Reply
Tue 31 May, 2005 06:48 pm
Quote:
Wounded Gay Soldier Discharged From Army
CINCINNATI (AP) -- An Army sergeant from Ohio who was wounded in Iraq and wanted to remain in the military as an openly gay soldier was officially discharged Tuesday, according to an advocacy group.
Sgt. Robert Stout, 23, was awarded the Purple Heart after a grenade sent shrapnel into his arm, face and legs while he was using a machine gun on a Humvee in May 2004.
Stout, of Utica in central Ohio, told The Associated Press in April that he wanted to remain in the military and be openly gay, but that would conflict with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Aaron Belkin, director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California-Santa Barbara, said Sgt. Robert Stout told him he was due back in the United States on Tuesday, the day of his discharge.
"I know a ton of gay men that would be more than willing to stay in the Army if they could just be open," Stout said in April.
Stout said he was openly gay among most of his 26-member platoon, part of the 9th Engineer Battalion based in Germany.
Army officials at the Pentagon could not immediately confirm the discharge. The Army declined to comment earlier on the case other than to say that soldiers discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" typically receive honorable discharges.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Source
Purple Heart...then the purple heart on.....
RIGHT UP THE WAZOO!!!! YOWZA!!!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA.
The man knew the rules going into the Army.
He knew the consequences of becoming open about it and thus breaking violating the regulations that he swore to obey.
Regardless of the situation, he made his own bed in this instance.
Fedral wrote:The man knew the rules going into the Army.
He knew the consequences of becoming open about it and thus breaking violating the regulations that he swore to obey.
Regardless of the situation, he made his own bed in this instance.
Yes...now lets all stop thinking about it any deeper than the most basic concept of "there's a rule, and he broke it" so our heads don't hurt.
Seems to have worked for Fed.
Lash wrote:Quote:RIGHT UP THE WAZOO!!!!
Well...
...
...that
is where he wanted it.
yeah but I expect he'd have liked a kiss and a little ky at least....
You are missing the point, JustanObserver.
If I sign up for the Army and I have a very bad problem with my back and lie about it, I am breaking the rules because the military will not accept me with a bad back.
If I get away with the lie and make it through all that the military has to offer and down the road, I reveal openly that I lied to get in, the Army not only has the right, they have the obligation to boot me out on my ass.
For LYING in the first place to get in... They call this fraud in the civilian world.
For signing a paper with my signature saying that there was nothing wrong with me, I just broke my first military regulation and I havent even made it through my first day in the Army.
If I am then STUPID enough to reveal that I HAD this condition, sure as HELL the Army is gonna kick me to the curb so fast, my head will spin.
You are trying to turn this into a "Should gays be in the military" thread, which is another topic entirely.
This is about a man lying, getting caught and facing the punishment he KNEW was coming to him.
This man didn't necessarily lie about anything. The policy is "don't ask, don't tell". If he was initially hiding the fact of his homosexuality, it was because he was following the policy the American military and government enacted - not committing "fraud".
If the real issue is gays in the military - it seems logical that openly gay men and women who are already out and comfortable with their sexuality are much safer and would be able to perform more productively and constructively in their roles, as opposed to having to deny who they truly are and protect themselves from bigots around them who threaten their livlihood and their very lives in some cases.
I liked Clinton - but this policy was a major cop-out on his part. One of the few instances in which he just blew it, in my opinion. This story just illustrates what a hypocritical piece of bull**** this policy really is.
Sure, Fedral.
Despite all those things, the guy still is dedicated enough to the United States to go over to fight for this country, where he demonstrates valor on the battlefield and takes shrapnel to the face, arm and leg, earning his purple heart.
But of course, non of that matters or should be taken into account.
I hope you don't take such a black and white view to every aspect of life.
And I'll let you know if I'm going to "turn the thread" into anything. This thread is about this guy thats good enough for now.
I agree with aidian, Clinton did wuss out on this one. Maybe he thought it was better than nothing but now that first step has been taken, maybe people should fight to change the rule of "don't ask, don't tell" to simply, "none of your business either way."
SCREW THE GAY EVEN IF THEY ARE WILLING TO DIE FOR US!!!!
What a bunch of horse ****. This pisses me off. Horse ****. That's all this is. A bunch of stinking horse ****.
Like it or not this thread baits the question whether gays should or should not be allowed to serve in the armed forces. The fact that this individual was discharged because of his being openly gay after being wounded is irrelevant.
Bella Dea
IMO they should. However, in the present climate, with the bible thumpers holding sway it will never happen.
JustanObserver wrote:Fedral wrote:The man knew the rules going into the Army.
He knew the consequences of becoming open about it and thus breaking violating the regulations that he swore to obey.
Regardless of the situation, he made his own bed in this instance.
Yes...now lets all stop thinking about it any deeper than the most basic concept of "there's a rule, and he broke it" so our heads don't hurt.
Seems to have worked for Fed.
Fed is absolutely correct. Do you think this soldier truly believed he and he alone would be given a pass around the "don't ask/tell" policy?
Your head might hurt because you don't like the policy, but there's nothing more to this than that. ... except it makes for a nice story for the media because it involves a soldier who won a purple heart.
au1929 wrote:Bella Dea
IMO they should. However, in the present climate, with the bible thumpers holding sway it will never happen.
It will. It's just like everything else. We are in a tumultous time regarding the civil rights of homosexuals. But it will change. Change takes tears, blood, sweat and above all time. Frustrating but true none the less.
Fedral is quite right: Sgt. Stout lied. He said that he would never tell anyone about his homosexuality, and yet he did. Of course, when he entered the military, he didn't lie, since the military's policy isn't that it won't accept homosexuals, it's just that it won't accept honest homosexuals -- and, at the time he entered the service, Sgt. Stout was a dishonest homosexual. In other words, he was a quiet homosexual, a good homosexual, the kind of homosexual that the armed forces gladly expose to danger and death. Indeed, he was the kind of homosexual that the Pentagon now desperately attempts to retain in the service through means of stop-loss orders and other measures.
By all indications, Sgt. Stout served honorably-but-dishonestly and earned a purple heart in combat. It was only when he decided to tell the truth that he became a liar. The Pentagon, however, has decided that such honest homosexuals are incompatible with military service, whereas dishonest ones are just fine. Or, to put it another way, the marines (and the army, navy, and air force) are looking for a few good hypocrites. So Fedral's right: in a country where we elevate our greatest hypocrites to the highest offices in the land, we should expect our men and women in uniform to aspire to the same standards of national service.
Ticomaya wrote:
Your head might hurt because you don't like the policy, but there's nothing more to this than that. ... except it makes for a nice story for the media because it involves a soldier who won a purple heart.
I think au1929 hit it on the head...this shouldn't be about this particular case so much as it should be about having gays in the military.
Bella Dea wrote:Ticomaya wrote:
Your head might hurt because you don't like the policy, but there's nothing more to this than that. ... except it makes for a nice story for the media because it involves a soldier who won a purple heart.
I think au1929 hit it on the head...this shouldn't be about this particular case so much as it should be about having gays in the military.
I doubt very much that Au hit it on the head, because I think there is more behind the policy than "bible thumpers." Anyone ever research the reason for the policy, or a ban on gays in the military?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace