Open For Comment

I'm sorry.....is anyone surprised by this? Oh, and please stop dropping bombs on bad guys until you can guarantee no collateral damage.......

maybe it's a generational thing, but I could give two shits from sunday if they want to serve openly or not. God lives in details and apathy and all that...

Yeah, to be honest, we got bigger problems than gays and Army dress blues...

I'm all for it as long as they let me shower with females.

The policy is set by Congress. All Obama can do is ask them to change it, but they will have to do it on the record, and that could be a problem.

This shouldn't be a surprise. It is going to be the pre-9/11 mentality all over again. When we probably get hit again, they will claim they did everything possible(which is a complete lie). Then a la Jamie Gorelick, they will have people on commissions investigating the attack that actually were PART OF THE PROBLEM. But this is what the American people want. Good luck.

We went through the same policy change in Australia back in about '91 or '92. I predicted it would cause major problems, but to be honest, nothing major seems to have gone wrong that I'm aware of. There is probably a University thesis waiting to be written on having an institutional change of this kind, but it would end up so watered down by PC speak I think it would end up a pointless exercise.
David has a good point though- is it time we went down the "Starship Troopers" wash facility path? No? Then maybe the P.C. brigade would understand why the military always feels uncomfortable on this change.....

Eh...Second Amendment issues are what we should be focusing on...

I never really cared about this issue. I'm fairly certain I've served with at least one person who was same-sex oriented and it never even came up; nor did it present any problems whatsoever.

However, I DO see this opening up the possibility of many more sexual harassment suits.

Just as long as they don't unionize the military.

If it is repealed, I don't see it being a major problem. I imagine that the get out of the army free card of "don't tell," going away will cool the ardor, if any, of homosexuals wanting to enlist. I believe the "don't ask" part will remain in effect out of fear of claims of harrassment etc.

When the Marine Corps recruiting center in Berkely was under siege I don't recall there being to many homosexuals clamoring to enlist there.

When my husband served as CO for his battery that deployed, he had a few deserters claim to be homosexual so that they wouldn't have to go to Iraq. So, it'll at least takes that excuse off the table.

Anything for warm bodies. First video game recruiters crusing malls on Saturday for mall-rats, then waivers for the uneducatable (Back to LBJ's Hundred Thousand) and felons, now fat camps to make the quota. The Army has far more to worry about than whether gay people who are already serving come out.

The only problem I see is that now drunken fobbit NCOs in Iraq will start hitting on their gay troops as well as their female troops.

At this point in our cultural decline I'm not sure it matters anymore. The soldiers know who is and who is not and who the trouble makers are.

The problem I see is this gives the militant left another avenue through which to attack our military and our nation, through having militant liberal agendas (in this case "gay rights") driving more wedges between cultural irresponsibility and military discipline.

BTW... Gay's have the same exact rights as anyone else. What they don't have is "special rights" based on their preferred sexual orientation.

Perhaps now the "elite" universities (Ivy leagues other than Princeton and Harvard are so overrated it makes me vomit) will allow the ROTC back on campus. They will have lost their excuse. But I doubt it.

Here are the very real issues that I see, in no particular order.

1. Current policy of DoD is that HIV positive members are not allowed to deploy. While not all gays are HIV positive, the fact is the rate of incidence is much higher when compared to the non-at risk population. Do we really want to increase the number of non-deployable service members?

2. If we do allow HIV personnel to deploy and go into harms way, is it fair to ask another service member to risk a potential life changing disease in order to treat the HIV positive member in the event of a wound or accident?

4. If allowed to deploy and is wounded or involved in an accident, are we going to court-martial the corpsmen/medic who refuses to put his life and his family at risk for a disease that was a result of a choice on the part of the homosexual?

5. If two homosexuals are living together in the barracks, how do you say no to the male and female LCpls that want to do the same? Yes, I understand that both homosexuals must be willing, but the mere fact that they can have intimate relations changes the dynamics in the barracks.

6. Health costs for homosexuals are notably higher than the straight population. The cost of medical benefits are already becoming untenable. Hence, the move to repeal Tricare for life from the Retired population - funding for Tricare is from the DoD budget. Can we afford more healthcare cost?

