Do ask, do tell?

[Dravin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/us/13military.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

It will be interesting to see where this ends up. I wonder if we might see some early retirements if an appeal either doesn't happen or doesn't succeed.

[LostSheep]

About freaking time. This law doesn't even make sense.

[PrinceofLight2000]

About freaking time. This law doesn't even make sense.

I always thought don't ask, don't tell meant literally that. I wasn't aware it banned openly gay people from serving. I just thought it meant that orientation shouldn't ever be brought up as a matter of policy.

[MarginOfError]

I always thought don't ask, don't tell meant literally that. I wasn't aware it banned openly gay people from serving. I just thought it meant that orientation shouldn't ever be brought up as a matter of policy.

It was more of a compromise that the military wouldn't investigate it so long as gay servicemen and women didn't come out in the open. Unfortunately, "come out in the open" also included getting caught, or found out by others. I also seem to recall the military not really standing by it's policy of not investigating if the suspicion was raised.

In short, don't ask, don't tell meant gays could serve in the military so long as no one knew they were gay.

[jennvan]

I read a blog post a short time ago about why the don't ask/don't tell policy was important. I'll have to find it to post but the idea of what they were saying that the reason why women and men are separated is because of relationships that encumber the working relationship that is required to serve in the military. The author of the blog post stated that allowing people with homosexual orientations to serve openly in the military would put a strain on those relationships and cause a cascade of problems. I really liked what this author had to say so I'll try to find it and post a link.

[LostSheep]

No, it means that if you want to serve, you have to lie about who you are. In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military. Why this policy has been in effect so long baffles me. What if we used that same policy on religions, race, or political beliefs?

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it boils down to--as jenn hints--the working relationship that is built among the members of the same units, and the degree to which some feel that relationship would be damaged if we bring homosexuality into the mix.

*shrug*. I've known guys in the Army who said it's no big deal. The opinion of one Marine I know is, "heck no". My impression is that the breakdown in the Joint Chiefs is actually similar--Army, Navy, and Air Force aren't too preoccupied with it at this point, but the Marines are holding out (or were, a couple of weeks ago).

[LostSheep]

I think it boils down to--as jenn hints--the working relationship that is built among the members of the same units, and the degree to which some feel that relationship would be damaged if we bring homosexuality into the mix.

*shrug*. I've known guys in the Army who said it's no big deal. The opinion of one Marine I know is, "heck no". My impression is that the breakdown in the Joint Chiefs is actually similar--Army, Navy, and Air Force aren't too preoccupied with it at this point, but the Marines are holding out (or were, a couple of weeks ago).

That kind of thinking is why it took so long for blacks to be allowed in the military. Fear and paranoia trumping people's rights.

[jennvan]

One thing I'll add to my thoughts that may not have been clear, its not about the men or women feeling weird about gay people around them that encumbers the working relationship (at least as far as what I got from the blog post) it was the romantic relationships that interfere with the working relationships. I'm working to find the actual post so all can read it and weigh in on it.

[Just_A_Guy]

Umm . . . blacks have been in the military since 1863 at least.

[BenRaines]

I was wondering whose military didn't allow blacks to serve? Maybe I missed something.

Ben Raines

[RachelleDrew]

I have an extremely active military family. My father served, both of my grandfathers served, four of my cousins are serving now and so on. None of them understand why gays should be forced to lie about their orientation during their military service, they are all very conservative too and still don't care. Frankly, they all know who is gay anyway. It just isn't a big deal, my female cousins is one of the only straight women in her platoon. It isn't widely discussed, but she is just aware of it anyway.

I'm kind of wondering why this rule has been around for so long, because I run into very few people, conservative or liberal, who believe it is a necessary rule anymore.

[MorningStar]

I don't care about the orientation of people I work with, but I would definitely care about having to live with or share a locker room with a woman who is attracted to women. I wouldn't want a guy roommate for privacy reasons and I wouldn't want a guy in the locker room. A close friend of mine was in the Navy and though he is clearly not gay, another guy made advances towards him while on a submarine.

So what do you do? Make separate living quarters for gay people? Um, that could cause even bigger problems. *cringe*

[RachelleDrew]

I don't care about the orientation of people I work with, but I would definitely care about having to live with or share a locker room with a woman who is attracted to women. I wouldn't want a guy roommate for privacy reasons and I wouldn't want a guy in the locker room. A close friend of mine was in the Navy and though he is clearly not gay, another guy made advances towards him while on a submarine.

So what do you do? Make separate living quarters for gay people? Um, that could cause even bigger problems. *cringe*

Hm, well. First of all, gay people aren't attracted to every person of the same sex that they see. So the locker room scenario is kind of silly to me. I guess it's a personal preference, I don't mind getting undressed in front of women who are lesbians. I had a gay classmate that I had PE with back in high school. It didn't bother me to shower or put on gym clothes in front of her. I knew very well that she wasn't staring me down or anything in the locker room.

Furthermore, come-ons and impropriety will happen even with a totally heterosexual workplace environment. There aren't any gay people where I work now, yet I get hit on constantly by (gasp) straight people. Geeze! All this time I thought gay people were the only ones who were sexually forward at inappropriate times!

Sorry for the sarcasm. One of my many wonderful qualities. But you see what I mean. It's purely a personal thing. I take it as a compliment when anyone hits on me. So long as they aren't being grabby or vulgar about it it isn't a big deal.

Sexually awkward situations are going to happen in the military with or without gay people there, that is a really stressful job where men and women are sometimes isolated for months or years. No banning of gay people will change that.

[RachelleDrew]

I was wondering whose military didn't allow blacks to serve? Maybe I missed something.

Ben Raines

That one left me scratching my head too. Although to be fair to LostSheep, wasn't the involvement of African-Americans in the military very segregated for a long time? Perhaps that's what he means? My history is fuzzy on that one.

[LostSheep]

My bad, I was referring to the segregation of race in the military. Blacks had to be in their own battalions. Blacks and whites didn't fight together until late WWII. (The Battle of the Bulge believe)

[bytor2112]

That kind of thinking is why it took so long for blacks to be allowed in the military. Fear and paranoia trumping people's rights.

You insult black people by comparing being hated and mistreated because of the color of your skin to being asked to keep your sexual practices to yourself. It's not the same. You can hide being a homosexual....you can't hide being black. Hating someone because of their skin color or discriminating unfairly for no other reason than their race/skin color is dispicable and ignorant.

What is really a travesty is the fact that a lower court judge has decided to change policy for the United States military. That's the travesty.....

[Soulsearcher]

You insult black people by comparing being hated and mistreated because of the color of your skin to being asked to keep your sexual practices to yourself. It's not the same. You can hide being a homosexual....you can't hide being black. Hating someone because of their skin color or discriminating unfairly for no other reason than their race/skin color is dispicable and ignorant.

What is really a travesty is the fact that a lower court judge has decided to change policy for the United States military. That's the travesty.....

Except Gays weren't just asked to keep it to themselves. A number of them were kicked out for what they did in their own homes or by answering questions to doctors. Don't ask don't tell wasn't a matter of getting kicked out only if you told, it was a matter of being kicked out if there was any proof that you were gay. If any one suspected they could report you and you were investigated, even if you never did or said anything while on duty or assignment you were still discharged because you were found out. So even if you keep it to yourself and hide it and are still kicked out how does that not show any discrimination? It wasn't a matter of people just coming out and expecting to be accepted, it was a matter of people being forced out after they did all they could to not show it and flaunt it.

[bytor2112]

Except Gays weren't just asked to keep it to themselves. A number of them were kicked out for what they did in their own homes or by answering questions to doctors. Don't ask don't tell wasn't a matter of getting kicked out only if you told, it was a matter of being kicked out if there was any proof that you were gay. If any one suspected they could report you and you were investigated, even if you never did or said anything while on duty or assignment you were still discharged because you were found out. So even if you keep it to yourself and hide it and are still kicked out how does that not show any discrimination? It wasn't a matter of people just coming out and expecting to be accepted, it was a matter of people being forced out after they did all they could to not show it and flaunt it.

So what. Those are the rules....that is the code that those who join the military accept when they join. Don't like it....don't join. There are rules against adultery too....

[Traveler]

I always thought don't ask, don't tell meant literally that. I wasn't aware it banned openly gay people from serving. I just thought it meant that orientation shouldn't ever be brought up as a matter of policy.

Just as a point of personal preference for someone that served in the military – I would rather that everyone keep their sexuality private with a general don’t ask don’t tell policy. I am very concerned with someone that wants to be openly gay, heterosexual or for that matter anything else – let’s keep all this stuff in the privacy of the bedroom.

The Traveler

[Wingnut]

So what do you do? Make separate living quarters for gay people? Um, that could cause even bigger problems. *cringe*

Sounds familiar. Wait for it...

Separate but equal?

How'd that work out for us before?

You insult black people by comparing being hated and mistreated because of the color of your skin to being asked to keep your sexual practices to yourself. It's not the same. You can hide being a homosexual....you can't hide being black. Hating someone because of their skin color or discriminating unfairly for no other reason than their race/skin color is dispicable and ignorant.

Just because they can hide it doesn't mean they should have to.

So what. Those are the rules....that is the code that those who join the military accept when they join. Don't like it....don't join. There are rules against adultery too....

Not being allowed to join is discrimination.

Like many others, I'm really glad to see this going away.

[bytor2112]

I hear you Wingnut......it will be problematic for the military. Unit cohesion...weaker military, etc.

You don't see a problem with a lesser court judge making this decision? Even President Obama who wants it overturned wants it done by Congress.

[Soulsearcher]

I hear you Wingnut......it will be problematic for the military. Unit cohesion...weaker military, etc.

You don't see a problem with a lesser court judge making this decision? Even President Obama who wants it overturned wants it done by Congress.

I want to see it done the right way...though they had their chance and swatted it down. The fact they might have a little pressure is a good thing, but i want it done through the right channels.I'll be interested to see if the follow through on what they said when the vote was held about holding off til the report the are waiting for in Dec. was true or just a smoke screen to hold it off again. Not like Dems are the only ones who play games

[Wingnut]

I hear you Wingnut......it will be problematic for the military. Unit cohesion...weaker military, etc.

I didn't say that.

You don't see a problem with a lesser court judge making this decision? Even President Obama who wants it overturned wants it done by Congress.

I didn't say that, either.

[bytor2112]

I didn't say that.

I didn't say that, either.

Yes you did and yes you did.