|
Senate votes to end ban on openly gay troops
17 years after it should have been done but, as the saying goes, better late than never.
Um, I class this in the 'not thinking things through' category.
Personally, I have no objection to serving with gays.
However: DADT was a POLICY passed to order the commanders to ignore the UCMJ. The laws covering homosexuality in the UCMJ were not changed. With the removal of DADT, it's now back to the old days of being a *crime* to be gay in the military. That lack of change to the UCMJ is why those who told or were discovered were dishonorably discharged.
Smartest move would have been to keep the policy until the UCMJ could be changed.
You can guess from that my opinion of the intelligence level of congress...though I'd love to be the one being paid to cast all those feeble-mind spells.
|
Spiral - Feeblemind is a mind affecting spell, congressmen are immune.
Otherwise your assessment is pretty much my understanding also. Maybe the idea is to repeal DADT to open the door for a court case? I haven't really heard what the master plan is here. Repealing DADT by itself isn't really going to help.
I feel like I'm missing something here.
|
Ironically, you cared enough to post about it.
You're right. I had no business posting my apathy on the subject.
But, point noted. Some people don't care about equality, human justice, etc.
You're implication is incorrect because you are attempting to paint with too broad a brush. However, you're welcome to your opinion on those caught in the social/political middle of the debate between two extremes.
It's not just a lifestyle choice. Current research indicates that people are born gay. So, gay people are punished by society because of features they were born with. The similarities between treating gays as second class citizens and treating blacks as second class citizens based on features they were born with is striking.I really find it hard to care about this at all.I used to feel similarly, having a few gay friends changes your perspective in a hurry. It's hard to see someone you know and care about punished by society because they made a lifestyle choice which hurts no one.
True fact, terrible analogy. They are both forms of discrimination, and both based on things a person can't change.
But the gay rights movement and race rights movements are very different kettles of fish. Also comparing them makes their implication that someone who doesn't support gay rights is also a racist.
I'm not saying either is more or less persecuted, just that I don't find that a productive analogy.
I am incredibly happy that legislature is being changed, though by the sounds of it its not been done well from a legal point of view. And slowly but surely homosexual people are becoming more accepted and understood. That's great, but it will be a slow process.
But, point noted. Some people don't care about equality, human justice, etc.You're implication is incorrect because you are attempting to paint with too broad a brush. However, you're welcome to your opinion on those caught in the social/political middle of the debate between two extremes.
I don't know what a middle ground entails here. Other than just being apathetic towards gay rights. And that's not really a middle ground, that's simply not taking to the ground at all.
I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I genuinely interested. Other than a person believes gay people are equal to everyone else and should be afforded the same rights, or a person believes their different and should be subject to different laws, etc. (I'm not saying the second means you want to round people up and gas them, just that you don't believe that other than sexual orientation gay people are the same as other people).
It doesn’t mean s%%& until the commanding field officers treat gays as equal to straight soldiers. That ain't gonna happen until the president orders the military to integrate gays and then it would still be about 20 to 30 years before gays are accepted as equals.
|
My understanding is that they voted to allow the military to implement a plan of action that would no longer necessitate the discharge of homosexuals--completely left to the military. It's been projected to take at least a year.
As for the UCMJ, I don't really see the problem. As has already been pointed point, you'd have to make a lot of presumptions about the physical nature of a relationship between any two individuals. That is, unless they start installing cameras in all our service members' bedrooms.
What I find curious, is that some folks see the term "serve openly" and think that gays and lesbians are suddenly going to start flaunting their sexuality--like it's no longer a social stigma. I wonder if they also think that hazing no longer happens in the military...
My understanding is that they voted to allow the military to implement a plan of action that would no longer necessitate the discharge of homosexuals--completely left to the military. It's been projected to take at least a year.
As for the UCMJ, I don't really see the problem. As has already been pointed point, you'd have to make a lot of presumptions about the physical nature of a relationship between any two individuals. That is, unless they start installing cameras in all our service members' bedrooms.
