I usually don't post in the P&R forum but I found this recent column to be very enlightening as it accurately details why Congress needs to repeal the 1993 law placing the policy in effect.

One of the most revealing quotes in the lengthy article IMHO was made by Jamie Fellner, Director of the U.S. Program of Human Rights Watch, when he stated:
"At one time, supporters of racially segregated military units insisted that racial integration would destroy the military. The same equally indefensible arguments are made about accepting openly gay and lesbian servicemembers. Former President Truman recognized that military policy should not be shaped by racial prejudice. Prsident Bush should display the same courage and secure the full acceptance of gays and lesbians into today's military."

In addition to the article explaining that the policy has "cost the military an estimated $218 million to recruit and train replacements for servicemembers discharged because they acknowledged their sexual orientation" it also points out that "most members of NATO and many U.S. allies participating in Operation Enduring Freedom permit open homosexuals to serve under the same rules as heterosexuals. Indeed, over the past decade, a number of U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and Israel have changed exclusionary policies and accepted only gay and lesbian servicemembers in the armed forces without impairing military effectiveness. The integration of gays and lesbians occurs most smoothly when the highest levels of military leadership support policies of non-discrimination, insist that servicemembers abide by rules of conduct applicable to all, and provide appropriate training."

I would say it's high time for Clinton's copout, long outdated (albeit only a decade old) policy to come to an end. Read the link to the column below and decide for yourself.

U.S. Military's \"Don't Ask, Don't Tell\" Policy Panders to Prejudice

[ February 17, 2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" sucks royally and is a terrible farce. Just ask the many servicepeople who've been drummed out since it took effect. The previous don't ask, but still root out the homos policy wasn't any good either. And we don't want a war just to draw the military's attention away from sexuality (as was the case in WW II, for example).

The U.S. should do away with any and all discrimination in its armed forces. The same sorts of workplace sexual prohibitions, sexual harassment guidelines and gender equality rules that obtain in regular society should be in effect. If a soldier can't deal with the policy, s/he should get walking papers. End of story.

Don't Ask Don't Tell is a cop out. Gay men and women should be open about their sexuality from the time they are being recruited or signing up. It is no secret what goes on behind closed doors in today's military. Oh, the stories I could tell.All those virile, hormonal men living in cramped quartes with little or no female contact. Geeesh!! Let me just say that sexual encounters between men in the military are more common than many of you would believe. There is a great book on the subject by Steve Zeeland called "Military Trade" and Zeeland also has a great web site.
Don't Ask Don't Tell has not been of much benefit to gays. The words by themselves "don't ask don't tell" sounds like you have something to be ashamed of. That is not right. It has just kept military gays in the closet.

I'm in the Air Force and the dont ask dont tell is bs. i hope and pray someday gay men and women will be able to serve openly and very proud of being gay. Let me say this, if they were to kick out every gay in the military there would be no military. Lets hope we catch up to the rest of the world soon in this.

On the subject of acceptance of blacks in the military, I was interested to not that high ex-military officers and ex-Defense department heads have filed a brief favoring the U. of Michigan in the affirmative action case against it.

It appears that they recognize the importance of diversity, regardless of what President Bush thinks.

Link to story

What you say about gays in the military azairforce has clearly already been recognized with respect to blacks.

It would be ironic if gays (and blacks) wound up making an inordinate contribution as ground troops in a conflict when their access is still being challenged as civilians.

Inordinate?

Why does it always have to be above and beyond?

If this happens, and it will, it is just business as usual for the U.S. Armed Forces.

I am SO happy to see that you've posted this, azairforce.

This is why I consider the choice to join the U.S. military one of the major decisions in a man's life.

Now that the U.S. government is considering offering citizenship to anyone (around the world) willing to serve in the U.S. military, the question becomes much more complicated.

http://www.rotc.monroe.army.mil/command/ne...york_times2.pdf

This issue, IMO, is no longer just a question of young men needing money (for college). It is a question of self-worth and self-esteem.

I met a man once who studied at the Defense Language Institute. He was, as far as I could tell heterosexual - that is, he may have had some interest in men, but he was, for the most part, a "ladies' man".

Although I was impressed with his knowledge of Russian and his studies at DLI (and rightfully so - he was very good), I realized that I could have done just as well in the same situation as he did.

But I (and this is still an issue for me in terms of how to employ my language/code talent) am bisexual, and have known for most of my life that I am attracted to males.

OK: Life is not fair, and I am not the first to have this dilemma. But why serve in an organization (and I was a hair's width from joining the Army at one point, because they were recruiting for talented candidates for Mandarin Chinese training) that forthrightly says that you are second-class and dispensable at every second?

I was granted a very special person (a lesbian woman who knew [intimately] several distinguished servicemen) in my life who convinced me that military service would ruin me. Maim and obliterate everything I stood for. It was then that I renounced all efforts, throughout my life, to join military service (and that includes the "civilian type" of service as well, like teaching languages to the military).

I STILL do not know how some people bear the hate, the discriminations, and the pain of having to monitor their speech 24/7, without companionship, sexual understanding, and moral support.

[ February 20, 2003, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

Uh, WOMEN serve in the military too, don't they? It's a choice women and men have to make.

[ February 19, 2003, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Men are expected to serve in the military, or at least we were.

Women aren't. You still have the sterotype of women in the military being lesbians.

thanks for the kind words. i agree on that sport that if war does come it will be a pretty big black and gay population doing the fighting. the military over the last 10 years has been a way minorites can get ahead in a big way. its a volunteer force but a very large percentage of the people joining especilly the enlisted force do come from a poor background.
I must add this also, even with all the bs about the dont ask dont tell ive very much enjoyed my time in the Air Force and if i had to do it all over again, id join in a heartbeat.
i have no doubt that one day you will be able to serve in the military and be openly gay.

A related follow-up column appeared online today that addresses some of the reasons why many heterosexuals are opposed to allowing gays to serve openly in the U.S. military -- and, I might add, points out why those reasons have so little validity today....judge for yourself:

New Study Shows That Lifting of Gay Military Ban Does Not Undermine Heterosexual Privacy

Thanks, azairforce, for sharing your highly relevant, first-hand opinions on this topic....I have been continually impressed with your insightful comments on a wide variety of subjects.

[ February 19, 2003, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Yeah, and what if you're a G, B, or L sniffer dog?

They contribute to the preservation of our freedom, too... wink !

[ February 20, 2003, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

I hope you're right azairforce, but there is evidence that that day is still at least as far off as a change in administration.

I wonder if you can comment on the following story:

Air Force Cadets Claim Rape Cover-Up

A quote from the article:

I'm sure there are significant differences between the way that women are treated and the way that openly gay men would be treated in the military. But it is certain that openly gay men would be subject to the sort of systematic taunting and harassment that any minority would suffer in a group situation that requires teamwork.

The cumulative effect is to make life unbearable whether it occurs in the military, workplace, academic environment or wherever.

What do you think?

Can you, if possible, elaborate on this?

I am not sure I follow.

Men are more likely to be able to defend themselves against a physical attack (gay-bashings would be routine if they weren't yet we rarely hear of them), but other assaults might be suffered:

Because women and men have segregated facilities, gay men would be subject to taunts in bathrooms, showers. Straights might not suffer the same type or extent of harassment.


Teasing on the level of college fraternities could be directed specifically at gays. Women generally don't take things to the same extremes.

Also deliberate attempts to sabotage someones military career could occur with the same creativity excercised in any work environment - and be directed at gays preferentially.

To me these are some of the more obvious. People who have suffered from this treatment could perhaps give other, or more specific, examples.

[ February 20, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

the military is just a reflection of society, im sure there will be harrasment and teasing of openly gay guys and women in the military. Let me give you a couple of instances to possibly show you the other side of this also. I have some friends at work that know im gay, men and women and many of them have gone to gay bars with me for a beer and to dance. I have some of them when a hot guy walks in the women will say damn hes pretty hot huh and even some of my guy friends will say you guys would look good together, i work in an office environment so we have a number of customers. i have a friend that works in the aircraft maintenance section an he gets the same thing especially from the younger crowd. im not going to lie if openly gay does happen it will not be easy for some individuals. I can only speak for the Air Force but i think the Air Force would be the easiest serive to be in if you were gay. one thing you have to remember in the dorms etc most of the individauls have their own showers, the only time you would have open showers is in basic training and at the gym. you go to any military installation and there is cruising in the base gym. In my opinion most of the people in the military could care less if a person is gay or not as long as they get the job done. Myself even if you could be openly gay, i wouldnt flaunt my preference at work and i would do the same in the civilian sector.

have to add one extra thing, it would be much easier to be openly gay as enlisted other than officer. the officer branch especially from the academy is like the good ole boy network, this rape allegations is really no big surprise to me. This is just another prime example of the good ole boy network is still goign very strong in the officer corps especially ones from the academy.

Well that certainly wouldn't encourage recruitment among the kind of people they would want to have as officers. If their looking at getting more officers who are from a group that is a minority in the current enlistment ranks or officer corp (as they seem to want to do in the case of blacks) the good ole boy network will have to adjust.

Since they're constantly hyping morale you would think they would see that "good ole boy" behavior is hurting them by demoralizing minority members and discouraging possible recruits.

Oh, you meant gay (lesbian) soldiers and women vs. gay soldiers and men.

An encouraging op ed piece, Gays in military see an easing of discrimination. Nonetheless, I'd point out to the Pentagon lawyer quoted in the final paragraph that someone at the command level cared enough to discharge 900 servicemembers last year. Such selective use of DADT regs will continue until the vile, discriminatory policy is abandoned.

"Homosexuals can and do serve honorably in the Marine Corps. Homosexuals can and do make some of the best Marines. Homosexuals are capable of military service and can and do perform as well as anyone else in the military."

For this to happen under Shrub, first of all I will believe it when I see it, and second, they must be getting desperate.

http://www.sldn.org/templates/index.html

Bush has already said that he favors DADT. With one of the architects of it, Powell, serving in his administration, don't expect to see it end any time soon

There's no decent reason for me to believe otherwise.

BTW, thanks: I did not know that Powell was one of the DADT architects.

I will expect, that after the engagement in Iraq, several 'heroed' homos will "not be asked but they will tell..............about there missions, and will have substantial support from their non-gay comrades. Yet the debate will go on for some time.

Dont Ask Dont Tell, brought to you by bubba clinton.

I wonder where Mary Cheney stands on this issue.

On her head.

Equality for gays in the military, like the spread of democracy, will happen when a welcoming atmosphere is allowed.

I don't think a president can force things, but he or she can definitely remove the barriers.

There is no legal reason any president can't enforce equal treatment for gays just as Truman did for blacks when he signed an executive order in 1948.

The process is ongoing, but at least it got started. And now it's eventual goal is taken for granted if not achieved.

A president can set a moral and ethical tone, as well as frame and shape the discourse. W. is certainly doing the latter and not in a good way.

If he wanted to, he could say very directly, especially with the military success Iraq, we care about FREEDOM and LIBERTY in the US just as we do in Iraq, the freedom and liberty of all Americans, whose tax dollars are paying for the military, and we will NOT HAVE ANY DISCRIMINATION OF ANY SORT in our armed forces. Period. No wishy washy bullcrap, etc., but make it clear and clean. Anyone who can't get with that program will have to find a new job.

No racism, no ethnic behavior, no sexism, no religious discrimination, no homophobic behavior, NONE OF IT!

Given the tremendous success of the U.S. military in the recent Iraqi campaign (pause to allow the usual suspects to screech that the campaign was not a success because etc. etc. etc.) ...

Given the success of the operation, with the U.S. military showing what an extraordinarily well-trained group they are ... and given that there are no "cannon fodder" positions anymore as even the infantry is a highly skilled, extraordinarily well-trained fighting force ... I do not see how the "don't ask don't tell" policy can survive.

It was ridiculous when, a few months ago, Rep. Charles Rangel floated the idea of bringing back the draft, because the 21st Century American military undergoes the type of detailed, expensive training that cannot be wasted on a conscript (even if there were time). Likewise, after a soldier or sailor or marine has undergone this expensive and time-consuming training, we cannot afford to lose our best merely to enforce an out-dated policy based on prejudice and misunderstanding.

The policy against gays in the military has to go not only because it is morally wrong, but because it is a tremendous waste of our defense assets.

