Reply
Wed 15 Jun, 2005 01:12 pm
It seems as recruiting drops to new levels that some conservatives are rethinking the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.
It seems that the military has lost nearly 10,000 people to this policy since it took effect.
What do you think?
I think whoever came up with that policy is stupid.
I think it was meant as a stop gap, or a step on the way... First this, then something more rational. I agree that in and of itself it's way stupid though, and I'm ready for the something more rational. (Like, don't ask, and tell if you want 'cause we don't care.)
If this is about republicans wanting to enlist in the military, I don't think it will work. They have prayed about it and had the revelation that getting shot at or bombed is not on their current agenda. If it's about being gay I'm all for it and truely believe a happy military is an effective military.
I know there is such a thing as a gay republican but surely not 10,000 of them!
I think it is interesting that some people are having a change of heart about this just now when nobody is signing up for the millitary.
But the ramifications of the military allowing openly homosexual people to join would be interesting in areas beyond the military...
Dare I mention, there have been a few incidentals along the way since "Don't ask, don't tell."
Absolutely, roger!
I think the article said something like 650 have been dismissed in the last year though.
I was thinking more of Afghanistan and Iraq as incidences derailing recruiting and reenlistment goals, but yeah, that too.
Frankly, given how desperate the military is to enlist people, it's hard to believe they won't take gays. We know they take the mentally deficient. Take Lynddie England, please...
boomerang wrote:Absolutely, roger!
I think the article said something like 650 have been dismissed in the last year though.
Makes you wonder about these 650. It seems a whole lot easier than going AWOL.
Can you get dismissed just by saying you are gay? It sounds too good to be true.
There is that. Kind of hate to take away an escape hatch. Maybe something more specific -- you only get dismissed if you actually are caught having gay sex, or something. Lets the gay/ lesbian people who want to be there to not have to lie about their personal lives, and makes the escape-hatch people have to work for it...
I would imagine that if someone suddenly announces they are gay that the military probably does a little snooping around to see if they can validate it.
I'll have to pull the article out of recycling to check but I think it said that many commanders are being "told" but that they aren't doing anything about it because they need the soldiers.
If they violate the policy in this manner should they be subject to court marshal?
OK so it was a long time ago ('62) but in those days if someone was even suspected of being "gay" they were given a "blanket party" sometime the next morning they would be admitted to sick-call and would never be heard from again. (unfit for military duty) and this was only based on anyone's suspicion (totally ignored by those in charge).
sooooooooooo, I guess you won't be seein' much of this in the U.S. military
Canada - pure evil <grin>
Awww, so sweet, beth!
dys, I really don't want to know what a blanket party is, do I?
I don't think we'll be seeing much of that anywhere in America, eBeth, much less in the military.
Suspicion of being gay, dys?
Hmmmm.
Maybe we've come further than I thought.
I guess the strangest thing to me is that when soldiers are deployed they are really expected to put sex on hold (you know, the whole abstinence thing for unmarried people and the fidelity thing for married people).
Do the rule makers think that gay people are simply unable to put sex on hold or are they worried there is just too much temptation or what?
I always think of cav when stories like that come up.
He was, rightly, very proud of his aunt, who played an important role in changing the laws in Canada in the area of spousal rights for gay couples.
Quote:A landmark ruling on Monday by Judge Ruth Mesbur of the Ontario Supreme Court found that the definition of a spouse in the country's marital laws was unconstitutional.
Canadian law currently specifies that only a couple, defined as a man and a woman, may seek divorce.
The two women, who were not identified in court documents other than as "M.M." and "J.H." tied the knot on June 18, 2003, a week after Ontario's court of Appeal cleared the way for gay marriage in Canada's most populous province.
"The definition of a spouse is unconstitutional, inoperative and of no force and effect," Mesbur said in her decision.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1588870,00.html
Judge Mesbur moved Canada a huge step forward with that decision.
I remember in the Navy, the slightest suspicion of one being gay, and the guy was hounded. Certainly gay and they were instantly taken out.
We had a gay man in our barracks at Fort Eustis--he was the dental assistant. He didn't bother us, and we didn't bother him. We gave blanket parties to the National Guard creeps, and enjoyed it immensely.
No, Sozobe. You do not want to know.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace