Don't Ask Don't Tell is repealed!

[Elphaba]

No longer will thousands of American soldiers, who are fighting and dying on foreign soil, for us, be forced to live a lie in order to serve their country, including the absurd charade of having to deny the very existence of the most important people in their lives--their partners and children, for fear of being discovered and discharged.

I celebrate this day.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

I suppose it was either move in this direction, or go the other way. In the name of unit cohesion, fornication or adulterly would be serious offenses that could result in discharge. Yeah, I can hear that lead balloon dropping! This had to come sooner or later, I suppose.

[HoosierGuy]

Yes, this is part of the Good Fight. The Good Fight is fighting for justice, equality, fairness, openness, the U.S., healthcare, education, and freedom. This falls under Fighting the Good Fight.

I'm sure this will be used, sadly, by politicians in the upcoming presidential election.

[bytor2112]

10% unemployment and this gets attention in Congress. What a joke. (sorry gay LDS.Net members) Congress is a miserable sham. Uggh.

[hordak]

No longer will thousands of American soldiers, who are fighting and dying on foreign soil, for us, be forced to live a lie in order to serve their country, including the absurd charade of having to deny the very existence of the most important people in their lives--their partners and children, for fear of being discovered and discharged.

I celebrate this day.

Elphaba

Why would they deny their children? They would be the product of heterosexual acts,or adoption and if dependents they would be covered by tricare. If they are the offspring of their partner DADT or not would not change anything because benefits are only offered to legal dependents. A gay man or women could offer no more to their partners children, in terms of military benefits, then my wife could provide a stranger on the street. I suppose they could now adopt their partners child but with DOMA (signed by Clinton i might add) preventing the feds from recognizing SSM marriage, i don't think many would want to adopt a child out to a boyfriend or girlfriend. It might might help the weekend warriors but for active duty it won't help. Got a PCS (permanent change of station) to England. Need to figure out who the child will live with because orders don't cover boyfriends/girlfriends.

I leave you with this prediction. This turn of events will not end in a singing of kume by ya. I can't speak for all but the military that i was in and am affiliated with is actually quite tolerant of homosexuals. I'm very close to someone who was a supervisor of a gay member and had to constantly pull her aside to remind her to mind her p's and q's, without taking it up the chain. I have been to Christmas parties where the single 30 year old shows up with her "roommate" of 10 years, who has followed her through 3 PCS's and no one batted an eye.

Those who would feel the need to report a DADT violation are those who are ultra sensitive about the subject the ,to use the term i hate, the homophobes. They will be extremely sensitive and more likely to misconstrue other actions. A look, a joke, a touch etc. Homosexuals will be forced to walk on eggshells just as much, if not more because while a DADT violation might have lead to a discharge it came with honorable AFAIK. Sexual misconduct, harassment, conduct becoming does not and typically comes with an Other then or Dis on the front of it.

[hordak]

10% unemployment and this gets attention in Congress. What a joke. (sorry gay LDS.Net members) Congress is a miserable sham. Uggh.

You act surprised? I'm "young" but from what i have seen going after the hot button, emotionally charged issues rather then the tough ones that need to be fixed is par for the course.

I mean Row vs wade was decided in the 70's but it still seems to come up in the campaigns every year. Emotional issues drive votes. Solutions to "real problems" (not implying these others are not real issues) hard problems that need fixing now, not so much.

[NeuroTypical]

AP: Pentagon: Lifting gay ban to take time

Under the bill approved by a Senate vote of 65-31, the president and Pentagon must first certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' ability to fight. After that, the military will undergo a 60-day wait period before any changes are made

....

In a statement, Gates said he will begin the process immediately. But, he added, certification won't come until after "careful consultation" with the military service chiefs and combatant commanders.

[Elphaba]

Why would they deny their children? They would be the product of heterosexual acts,or adoption and if dependents they would be covered by tricare. If they are the offspring of their partner DADT or not would not change anything because benefits are only offered to legal dependents. A gay man or women could offer no more to their partners children, in terms of military benefits, then my wife could provide a stranger on the street.

First, I have no statistics on how often the following is a problem. I just like to read soldier’s personal stories, and have read of circumstances like the following throughout the years.

The problem is not with the official policies of the government regarding a soldier’s children; rather, it occurs at a much lower level--the everyday banter that goes on between soldiers, including discussions about their respective families.

In any social group there are always questions like : “Are you married? Divorced?“ and “Do you have children,“ etc. Those questions lead to other questions, and an especially dangerous one to gay soldiers is “Who takes care of your children?“ The gay soldier could not tell the truth, so often had to substitute "he" for "she," or vice versa, in order to maintain the facade, and this was very stressful for them as they lived in constant fear they would slip up and be discovered.

Other gay people chose not to acknowledge they had children at all, even to the government, to avoid having to answer the very normal and mundane questions people are always asked.

One of the most heartbreaking stories I read was of a soldier who had not told the government about her children. Her partner was struck with cancer, and was too sick to take care of the children. The soldier had to address this and find someone else to take care of them. Given she was in Iraq, it was impossible for her to do so without being observed, and her fellow soldiers were shocked to hear she even had children. In response to the questions and concerns of her fellow soldiers, she told a made-up story, but it was so full of holes it generated even more questions, and, under horrible pressure, finally she just admitted she was gay. Her supervisor (is that the right word?) discovered it, and had no choice but to report her. She was discharged.

It was not as if anyone was interrogating her about it--it was genuine concern and curiosity. But the pressure of having to constantly lie, combined with the pressure of her great fear for her partner and children, was just to much for her, and she cracked.

