there WILL be either a explicit or perhaps unwritten quota for homosexual & lesbian promotions & assignments. Look at what has happened with racial minorities & women, come on!"
Hmmm? In my 20 years in the military, I knew of some women and minority recruitment goals (quotas if you want), but had never heard of any interest group getting promotions and assignments. When and where did that happen?
7:00 pm on December 14th, 2010 6
next will be trannies wanting to be openly in the military
so a man will want to room up with a woman because he thinks hes a woman
in the name of human rights the left loons will make this their cause
7:20 pm on December 14th, 2010 7
JSLIM, #6, Just imagine some big born biologically man dressed up in a female class A uniform wearing make-up, lipstick, fake breast & a bra, & hairy legs standing in formation, OH, NO DISRUPTION HERE! Now it's retiree day kids, there's a tranny granny showing his (or her) fanny. Gee for some reason I want to puke.
8:43 pm on December 14th, 2010 8
Tom Langley,
Shame on you for ignorant judgmentalism!
No self-respecting slinky little tranny would have hairy legs. They hate anything that reminds them of being male… and strive to be more female than real females.
Only a regular, nasty old cross-dresser hiding his habit from his churcher wife and looking to rub one off in the bra and pantie section at Walmart would go out in public without shaving his legs.
C'mon, Tom… get your perverts straight.
And thank me anytime for the useful info…
…as, now, if you ever happen to find yourself in ass-less chaps without a date in a leather fag strip club on drag night you won't feel like the fat kid at the school dance.
On a side note, there are a number of cross-dressers and potential trannies in the military… and, once a year, they openly show themselves.
You have all seen it… you just didn't recognize it.
Think back on Halloween to the guy(s) that came to the party dressed as a girl… and pulled it off just a little too well… even happened to have some nice high-heels in his size.
Maybe that doesn't apply to everyone who plays dress-up… but I threw 3 costume parties a year plus a red dress party… and I noticed who came as a sexy biiatch EVERY time.
There were ones who "jokingly" got into character and flirted with the boys… who, out of ignorance or a lack of female attention, sometimes ran with it to the point of discomfort for some around them.
(This is not to be confused with normal guys in an all-guy environment doing crazy stuff out of boredom… like when I suggested a Buffalo Bill Contest. What's that you (and they) ask? That is where you tuck your junk and say, in a deep gay voice, "It puts the lotion on its body or it gets the hose again… Funk me, funk me!" I have a group photo.)
Aaaaaaanyway…
…this all brings up a very good question or two.
Homosexuals, transsexuals, cross-dressers, femboys, Democrats, etc., are NOT the same thing… and they mostly loathe each other.
I'm guessing that DADT kinda lumps them all together… but what will the policy be if DADT is repealed? Are they even aware they need one?
Will a transsexual male soldier be able to live as a woman when not on duty? May a male crossdresser show up dressed as a woman to events that don't require a uniform?
I would ask these questions about females but, these days, most American women appear to be crossdressing as males as it is… so I guess the policy on that is clear… which brings up some whole new gender inequality issues.
Any ideas out there?
One thing's for sure… trannies might look like women but they have the sex drive of men. A couple of young cute ones in every barracks will put the juicy clubs out of business in a fortnight.
10:56 pm on December 14th, 2010 9
Eventually, I can foresee where two straight guys will get married just to get out of the barracks or off the ship. Hopefully I'm wrong because man, that would open up a huge can o' worms.
12:17 am on December 15th, 2010 10
I just happened to be watching a TWO hour show on the Spartans and the extra-ordinary lengths they went thru in order to produce the perfect hoplite. And the bonding process, evidently, also included male intimacy, even with young boys. The idea was of course to make that hoplite bond even stronger..The Macedonians did the same and they all produced magnificent soldiers.
I am NOT NOT NOT advocating such a course of action for the US military just to point out an historical fact..make of it what you will….
12:46 am on December 15th, 2010 11
Joe C:"had never heard of any interest group getting promotions and assignments. When and where did that happen?"