Gay-based military discharges (no snickers please) are down in the Bush administration for a number of reasons, not all of which reflect positively on the current administration. It's time that this policy was ended. And, coming off the military victories in Afghanistan then Iraq, the timing never will be more perfect.

Former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark says it's time for the ban on gays in the military to be lifted, according to 365gay.com. The retired four star general told NBC's Meet The Press that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" doesn't work, and he would "absolutely" look at changing the policy. "Essentially, we've got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, we always have had, always will."

Calling the ban "an issue that the leaders in the armed forces are going to have to work with and resolve," Clark pointed out that many of our NATO allies have abandoned their previous policies of discrimination. Openly gay troops from allied nations "already are" serving together in joint exercises with the U.S., he said. "And they served together in Kosovo and in Bosnia and so forth. And I think that... we should welcome people that want to serve."

Clark is reportedly considering a bid for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

Clarke has long held a "European" perspective on the issue of gays in the military hasn't he? I would want to know more about his opinion on other issues before considering him for president but I suspect he'd make a good one.

He would certainly become the "most attractive" candidate hands-down from a purely prurient standpoint IMO. But consider he also comes with his devoted detractors. Though the Clinton association inspires much of it, it could hurt.

I saw the interview Sunday. I've heard great things about him, have a good friend in the Army that worked directly for him in the Bosnia conflict and has nothing but very high praise for him and yes the guy is gay. Clarke knew about it and there was never any trouble at all.
I agree Id like to hear more of his other views but hes defitnly worth listening to.

Gen Wesley Clark is a very viable candidate for the presidency should he announce. and yes. The fact that a man of his rank and posting is speaking out about getting rid of the ban is a terrific shot in the arm for us.

I met him personally not long ago. Truth be told, he is not as attractive in person as he comes across onscreen. Don't get me wrong. I think he's still handsome. But he's better on-air than in person. Sort of the opposite of John Kerry who is so magnetic in person but on air comes across like a piece of driftwood.

I still think Howard Dean gets my cutie award.

CITT
Regarding your comment
"It was ridiculous when, a few months ago, Rep. Charles Rangel floated the idea of bringing back the draft"
Rangels point was how far too many people on the hill that vote for the war had no children about to be put in harms way. I think you are correct however about the set back this move would present- outside of being in a general war, such as WWII.
Also I want to remind everybody that Clinton did propose an end to the ban. This was shot down by Sam Nunn ( from Ga) A group of us confronted Mr. Nunn, without any success. He was not an anti-gay man. He just bought the line we would disrupt the armed services...
Last point. Please recall the black soldiers who fought and died in WWII, they came home to a nation that would not let them sit with white folks let alone attend school with whites...

On the subject of black soldiers in the post WWII era ...

If you ever have the opportunity to visit the Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery, Alabama (a wonderful Maya Lin design), outside the Southern Poverty Law Center, GO. The memorial lists the names of victims of civil rights-related terrorism (which is what was happening in the South) and a brief synopsis of how they were killed. It is absolutely striking how many of the dead were (black) U.S. soldiers based in the South who were killed by (white) terrorists/white supremacists while doing nothing more than driving on the roads of the American South in the 1950s and early 1960s. It is obvious that had these soldiers been killed like that on foreign soil, the U.S. government never would have tolerated such a body count. Yet because it was Americans killing American soldiers on American soil, somehow it was deemed more tolerable.

An even worse indignity.

Its beyond time for this stupid discriminatory policy to end. My biggest disappointment during the Clinton years, was that he backed down, or dropped the ball here. The only other Clinton disappoinment was no revision of our messed up health care system, but thats in another thread. Its so sad that the United States is years behind other nations, in many of its policies, and especially this one. In Israel, Canada and The Netherlands, to name a few, you can be out and in the military. Thanks to the holy rollers, or right wing and all their power here in the U.S. we have had to put up with this --it!! :mad:

CITT,
Yea, my family saw first hand what it was like in the early 60's in the deep south. Was not pretty.
I can only hope some day sone people will look back at DADT with the same sense of disbelief.

I'm cautiously optimistic. Involuntary discharges under this policy have decreased from the Clinton years. As I stated earlier in the thread, with the increased professionalism of America's very highly trained soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines -- as was clearly and undeniably evident to all the world in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts -- the attitude is definitely emerging that we cannot afford to lose any of these thoroughly (and expensively) trained professionals. Soldiers are not cannon fodder anymore.

