DADT repealed

[wlawr005]

While right now, this is true, this is leading towards federal recognition of homosexual marriage. If gays are allowed to serve and can get married in some states (for example Connecticut) and can then be stationed in RI (which recognizes gay marriages from other states) then how does BAH and hospital visitation rights work?

The DOMA specifically prohibits the federal gov't from recognizing gay marriage, but now that gays are allowed to openly serve, the issue then becomes, why can't gay military members get married?

IMO this is a means to get DOMA repealed. If prohibiting gays from serving is wrong, then why can't they get married?
DADT was a federal law that prohibited gays from openly serving, the repercussions will now be challenges to DOMA.

+1...I completely agree that this is a political manuever designed to become a thorn in the side of anti-marriage legislature. "Homosexuals can die for our country, but they can't get married?"

While I'm all for John and Randy being able to get married if they want, I'm not a big fan of using the military as a pawn in that fight. Especially right now, all things considered.

 

[Pugs]

But enlighten me, did it address berthing issues? I'm just thinking if it did then a majority of people feel it won't be a problem. You all do bring up many great points on both sides of the issue though. I'm just curious if they surveyed everyone on berthing.

The military is not run on polls or as a democracy it's run on decisions made by experience and, when effective, by the people who have said experience. In other words, a poll by the Enquiring Sailor has no weight in this. It's a decision that is going to have to stand in perpetuity and will likely never be repealed so another permanent social "experiment" kicks off.

 

[Swanee]

I'm curious WHO they surveyed. I never heard of the survey before the results were published.

I got hit with the survey. So did my wife. It showed up in the mail one day; you went to a website, entered your login and took the thing. Had a lot of questions. I remember one question saying something to the effect of "Would sharing a berthing space effect you, your job... etc" with a bunch of ways to answer.

 

[mmx1]

All well and good until they become a protected class and you start seeing promotion quotas and checks after boards. Happens today for some groups and we see the results in some of the "leaders" we have today.

The recommended implementation plan specifically suggested not including sexuality along other criteria for EO programs as far as tracking, diversity initiatives, and the EO complaint resolution process and that the services continue to not collect data on sexuality.

 

[Pugs]

The recommended implementation plan specifically suggested not including sexuality along other criteria for EO programs as far as tracking, diversity initiatives, and the EO complaint resolution process and that the services continue to not collect data on sexuality.

BUPERS has never met a stat they didn't want to track and if they don't then the politicians will ensure they do.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Gay, Lesbian, Bi (if also attracted to opposite sex), Homosexual. I believe that's it. Anything else... Fag, Faerie, Pixie, Homo, etc, etc. They're slurs. Completely inappropriate in civilised discourse.

So you're saying I shouldn't use terms like rump ranger, fudge packer, butt pirate, ass vandal, star chaser, blender wrists, anal assassin, anal ninja, cock jock, doo-doo monkey......

BTW, Brits smoke fags all the time and we have FAGs flying F-18s.

 

[mmx1]

Well if it's not going to be an EO category nothing prevents us from saying those things, does it? I'm seriously wondering. I guarantee you the first question I'm going to get Monday is "sir, can we still say fag?", followed by "so, can we still play gay chicken"?

Still, in all this seriousness I think we're all missing the opportunity for good humor. Via Andrew Exum:

Though #DADT has been repealed, thousands of gays will still live with the shame and ridicule that comes with serving in the U.S. Air Force.

 

[GreenLantern330]

Remember for every deployed person in Iraq, Afghanistan, or on a boat for that matter, there is some shoe clerk who doesn't deploy, works 9-5, and goes home every night. It's a lot more easy for them to be "comfortable" with it. I would advise you look at the in depth survey results, especially from those currently deployed and on the front line.

Of course there would be a difference between someone deployed and someone who isn't deployed, I totally understand that. What I guess I was trying to get at was how in depth the survey was. From what you answered and some others, I would say the survey really doesn't matter that much and/or didn't survey enough people/didn't go in depth enough. Then again, I haven't seen the results, so I don't know much.

Do you know where I could find the survey results in depth? When I look for it, I just keep finding news articles with the broader picture.

The whole reason I started this thread was to gain a better understanding of how current servicemembers, or at least sailors (or we could even go with naval officers given the nature of this site) feel about the subject. As a civilian beginning the application process, I find it interesting. The only opinions I've heard from were some buddies at the academies and in rotc, and I feel like while they're opinions do mean something, they're probably not as influential as some of the users on this site, who have served or been serving for years.

 

[Swanee]

Well if it's not going to be an EO category nothing prevents us from saying those things, does it? I'm seriously wondering. I guarantee you the first question I'm going to get Monday is "sir, can we still say fag?", followed by "so, can we still play gay chicken"?

Still, in all this seriousness I think we're all missing the opportunity for good humor. Via Andrew Exum:

"Well Lance Corporal, I would probably make sure I knew who I was playing gay chicken with."

 

[Pariel]

See that's where you're WRONG.

There is no federal legislation that exists that puts homosexuals at a disadvantage.