Happened a lot when my husband was in pilot training. The commanders all wanted to be the first to graduate a female fighter pilot in their classes….so seriously substandard performance was all that was needed for a female to qualify for a fighter. Sometimes there were only two fighters in the entire drop. And if an instructor wanted to wash out a female for being dangerous and incompetent, it was pretty hard to do. They expected about .05 percent of what was expected of the men to pass. They really graduated some weak swimmers back in those days (early 90s).
1:28 am on December 15th, 2010 12
Gi Korea, nice to see that you agree with me on most of this issue.
As I've said over and over; It's all about the money and benefits.
Have to agree with #3 also. This is the nudge time frame. When it is acheved, then the real agenda will be put forward, which is what he outlined.
Or I could be wrong and they will not come out, because they already know how it will go down in their local units.
7:53 am on December 15th, 2010 13
What a shame to surrender your morals and values to appease few.
3:26 pm on December 15th, 2010 14
Teadrinker #14, You've found me out. I've also got some movies with some real hot manatees in it. Those motorboat scars, oh wow! Liz #11, I saw that type of crap during my whole 20 year career. When I was stationed at Ft Leonard Wood, MO things got so bad for a while that NO NCO would tell a female soldier to do anything because they would complain about 'sexual harassment' or whatever. I was really glad when I transferred to WBAMC at Ft Bliss, TX to go to 91C school. Whatever somebody may think about DADT repeal I can guarantee that they WILL become a 'victim group'. I just can't imagine that whiny b!+(h Dan Choi as a company (or higher) commander. I Thank the Dear Lord that I have retired & don't have to put up with that BS anymore.
3:30 pm on December 15th, 2010 15
Chickenhead, the Master #8. Thanks for the Sexual Deviancy training. If any of my dreams tonight involve a$$less chaps I will be really POed at you, you are f'ing hilarious.
3:41 pm on December 15th, 2010 16
Oh the huge manatee…
3:42 pm on December 15th, 2010 17
Well, I think we all now know what fetish porn jslim and Tom L. love to watch.
7:03 pm on December 15th, 2010 18
Boys, this thread is pure GOLD!
8:05 am on December 16th, 2010 19
Simply get rid of benefits for being married. No more slippery slope.
As for the shower situation, you idiots have been showering with the gays since 1775. And don't say you didn't know which members of your unit were of the bent variety. The repeal changes nothing.
'But we need separate showers!!!" Yes, you want that so you can continue to segregate and discriminate against those who are different. Loosen the grip on your gun and put the bible down and make an attempt to join the rest of humanity.
8:26 am on December 16th, 2010 20
# 19, "simply get rid of the benefits for being married. No more slippery slope."
I'm all for THAT happening!!!!
As for the showers, I don't think that is a real issue any longer. But back in 85 we knew how to deal with those of the "bent variety". These days it might be called group-assault.
Where did the gun and bible comment come from? You have your own agenda Mr. Liberal? Trying to tell me what I can and can't do in my house and on my 80 acres of land? That is what is wrong with the democrats now and why they lost so big in November.
8:44 am on December 16th, 2010 21
Cloying Odor #19. "'But we need separate showers!!!' Yes, you want that so you can continue to segregate and discriminate against those who are different…" You have an interesting point. I think all females, especially the good looking ones should have showered with us males. They segregated & discriminated against me. How dare those b!+(hes claim that they don't want males gawking at them. Sexist (unt$. THEIR feelings don't matter, the ONLY thing that matters is MY self esteem. If they don't like it then they can walk. I don't give a rat's piper if those females don't enlist or re-enlist, the defense of the US is something for the politicians to worry about. The only thing that matters is diversity & if you have a diverse opinion, excuse me a different opinion then you can just go and fornicate yourself.
10:08 am on December 16th, 2010 22
Hey -
Though I don't completely agree with you on everything, I think this was an excellent post and I think you come off as someone with his heart in the right place but voicing legitimate concerns.
However, I would be cautious about assigning motivation to 'militant gay activists'. Certainly some people derive some sort of unhealthy benefit out of being labelled victims, but I think there is also a large contingent of people with legitimate concerns or fears whose tactics just don't appropriately address the situation. These people do not have the goals of causing disruption or calling people bigots – they legitimately feel that their methods are for protecting their rights or solving problems. Maybe they are ignorant of how their actions affect others. Or maybe we're ignorant of the real situation and there are contingencies we haven't considered. Either way, I think it's beneficial to not paint all overly vocal activists with the same brush, don't you?
Thanks for the well-written post, again.
12:00 pm on December 16th, 2010 23
Good post GI. And I agree that most of the crap generated by liberals is just part of a plan to force other states to adopt same-sex marriage laws. Two things have been demonstrated in the past few years, one is that the vast majority of US Citizens support the troops regardless of political affiliation. The other is that extremists with an agenda (on both sides) will go to any length, self-justify any measure to further their agenda. Here is the general plan as I see it,
Step 1. Forcefully repeal DADT in such a way as to create mass issued within the Military.
Step 2. Within the chaos identify "same sex marriages" as a huge "soldier quality of life" issue.
Step 3. Campaign to universally allow "same sex marriages" by saying it'll "support the troops".
Step 4. Call anyone against the plan bigots and accuse them of not "supporting homosexual troops who put their life on the line for our freedom".
This will create a special victims category no matter what we do. Currently women and ethnic minorities receive special treatment, especially if their under-performing unless their supervisor is also a women / minority. Anyone who doesn't know this hasn't served in the US Military in the past ten years. I had to deal with this sh!t constantly and they devote entire class's to it in your NCOES's.
I'm personally pissed that anyone would attempt to use our military as a freaking political chess piece.
6:48 am on December 18th, 2010 24
Senate repealed it. 8 Republicans crossed the line.
7:31 am on December 18th, 2010 25
It's done. Once the CinC issues the orders, salute and march.
By this time next year, many may refer to it, like Australian Commodore Gates when it transpired in his country, as "a non-event."
My favorite quote in this episode, from an anonymous special operator, "We have a gay guy. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay."
Merry Christmas and a Gay New Year
11:00 am on December 18th, 2010 26
Kushibo 26, the problem will be at the local unit levels. The cry of "he did this, ordered me to do that, didn't send me to promotion board, put me on guard duty or extra duty, wrote a bad report", all will be layed on the "because I'm gay" table.
I saw females use the "because I'm a woman" card too often to believe it won't happen with gays. With DADT, the gays nor those in charge of them had that problem.
They will now.
11:15 am on December 18th, 2010 27
#26
I'm never quite sure what people mean by "special privileges." The only group that I would have considered to have been receiving special privileges while I was in the military were the married troops compared to the single troops.
I came in the military while women were transitioning from the Women's Air Force to the regular Air Force. There was a lot of the same heated rhetoric against that back then that we heard on this DADT issue. In my opinion, there were some accommodations made for women but I wouldn't call them privileges. Maybe it's just semantic wordplay.
Most recently, Wiccans were allowed to serve openly. I hadn't noticed where they received any special privileges.
My opposition to DADT came from a number of places.
* Before DADT, one of the reasons gays shouldn't be allowed to serve was that would be subject to blackmail from foreign agents. People are only subject to blackmail when they fear the consequences of revealing some secret. Take away the consequences and most of the problem goes away.
* Most of us understood that, under DADT, as long as they kept their sexuality private, they would have nothing to worry about. But, in actually, people were being called in, questioned and kicked out because someone else outed them. That anonymous special operator I quoted above could lose a valued member of his unit just because someone decided to turn him in.
* Finally, I don't believe the government should have any interest in the private sexual activity of consenting adults. If the Tea Party people really did believe in libertarian ideals, I would have more common cause with them.
I don't know about special privilege but I do think there needs to be some follow up adjustments to military codes after this repeal. When the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas, I thought UCMJ Article 125 would naturally go away. It didn't. So maybe it would require some congressional action to make that happen. Then, maybe with the support of my more libertarian minded Tea Party brothers, the military can look forward to seeing the removal, from the UCMJ, of Articles 134-2 Adultery, 134-9 Wrongful Cohabitation and 134-37 Pandering and Prostitution.
11:19 am on December 18th, 2010 28
"A non-event. Unless the military ever grants special privileges to gay troops that their heterosexual counterparts do not get."
Depending on how you define "special privileges", one could say they have already been given to women, certain types of non-whites, Muslims and others.
In many cases, they are special privileges of lowered standards or expectations. In other cases, they are special privileges of recognition or reward for reasons other than merit. And sometimes, these special privileges allow members of special groups to do very un-special things while those who practice true equality are left in fear of being unjustly labeled a bigot, misogynist or racist.
It is a shame to see so much legislative effort to institute this kind of disruptive social engineering experiment in a military at war… especially when the country faces so many more pressing issues.
You are likely correct, though. This will be a non-event. For some time, homosexuals will, mostly, self-regulate at a rate inversely proportional to their acceptance by other servicemembers. A few will not and will we see a few cases of the "he grabbed my junk" defense at court martial.
For the most part, nobody will care a year from now.
2:11 pm on December 18th, 2010 29
Oh no!! Damn, we got to start giving BAQ and Separate Rats to every two guys who live together.
This will mess up the entire Status Quo in the GS world too. Spousal preference in hiring!!!
Family member preference, and I thought it was bad with that odd, Korean American Wife, we got now and then.
No PPP or 5 year rule for those folks, once they hook their bloodsucking leach lips on those jobs they will be around forever.
2:54 pm on December 18th, 2010 30
A non-event. Unless the military ever grants special privileges to gay troops that their heterosexual counterparts do not get.
11:06 am on December 19th, 2010 31
Typical "special treatment" involved the lowering of expectations or standards, or the NCO being forced to recommend the person for promotion due to fear of being "labeled". For those who might not understand having a label attached to your official record is very bad and most certainly will stop any senior promotions in their tracks. It could be something as simple as a MFR stating that you were suspected (but never substantiated) of being homophobic / racist / sexist. These happen all the time for things like sexual assault / sexual harassment. The guy would be accused of those things but later cleared of them, but the record goes in that there were charges period.
So yeah good chance you'll get homosexual soldiers getting by with sh!t that their heterosexual counterparts can't, will most likely boil up at some line unit until it becomes a big controversy.
11:29 am on December 19th, 2010 32
31 Someotherguy, been there-done that. With females and "other" special interest groups.
No reason to think it won't happen with gays as well.
2:41 am on December 22nd, 2010 33
And, today's award for the most unintentionally funny comment by a president goes to…
"No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love," Obama said.
I guess he wasn't talking about the straight guys or the takers. They will be looking over their shoulders.
Was there no better choice of words?
5:25 am on December 22nd, 2010 34
I still find it unbelievable. You have a group of people who have put their sexuality over service & now we will all have to live with the consequences of weak willed politicians doing anything for votes.
8:02 am on December 22nd, 2010 35
I'm just wondering what percentage of a service connected disability the VA will award for "injuries" acquired on duty as the result of the practices of the You Can Ask, I Can Tell group. If he only craps his pants half the time, he'll probably get at least a 50% service connected disability.
Are there really tens of thousands "living a lie" in the military?
8:31 am on December 22nd, 2010 36
34, The consequences are, Now we CAN ask. Doesn't matter if they are open about it or not. We can now ask.
It isn't hard to understand how this happened, with all three branches being controlled by the Liberal Left.
Military Male Bonding is going to require an interview now. As stated, we can ask.
For their sake I hope there are enough of them per unit. It gets lonely at the top, and when you can be asked.
The rule of unintended consequences.
8:55 am on December 22nd, 2010 37
It was interesting how much the JCS Chief, Admiral Mullen pushed for it. Of course, he is in the Navy…
12:02 pm on December 22nd, 2010 38
And the Navy is filled with seamen.