And that is how, I think, the change in policy can be sold to all but the most troglodyte right wingers. It's not a "gay rights" issue per se. It's about having the best trained, most professional military the world has ever seen, and it's about how maintaining that status -- and not throwing away valuable training time and expense -- is much more important than blind obedience to some outdated irrational practice based on pure prejudice.

Each soldier, each sailor, each airman, and each marine are way too important.

Even more importantly, if my own anecdotal evidence is any example, the rate of military service among LGB people is far higher than the rate for the general population. It makes absolutely no sense to exclude people who 1) want to serve, 2) have demonstrated they are able to serve (there has never been any evidence to back up the claim that open gays would reduce military effectiveness) and 3) are far less likely to have immediate family ties that would prevent them from servign overseas.

Speaking of troglodytes, after nine gay linguists were discharged from the Defense Language Institute last fall, the reactionary Center for Military Readiness ranted that they should never have been admitted in the first place. "For many months, they occupied spaces that could have been offered to eligible [i.e. heterosexual] trainees..." The CMR solution is to eliminate DADT, completely ban any and all homos, reinstate the policy of asking inductees if they're queer, and recruit only "qualified [i.e. heterosexual] patriotic [heterosexual] young people who want to fight terrorism."

With some trogs, you just can't win.

[bracketed comments mine]

hopefully this terrible policy will change. i would like to thank all of you for your kind words about the military in general and all the gays in the military. I'm sure I can speak for us all and the kind words are appreciated.

Gen. Wesley Clark's comments are some of the most encouraging I've heard in years....I'm not sure about how legitimate his chances are at running for the Presidency (at least in 2004 anyway) but it sounds like he has a great deal of influence and respect among the military brass so that is definitely a great sign.

Hang in there, azaf, along with all your hard working peers....your loyalty and courage will pay off.

az, I was in your position many years ago as a Navy officer. The closet is a tough place to be when you're already challenged to the max with your job. Keep fighting the good fight.

And didn't the military hire some of those already trained linguists back as civilian contractors - showing that they need the expertise and the man(woman)power, but just don't want gays to wear a uniform.

Well said, CITT....with the exception of the outdated views expressed by an ultra-right wing (yet still highly vocal) minority (including Sen Nunn and a number of his "old school" southern cronies) the future of DADT appears to be in serious jeopardy and IMHO there is cause for optimism that following next year's election it will finally be repealed.

As referenced in the SLDN column that twin58 linked earlier in this thread, "Of the nine declared democratic presidential candidates, eight have voiced support for repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'" (and I don't believe that list includes Gen. Clark, who has not officially declared his candidacy but becomes more impressive every time I hear him speak).

In another thread, bobby78751 posted

President Clinton is speaking out against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". It's about damn time!
The Story on SLDN site

It's a little late for Clinton to be speaking out against this NOW if you ask me....if he feels so strongly about repealing this poicy, why didn't he voice his displeasure about it when he was still in office? :confused:

Oh well, as long as Dean, Clark and the leading Democrats are firm in their stance on putting an end to this travesty at THIS point in their campaign maybe there's hope yet.

I would ask when W was gonna speak out against it but there's a better chance of hell freezing over first. frown

[ October 08, 2003, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: m1 ]

Interesting story in this week's Washington Blade (see link to story below) detailing a gay military service member (who they refer to as "Private Ryan" in order to protect his identity), who while on a six-month deployment to Iraq and Kuwait came out to his military peers and stated that "acknowledging he is gay had no adverse impact upon unit cohesion or morale"....moreover, the story goes on to describe how "Ryan" has formed a secret gay group, "the Gay & Lesbian Service Members for Equality, a group of 15 anonymous, actively serving members of the United States armed forces who seek to lift the gay ban"....also of interest was the quotes from Jeff Cleghorn, a retired Army major who is urging more gay veterans to speak out in defense of gay soldiers and disparagingly of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" since, in his words, "there are over one million gay veterans and we, unlike current gay soldiers, can safely talk."

Anonymous Soldiers Launch Gay Military Group