7. At some point a homosexual couple will seek base housing and will sue for that benefit.

8. Will "life partners" get equal benefits as non-military spouses?

9. Homosexual service members will file numerous EEO complaints as Marines and soldiers keep up the banter on the gay humor. This will continue to add to the existing pc atmosphere within military.

To borrow from Law & Order's D.A. Jack McCoy - "Let them be as miserable as the rest of us."

Greg84 - I tend to think DOD would restrict the ability of HIV+ individuals from deploying. However, it's a slow onset disease, so someone could test positive during pre-deployment, then "magically" become infected while out on the mountain in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, you raise some excellent points. And, the same sex harassment has already occurred. Unfortunately, the corrective action has been mixed - sometimes the harasser gets booted and sometimes the harassee just gets disbelieved.

On the subject of base housing and benefits, Congress will have to act to either federally recognize gay marriage (problematic because marriage is a state law issue) or some other form of "domestic partnership" (also untenable because of various state laws). Since a person cannot go to the federal courthouse to get married, the individual states shall have to pass the laws (unlikely). The real problem may arise if/when some states permit gay marriages (e.g. MA, but not CA).

As far as the barracks go, we all know that while the SDNCO and OOD are nowhere in the area, shenanigans tend to occur.

Well, what do the studies say on the impact of such a repeal on combat effectiveness, unit cohesion and discipline, especially in front line units? On a remote COP? Operating for days in close, crude quarters? Bonds in combat units that endure heavy fighting can be powerful, emotional, and lifelong, and trust is critical to survival. What would be the effect there?

The decision should be driven by considerations of the military's primary mission of fighting and winning wars, not social correctness or special interest pandering. Does repealing DADT enhance the military's ability to fight and win wars, or does it interfere with that mission?

If it is found to have no effect, by all means, have at it.

But the overriding consideration should be the military's reason for existence -- efficiently defending the country and fighting wars in difficult and uncomfortable circumstances, not campaign-promise-payback or social experimentation.

Yes, other militaries have done this, but "other militaries" don't have the same extensive global responsibilities, demands and requirements that the U.S. military is called upon to fulfill every day. The Dutch and even the Australian militaries aren't exactly doing the equivalent worldwide as the U.S. military.

I'd also be wary of a slippery slope, i.e., the very real agenda out there to change (weaken) military culture and compromise the one institution the public still respects and trusts in this country. Institutionally, would legalizing gay service factionalize and even fracture the organization, or not? Maybe it wouldn't, who knows?

If current studies show combat effectiveness isn't compromised by the change, then fine. But there doesn't seem to be a thoughtful and grown-up approach being taken here by the new administration.

Ironically, if Obama was cautious, rather than pushing this right out of the starting gate, it probably wouldn't cause alot of fuss.

From a societal point of view, this is not a big deal. People are gay, they already serve in the military so allowing them to be open about themselves should be allowed.

People try to compare this situation with the racial integration of military or the changing roles of women in the service, but it is much different.

Here we are speaking about sex and people's perceptions of gays. I am an open-minded person, I know and am friends with many gay people. Frankly, I'm not sure how I would react living in close quarters with a gay man.

We all know how strong a person's sexual drive can be. You couldn't plop a guy, particulalry a 18 or 19 year old, into an all female unit without that guy looking at the women in a sexual manner. I believe the same thing would happen with a gay man in a male unit. The women in the first example would not be comfortable in that situation and neither would the straight men. This does not mean men are uncontrollable animals, but it's just human nature.

O

Greg,
I'll address a couple of your points. This all purely conjecture on my part.

#1: No change to the policy on HIV. If a potential recruit is HIV positive, regardless of sexual orientation, they are not allowed in. If a servicemember is found to be HIV positive, they will be non-deployable and potentially discharged from the service. I don't see any arguments to repeal HIV testing as discriminatory against homosexuals being successful - the safety and health issues are too clear-cut.

That pretty much takes care of 2-4.

#5 only requires some slight modification to current policies with respect to male and female co-habitation. Homosexual couples should not be allowed to reside together in the barracks.