I suppose they could now adopt their partners child but with DOMA (signed by Clinton i might add) preventing the feds from recognizing SSM marriage, i don't think many would want to adopt a child out to a boyfriend or girlfriend. It might might help the weekend warriors but for active duty it won't help. Got a PCS (permanent change of station) to England. Need to figure out who the child will live with because orders don't cover boyfriends/girlfriends.

I can't figure out what you're saying here. Would you please clarify?

Elphaba

Edited December 19, 2010 by Elphaba

[hordak]

First, I have no statistics on how often the following is a problem. I just like to read soldier’s personal stories, and have read of circumstances like the following throughout the years.

The problem is not with the official policies of the government regarding a soldier’s children; rather, it occurs at a much lower level--the everyday banter that goes on between soldiers, including discussions about their respective families.

In any social group there are always questions like : “Are you married? Divorced?“ and “Do you have children,“ etc. Those questions lead to other questions, and an especially dangerous one to gay soldiers is “Who takes care of your children?“ The gay soldier could not tell the truth, so often had to substitute "he" for "she," or vice versa, in order to maintain the facade, and this was very stressful for them as they lived in constant fear they would slip up and be discovered.

Other gay people chose not to acknowledge they had children at all, even to the government, to avoid having to answer the very normal and mundane questions people are always asked.

One of the most heartbreaking stories I read was of a soldier who had not told the government about her children. Her partner was struck with cancer, and was too sick to take care of the children. The soldier had to address this and find someone else to take care of them. Given she was in Iraq, it was impossible for her to do so without being observed, and her fellow soldiers were shocked to hear she even had children. In response to the questions and concerns of her fellow soldiers, she told a made-up story, but it was so full of holes it generated even more questions, and, under horrible pressure, finally she just admitted she was gay. Her supervisor (is that the right word?) discovered it, and had no choice but to report her. She was discharged.

It was not as if anyone was interrogating her about it--it was genuine concern and curiosity. But the pressure of having to constantly lie, combined with the pressure of her great fear for her partner and children, was just to much for her, and she cracked.

Elphaba

I never thought of the social aspect, to be honest i was never brought home to work or work to home. I recall my shop chief pulled my aside one day and said.

"hey i heard you got married why didn't you tell me?"

"Well sir, it has nothing to do with keeping airplanes flying"

But i can see your point with the partners, though not the children.

I can't figure out what you're saying here. Would you please clarify?

I'm referring to benefits. It's really a hollow victory as far as that is concerned. Socially it might help them, as you mentioned but legally it doesn't do any favors. A gay couple who shares a life together, will be treated like every other boyfriend girlfriend. Having a child or children together will be in the same boat as another non married couple that shares kids.

Let say Steve has a child from a previous relationship. The mother is completely out of the picture and his partner Adam want's to adopt him (I don't know if gays can do this but i got a buddy who had a few dads, His biological father, not in picture, and his adopted dad who was his mothers 2nd husband, then later a step dad). Since they are not married i think this would be harder, not only legally, for the bio dad Steve (and the mother who might be giving up the rights) but it might be hard to share legal rights emotionally without that legal commitment.

In my friends case i don't think his mother, or his bio dad, would have let the adoption take place if the second dad was just a boyfriend.

(hope that makes sense)

Plus only legal spouses get benefits. So if Steve gets orders to go to Germany for 4 years Adam needs to get his crap together because Steve can't afford to support 2 households and Adam isn't coming with.And now they need to figure out who the child will live with all this time.

This problem would exist with or without DADT but like i said it's kind of a hollow victory.

(and i like to point out it was a Liberal president who signed into law a bill that has federal law only recognizing 1 man 1 women marriages:p;) )

[Elphaba]

I'm referring to benefits.. . . .

This problem would exist with or without DADT but like i said it's kind of a hollow victory.

All of that makes sense, but it's a separate issue. In fact, gay marriage, which I firmly believe will be legalized some day, will solve all those issues.

However, repealing DADT was never about benefits. It was always about being able to be honest about who they are, including the fact that they have children with their partners. It was about being able to serve their country without the fear of a discharge constantly hovering over them, despite their exemplary service, simply because of what is intrinsic to each of them. Those issues were every bit as important as any benefits issue.

That is not to say, however, that the repeal of DADT doesn't provide monetary benefits to the gay soldiers, and therefore, to their families. Many soldiers who were discharged for being gay, lost any future benefits they legitimately, and morally, had coming to them for their service. That will now end.

Along with the DADT repeal will be a review to address soldier's, in the future, being allowed to designate whomever they want as their beneficiaries. I'm assuming that because this is to be reviewed, that such was not previously the case, though I admit I'm not versed in this at all. But if that is so, then there is a benefit to the soldier's partners.

Another example is that previously, if a ROTC student outed him/herself, s/he was required to pay back all the expenses ROTC had paid to educate the student. And while the answer seems to be simple--don't out yourself--in reality it often proved unbearable to live the lie, and they felt they had no other choice.

You know, I don't think most people have a clue what it was like for our gay soldiers. When you realize that after DADT was implemented, over 13,000 soldiers were discharged--thirteen thousand!--you realize there has got to be thousands of heartbreaking stories out there. So, whether or not their partners receive any benefits is not the issue. They no longer have to lie, day in and day out, to everyone they serve with, for fear of losing everything they've worked so hard, and honorably, for, and that is a great thing.

(and i like to point out it was a Liberal president who signed into law a bill that has federal law only recognizing 1 man 1 women marriages:p;) )

Yes, he did. Jerk!

Elphaba

ETA: My original post said "Each and every soldier who was discharged for being gay lost any future benefits. . . . I changed that to "Many soldiers who were discharged . . . ."

Edited December 19, 2010 by Elphaba
Changed "Each and every" to "Many"