Gays To Be Open in Military

@boomerang,

Surely your brother has talked about how difficult institutional change is in such a large top-down organization as the Army, plus you need to add in the other services. This is a very time consuming process, not only the rewriting of the regulations but then the implementation of them fairly and consistently across the organization.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I'll agree implementation would be fraught with difficulties. I still think of that as just excuses in the way of justice. Now is as good a time for justice as any.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

We have almost destroyed the Army by over use in Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to do too much with too small of a force, which is why you are wrong. We need to start the pull out from Iraq, give the Army a chance to catch its breath, before we burden them with this. I am betting that there are enough senior people on capital hill willing to provide cover for the Army and Marine brass that Obama knows that he can not do this now. The military has made its case on the Hill, they have been convincing, so now Obama and the gay rights folks are just going to have to be patient.

edit: The military brass has almost uniformly lined up in favor of the change, they have gone on record saying that this is the right thing to do. Why the gays rights militants can shut their mouths and wait I don't know. But they have a record of not knowing when to shut-up.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Yes, indeed he has. I understand this. It is complicated.

I probably won't get a chance to really ask him about it until he comes home from Iraq next spring. We "talk" almost every day but I try to keep the emails newsy family stuff and not ask too many war questions.

Here's how I imagine Major General Brother would respond:

"Who the hell cares about your sex life. Get to work."

Honestly, I can't imagine much changing in the way that the soldiers in combat relate to one another.

I doubt that Gay Pride Parades are on the agenda.

2 Replies

@boomerang,

My wife is in Iraq now as well, so I get it. We have a gay LT in the unit, everyone knows it, in fact when they were over at my house for a dinner party he was kidded about it. He denied he gay as he needs to (but be brought a guy "friend" to the party), but everyone has fun with this. Because they are free to joke about it he knows that he is fine with them.

The change has already largely taken place, but institutionalizing it is a lot of work for the officers.

2 Replies

language NSFW

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Agreed.

Wishing you wife home safe and soon.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

Thanks, but she just got there....third time around for us......

1 Reply

@boomerang,

Yeah..

boomerang wrote:

"Who the hell cares about your sex life. Get to work."

The army has been stressed in the past. I see this as temporizing, not wisdom.

My father was a commanding officer, full colonel, in WWII. Times really are different. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say if soldiers are more homophobic now than they were back then (oh, to talk with him now), though I suspect so, and thus get the difficulties that would ensue.

Still, temporizing.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I'll nod in that I expect the change has largely taken place in army culture or at least has gotten started.
So why put it off? Work for the officers to not get rid of people?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

That sucks. Send her my heartfelt thanks for her service.

My brother's "specialty" is the Middle East; between Desert Storm, whatever they're calling this current nonsense, and other "go-sees" it seems like he's spent more time in Iraq than in America.

Excuse my French, but it is totally fucked up.

0 Replies

ossobuco said:

Quote:

I'll agree implementation would be fraught with difficulties. I still think of that as just excuses in the way of justice. Now is as good a time for justice as any.

hawkeye 10 said:

Quote:

The military brass has almost uniformly lined up in favor of the change, they have gone on record saying that this is the right thing to do.

So if now is the time for justice, and if the military brass are in favor, I say, "Just get on with it."

My guess would have been that the difficulty in implementation would have been to get the brass to buy into the change. Change accepted by the top is easier to implement than first convincing the top to accept the changes.

As for how to get rid of DADT, the President, being commander in chief of the military forces, could, in my opinion, get rid of the policy by an order (not necessarily an executive order but a military order). While I haven't researched the question, my gut says that Congress shouldn't have enacted the statute to begin with -- seems like it was treading on Executive Powers. I'm sure there's a case out there somewhere that says I'm wrong . . . and I'm sure that somebody will find it and post it. :-)

1 Reply

I was in love with a naval officer in the very early seventies. We were close, physically and philosophically, but there was this sporadic weird distance. Looking back, at that point I think he was bi. I wasn't exactly a beard, more to it than that. We became estranged when he distanced himself, which had to do with self acceptance, but I didn't get that at the time.

Years later we talked and are long time friends. Amusingly, his mate has some of my interests.

I look back at those years for him and think what an excruciating thing for him to go through. Not so great for me either. I am glad about whatever new acceptance is out there. Fear is the enemy.

0 Replies

@Always Eleven to him,

Quote:

I'm sure there's a case out there somewhere that says I'm wrong . . . and I'm sure that somebody will find it and post it. :-)

Ya, it is called the President is not free to ignore the law. DADT is the law, passed by Congress, signed by a sitting President.

Presidents and Congress don't have the line of demarcation exactly down between who has what power, check out the history of the War Powers Act for instruction. I doubt very much that Obama, already weak on defense credentials as well as support from with in the military establishment wants to walk into that pile of doo-doo by ordering a violation of a valid law (recently confirmed the the Supremes). It would be repeating the mistakes of Clinton, who failed to understand that his power over the military was not absolute. He can give an order, but that does not mean that it will be followed, and he may pay a huge price for picking a fight with the wrong people.

There is a war to be won, carrying water for the gays in not going to happen when it would interfere with much more important matters.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Carrying water for gays?

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

"There is a war to be won, carrying water for the gays in not going to happen when it would interfere with much more important matters."

Your goals don't, apparently, include thinking.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ya, they want what they want and they want it now....they have no consideration for any other collective interests. Institution of freedom for gays to serve in the military at the expense of military readiness would be carrying water for the gays. So far, to his credit, Obama has refused.

They will get what they want, when the time is right, when the collective will not be greatly harmed by the supply of those rights. If that is not good enough, tough ****. That is all they are going to get, and they can throw tantrums and pout and call names all they want, it will not matter. Adults are in charge.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

Your goals don't, apparently, include thinking.

The best interests of the many out weight the best interests of the few....thinking leads to this conclusion.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

ya, they want what they want and they want it now....they have no consideration for any other collective interests.

They've been shat upon forever, and, more interesting, past forever. It's way beyond time to admit some people are gay or bi.

Institution of freedom for gays to serve in the military at the expense of military readiness would be carrying water for the gays. So far, to his credit, Obama has refused.

I like Obama but not on all issues.
Military readiness, if gays could join cheerfully, the military would be readier.

They will get what they want, when the time is right, when the collective will not be greatly harmed by the supply of those rights. If that is not good enough, tough ****. That is all they are going to get, and they can throw tantrums and pout and call names all they want, it will not matter. Adults are in charge.

Gays To Be Open in Military

Quick Links

My Account

able2know