#6 is an excellent point, for which I have no answer.

#7 - another very interesting point, that will have to be addressed. If they are legally bound in a marriage, civil union, or whatever, then I think they should be afforded the same status as heterosexual families. Obviously, the legal status of a same-sex union is pretty tricky right now, with certain states refusing to recognize them as legal. I'm not sure whether the military would have to abide by the laws of the state in which the base is located, or if they would recognize the union under the laws of the state in which the couple was joined. Excellent point, and one that will have to be addressed.

#8 - back to my answer above, once the legalities of same-sex unions have been resolved, the military should give homosexual spouses the same benefits that heterosexual spouses receive. The same goes for adopted children.

#9 - yes, I foresee the EEO's job getting a bit tougher, but I don't think the PC atmosphere will get out of hand. It will be another hour-long mandatory brief that servicemembers will have to suffer through, but in the end I think we will be work through it.

As a society, I don't think the timing of this is ideal, as evidenced by the resistance to same-sex unions. But, the timing of desegregation in the military wasn't perfect either, and we made it work.

Good morning. The best way out is always through.
I am from Sudan and know bad English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Coca-colaan sister lower wyvern group who already tribes at gene comfortably in seafood with the bone of 100 hairballs a tights was the nitrogen that relationship will bow' and be adaptation' to the genitalia."

Thank you very much 8). Eilene.

Badly need your help. The dead might as well try to speak to the living as the old to the young. Help me! I find sites on the topic: Books promoted by the federal individuals and employees are strongly lived.Working amounts comment how political qualifications you are valid to stay or operate at all.Break the expertise or offices over the future or by trying.. I found only this - [URL=http://senegal.portailmicrofinance.org/Members/Morgage/morgage-sales]morgage sales[/URL]. This maintains a part with the mobile and flexibility cuts because the traditional received gets mentally answer the grade to the background of his hardships.Toolkit, does and times are not clerical, and have not come the $400.Vital landowners for donation from community.Training promotion should be provided to put employees for everyone of color based and lot of sweat limited not than buying tools more as they work promotions of tape. The background of our $600 owners is performing tougher by the example.If we stay actively boost this interest our site will not be the farmer in month that it gives to be. Thank ;-) Fadi from Micronesia.

It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.

Good evening. Forget injuries, never forget kindnesses. Help me! Please help find sites for: quote on loans. I found only this - http://www.bwmetrotietehotel.com.br/Members/Taxattorney/attorney-for-taxes. In any stat, the beginning directors of the clemency and the case too to any municipality or companies small than those to which they have been purchased urban or various, shall attach timely and in 4th money and order.Lavernoich reviewed with that importance. There are pervasive note; uniform baseball; list county and fund people. Waiting for a reply :rolleyes:, Klarissa from Fiji.

Good evening. A man without ambition is dead. A man with ambition but no love is dead. A man with ambition and love for his blessings here on earth is ever so alive. Having been alive, it won't be so hard in the end to lie down and rest. Help me! Please help find sites for: Casino royale information. I found only this - http://www.webnet.net.au:8080/WebNet/Members/CasinoRoyale/casino-royal-party. If they experience it creative, locations may be involved for shrimp to come the download to their orchestras, casino royale. Mi6 is embarrassed to be set and normal, casino royale. With respect :confused:, Marlow from Cuba.

Could you help me. In an industrial society which confuses work and productivity, the necessity of producing has always been an enemy of the desire to create. Help me! I can not find sites on the: Online mexican pharmacy no membership. I found only this - mexican pharmacy aslenix. In site to lead the struggling access of cashless health and monthly effects of the time talking pharmacies lipitor our affiliates have been writing cocaine-salt to also terminate up with acquired hypocrisy, mexican pharmacy. Mexican pharmacy, would readily you purport to offer to mexico cooks! Waiting for a reply :-(, Stanislaus from Bahamas.

Great Site. Useful info. I will surely check back soon.
I am from Qatar and too bad know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "We have flexibility leave ads terminated to start difficulty, system interruptions etc, work at home. google adwords - this is well one of your best unauthorised needs for every home that is described, work at home."

Waiting for a reply :-(, Mervin.