What I find curious, is that some folks see the term "serve openly" and think that gays and lesbians are suddenly going to start flaunting their sexuality--like it's no longer a social stigma. I wonder if they also think that hazing no longer happens in the military...
I agree, The law was put in place as much to protect gay soldiers as it was to maintain order with in the military, as 17 year ago the world was not ready for open gay soldiers and life would have been very bad for them, I think that the world is ready now. I don't think that the law was "Evil" just outdated. Not picking a fight just telling what I think.
I agree, The law was put in place as much to protect gay soldiers as it was to maintain order with in the military, as 17 year ago the world was not ready for open gay soldiers and life would have been very bad for them, I think that the world is ready now. I don't think that the law was "Evil" just outdated. Not picking a fight just telling what I think.My understanding is that they voted to allow the military to implement a plan of action that would no longer necessitate the discharge of homosexuals--completely left to the military. It's been projected to take at least a year.
As for the UCMJ, I don't really see the problem. As has already been pointed point, you'd have to make a lot of presumptions about the physical nature of a relationship between any two individuals. That is, unless they start installing cameras in all our service members' bedrooms.
What I find curious, is that some folks see the term "serve openly" and think that gays and lesbians are suddenly going to start flaunting their sexuality--like it's no longer a social stigma. I wonder if they also think that hazing no longer happens in the military...
[emphasis mine]
Judging by a lot of the comments to the article in the OP, I'm not so optimistic.I'm not a violent guy, but some of the stupidity displayed and downright hateful comments makes me want to start punching people.
Not very productive, I know, but MUST.STOP.THE.STUPID!
I think that's a biased sampling. It's always been the case that people who dislike something are going to be more vocal than people who like it. There are a whole lot of people in favor of openly gay people in the military, they just aren't speaking out.
That's why gay rights have lagged behind, by several decades if not more, rights of other minorities.
If you want to start punching stupid, that's the people you should be aiming at.
I know, and I'm also heartened by the fact that the majority of service people were actually in favor of repealing DADT. These are, after all, the very people openly gay service members have to work with on a daily basis.
Now, if only the number of sexual assaults and rapes in the armed forces could be dealt with next...
It doesn’t mean s@&~ until the commanding field officers treat gays as equal to straight soldiers. That ain't gonna happen until the president orders the military to integrate gays and then it would still be about 20 to 30 years before gays are accepted as equals.
Blacks were first intergrated into the military in 1948. During that time, there were not real incidents. There were not riots or reduction in performance (as many predicted). It was not until the 1960's, when the equal rights movement was in swing, that you saw civilian tensions spill over into the military.
As a former soldier, and based on comments by other soldiers I know, I can honestly say this will largely be a non-issue. The mission comes first, and despite what many think, we are trained to be professionals.
I agree, The law was put in place as much to protect gay soldiers as it was to maintain order with in the military, as 17 year ago the world was not ready for open gay soldiers and life would have been very bad for them, I think that the world is ready now. I don't think that the law was "Evil" just outdated. Not picking a fight just telling what I think.[emphasis mine]
Judging by a lot of the comments to the article in the OP, I'm not so optimistic.
I'm not a violent guy, but some of the stupidity displayed and downright hateful comments makes me want to start punching people.
Not very productive, I know, but MUST.STOP.THE.STUPID!
In fairness, DODT was a compromise to allow gays to serve while not having to force the issue with the military brass (whose upper levels were largely against it at the time). It also allowed Congress to look like they were making a big change in the military.
|
|
Just to put things in perspective, here in Canada while you guys were debating DADT, the canadian military released a statement asking those canadian service members going through gender reassignment, should start wearing the clothing and uniform of their new gender so as to ease their coworkers into the transition. Canada seems to not care about little differences like sexuality.
|
|
It's not just a lifestyle choice. Current research indicates that people are born gay. So, gay people are punished by society because of features they were born with. The similarities between treating gays as second class citizens and treating blacks as second class citizens based on features they were born with is striking.I really find it hard to care about this at all.I used to feel similarly, having a few gay friends changes your perspective in a hurry. It's hard to see someone you know and care about punished by society because they made a lifestyle choice which hurts no one.