Okay, they can't get married to each other but I can't marry a person of the same-sex either so I lack that right as well.

I don't believe homosexuality isn't a choice. Here's why. I knew a set of identical twins in college. One was gay and one was straight and eventually married(a female). They were both raised in the same household and yet the difference that I found was that they had different sets of friends and influences.

I don't care what you support, but don't go around saying that we have some federal legislation that explicitly puts them at a disadvantage. They made a choice to not marry the way everyone else does. They have that same right as I do.

Since when did the term "government" mean federal? Last time I checked, government started at my town, and included county, state, and federal.

The fact that gays cannot be married does put them at a disadvantage, because regardless of the term of their commitment to each other, they cannot exercise legal rights given to other people simply because they are of opposite gender. It doesn't matter to me if they chose to be gay or were born that way, as the point of of the legal entity of marriage is to provide financial and legal tools to two people who have committed to work together. I don't see why straight couples should have protection not afforded to people who choose to make a different choice. What effect does two gay people getting married have on you, or any straight American?

Also on this little bit about intolerance. I hate when "open-minded" people go around telling people that it's wrong to be intolerant of others. That's their doggone right to be intolerant if they so choose. It's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance. Get over it.

It's absolutely your choice to be intolerant. But at some point you're going to have to make a decision based on it. I don't see you beating this law though, so as I said, I'm expecting you'll either get over it, or get out. I'm betting most of the people who are vociferously opposing this one are going to forget about it in a few years, and probably keep earning their paycheck rather than leaving over the fact that their neighbor is living with someone of the same sex and not kicked out of the service.

Command issues? Sure, but given the ratio of straights to gays in America, I doubt this is going to bring the roof down. Major changes in the way our military functions? I doubt it.

What?

Since DADT is repealed, I can finally tell the world without the Marines telling me to leave.

But seriously there are just some gay guys on my crew team.

 

[helolumpy]

Okay, I'm just curious. I believe there was a survey that went around to servicemembers about the issue before repeal, correct? Since I'm not in the military, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But enlighten me, did it address berthing issues? I'm just thinking if it did then a majority of people feel it won't be a problem. You all do bring up many great points on both sides of the issue though. I'm just curious if they surveyed everyone on berthing.

The whole premise of the survey was after DADT is repealed, what impact would it have upon you to do your job.

There was no question that actually asked if your supported repeal or not (that's a policy question and it's above the paygrade of all us folks in military to decide). That is part of the issue with the survey when you see the numbers from the combat arms soldiers and Marines about their opinions on the matter.
There was no discussion of 'logistics' regarding gays openly serving.

Supposedly DOD has a plan to address billeting and issues like that, but it has not been released so I (and no one I know) has seen what it contains.

I have not heard a date of when that study/plan was supposed to be released.

 

[Clux4]

Until they are assured a warm reception, gays/lesbians are probably still going to remain in the closet. I predict things will still remain the way they are for some years.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Since when did the term "government" mean federal?

The fact that gays cannot be married does put them at a disadvantage, because regardless of the term of their commitment to each other, they cannot exercise legal rights given to other people simply because they are of opposite gender.

It's absolutely your choice to be intolerant. I'm expecting you'll either get over it, or get out.

Command issues? I doubt it.

- disagreeing with someone's lifestyle DOES NOT translate to intolerance, however trying to convince people that they're backwards hillbillies who have been passed up by a new modern and enlightened society does suggest a certain bit of hypocrisy on the part of the accuser.

- You ought to reconsider the things you "expect" and "doubt" so surely. You might be surprised to know that large groups of people in large regions of the country see things differently than those within the academic walls of Boston (ref your bio).

 

[bunk22]

- disagreeing with someone's lifestyle DOES NOT translate to intolerance, however trying to convince people that they're backwards hillbillies who have been passed up by a new modern and enlightened society does suggest a certain bit of hypocrisy on the part of the accuser.

- You ought to reconsider the things you "expect" and "doubt" so surely. You might be surprised to know that large groups of people in large regions of the country see things differently than those within the academic walls of Boston (ref your bio).

Very well said.

 

[Seafort]

- disagreeing with someone's lifestyle DOES NOT translate to intolerance, however trying to convince people that they're backwards hillbillies who have been passed up by a new modern and enlightened society does suggest a certain bit of hypocrisy on the part of the accuser.

I concur that you have the right to believe homosexuality is a choice, and believe it is an immoral one, and that is a far cry from harassment. In the absence of evidence, we're back to square one, since there are those of us who do not consider it a lifestyle. I don't remember when I "chose" to be straight, and I bet you don't either. We can disagree without insulting each other.

- You ought to reconsider the things you "expect" and "doubt" so surely. You might be surprised to know that large groups of people in large regions of the country see things differently than those within the academic walls of Boston (ref your bio).

While this is true, I'm afraid it is still my opinion that most people where I am from (suburban Dallas, Texas) are quite incorrect about this. And while most don't take their disagreement to the point of intolerance, some do, and I wish it was fewer of them.