See this is where I say I could care less. It just doesn't matter to me why they are gay. The fact is they are and there isn't any real reason they should be punished for this.
Here's an article that digs a little deeper into what the coming months will bring and what's still ahead:
LGBT Groups Warn Gay Servicemembers: Don't Come Out, Re-enlist Quite Yet
Yes, I know it's a HuffPo article, but it's actually factual and really without any bias.
It doesn’t mean s~%* until the commanding field officers treat gays as equal to straight soldiers. That ain't gonna happen until the president orders the military to integrate gays and then it would still be about 20 to 30 years before gays are accepted as equals.
This is an attempt start that long process.
Funny; I'm not gay, and I'm not in the military, but I care. Call me crazy, but I believe that intolerance is evil -- even when it doesn't personally affect me.
this... I totally totally agree. I don't care to analyze them or whatever, I just think people deserve respect.
BTW, that wasn't directed specifically at you...there was some chatter up thread about people not caring. Sorry if it came across that way.
Just to put things in perspective, here in Canada while you guys were debating DADT, the canadian military released a statement asking those canadian service members going through gender reassignment, should start wearing the clothing and uniform of their new gender so as to ease their coworkers into the transition. Canada seems to not care about little differences like sexuality.
Good old Canada! I can't really say much, Ireland is not exactly super friendly on stuff like this in legislature either.
....I just think people deserve respect.Clearly, sir, you have never met Indianapolis Colts fans! :)
Fixed it for you. ;-)
|
|
Just to put things in perspective, here in Canada while you guys were debating DADT, the canadian military released a statement asking those canadian service members going through gender reassignment, should start wearing the clothing and uniform of their new gender so as to ease their coworkers into the transition. Canada seems to not care about little differences like sexuality.Good old Canada! I can't really say much, Ireland is not exactly super friendly on stuff like this in legislature either.
I still don't get why people were so up in arms about the subject of DADT. Who cares what someone is, as long as they want to serve their country let them. People are people stop sub categorizing them.
I still don't get why people were so up in arms about the subject of DADT. Who cares what someone is, as long as they want to serve their country let them. People are people stop sub categorizing them.Just to put things in perspective, here in Canada while you guys were debating DADT, the canadian military released a statement asking those canadian service members going through gender reassignment, should start wearing the clothing and uniform of their new gender so as to ease their coworkers into the transition. Canada seems to not care about little differences like sexuality.Good old Canada! I can't really say much, Ireland is not exactly super friendly on stuff like this in legislature either.
I couldn't agree more.
The military has come out as overwhelmingly supportive of gays in the military. In such an environment, I think there will be many CFOs who will treat gays as equals.
"The Military" isn't a monolithic block, though, as much as they'd like you to think they are.
Most rank-and-file people I know don't have a problem with gay soldiers. However, there are a number of entrenched Evangelical upper-grade officers who take Biblical mandates more seriously than military ones -- and those people will never treat gays as equals.
The military has come out as overwhelmingly supportive of gays in the military. In such an environment, I think there will be many CFOs who will treat gays as equals."The Military" isn't a monolithic block, though, as much as they'd like you to think they are.
Most rank-and-file people I know don't have a problem with gay soldiers. However, there are a number of entrenched Evangelical upper-grade officers who take Biblical mandates more seriously than military ones -- and those people will never treat gays as equals.
I will agree with you Kirth and you make a very valid point but lets look at the bright side shall we. The times are a changeing for the better and the entrenched evangelicals will retire or die off.
Either way as a gay former service member this to me is a very good thing. It may have appeared slow and to some of the more rabid gay rights groups it was but the fact that the military of all ranks was polled and their voice heard was something I think that will help stop alot of the reactionary violence. Naturally there will be some but that can't be helped but the big diffrence now is that homosexual service members don't have to be quit as afraid to stand up for their rights.
Profound change takes time.
This is a good change, and a serious step in the right direction. My major concern is with the fighting forces, special ops, recon, Tac P, the Marines. Saying that there won't be any violence or discrimination from those groups would be short-sighted.
There are a LARGE number of highly conservative, religious folks in charge in the Air Force. Just last week I sat throught a briefing where my Base Commander said, more or less, that this wouldn't happen and that being gay is wrong. I'm glad there's a little egg on his face now.
Really glad that congress did....something! And something good, too.
I am ashamed that the "party of tolerance" waited until they got their heads kicked in in the midterm elections and passed this when there was zero political bravery required, during a lame duck session.
Don't forget that some people in Congress (e.g. McCain) were pushing for studies on the effects of doing it to be done first. Those weren't done in January 2009.
I am happy this was passed.
I am ashamed that the "party of tolerance" waited until they got their heads kicked in in the midterm elections and passed this when there was zero political bravery required, during a lame duck session.
This should have been done January '09.
Cowards.
It isn't widely circulated, but the original healthcare bill included a provision to provide spine transplants for the majority of Democrats in Congress. Unfortunately, that was struck out in early negotiations. :)
|
|
I am ashamed that the "party of tolerance" waited until they got their heads kicked in in the midterm elections and passed this when there was zero political bravery required, during a lame duck session.
Don't forget that some people in Congress (e.g. McCain) were pushing for studies on the effects of doing it to be done first. Those weren't done in January 2009.
I don't care what McCain called for. No one called for studies over what Obamacare would do, and they didn't even give anyone time to read it, so what you just said is completely 100% irrelevant to my opinion.
|
|
It isn't widely circulated, but the original healthcare bill included a provision to provide spine transplants for the majority of Democrats in Congress. Unfortunately, that was struck out in early negotiations. :)I am happy this was passed.
I am ashamed that the "party of tolerance" waited until they got their heads kicked in in the midterm elections and passed this when there was zero political bravery required, during a lame duck session.
This should have been done January '09.
Cowards.
I figured a spinectomy was a standard prereq for the "politician" "prestige" class. Along with ten ranks in "blather" and "bluff" (
so they can lie with a straight face".
I am happy this was passed.
I am ashamed that the "party of tolerance" waited until they got their heads kicked in in the midterm elections and passed this when there was zero political bravery required, during a lame duck session.
This should have been done January '09.
Cowards.
Damn straight. This administration's been full of antigay bigot eruptions and hasty attempts to look good by doing something easy after the fact.
No one called for studies over what Obamacare would do, and they didn't even give anyone time to read it, so what you just said is completely 100% irrelevant to my opinion.
Now we're getting completely offtopic, but it was debated for over a year and yes, Congressional Budget Office analysis (among other studies) were done.
I'm sorry you're willfully ignoring facts that contradict the conclusion you'd like to draw, but, there it is.
|
|
Damn straight. This administration's been full of antigay bigot eruptions and hasty attempts to look good by doing something easy after the fact.I am happy this was passed.
I am ashamed that the "party of tolerance" waited until they got their heads kicked in in the midterm elections and passed this when there was zero political bravery required, during a lame duck session.
This should have been done January '09.
Cowards.
Given the majority enjoyed for the last two years, gay marriage should have been addressed as well.
Again. Cowards.
Again. Cowards.
Yup. Lotta "buyer's remorse" going around this holiday -- and not over presents for the kids.
|
|
Again. Cowards.Yup. Lotta "buyer's remorse" going around this holiday -- and not over presents for the kids.
No remorse here. I don't "buy" Democratic or Republican. I already know they're worthless, hypocritical and owned by something other than the voter.
I leave the thinking that either of those sides is better to lesser minds.