That means that the first AW to become CNO needs to bust out some AWGs after they're retired in order to 'dictate uniform standards'. They can be a 'throwback' uniform too!
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Don't Ask Don't Tell going away
- Thread starter helolumpy
- Start date
That means that the first AW to become CNO needs to bust out some AWGs after they're retired in order to 'dictate uniform standards'. They can be a 'throwback' uniform too!
I'm not sure about that. I think I remember reading that ADM Mullen was one of the wear testers for SDK, and as such he would be "authorized" to wear that uniform (in the proper setting, of course) as long as the test was still going on. I don't think it makes any difference what office he was holding at the time.
He wanted the SDK so when the Navy needed wear testers, he 'chose' himself to be a one of the testers. As the old saying goes, 'what's the sense of having power if you can't abuse it?'.
Talking about DADT to talking about fashion. Ironic threadjack!
I've known three sailors whom, if you asked them, would probably say they were kicked out for being gay. However, two were for harassment (grabassing and inappropriate comments) and another for assault (groped a passed-out dude after a late night in Fallon). The fact they were 'blue-on-blue' incidents didn't enter into it - they violated UCMJ regardless of gender or the way anyone involved swung.
The rules are already 'keep your hands to yourself,' 'no sex on the Boat,' 'no fraternization,' and 'don't talk about your sex life at work'. If you follow those rules, how does your orientation matter? And breaking those rules won't change just because of the genders involved. If the rules are enforced differently on that basis, that's a failure of leadership.
I've known three sailors whom, if you asked them, would probably say they were kicked out for being gay. However, two were for harassment (grabassing and inappropriate comments) and another for assault (groped a passed-out dude after a late night in Fallon). The fact they were 'blue-on-blue' incidents didn't enter into it - they violated UCMJ regardless of gender or the way anyone involved swung.
The rules are already 'keep your hands to yourself,' 'no sex on the Boat,' 'no fraternization,' and 'don't talk about your sex life at work'. If you follow those rules, how does your orientation matter? And breaking those rules won't change just because of the genders involved. If the rules are enforced differently on that basis, that's a failure of leadership.
That's what I don't understand; why this is even an issue, if the rules are the same no matter who you are or what your orientation is. If it's a question of 'I don't feel comfortable serving next to a gay person.', to that I say suck it up and complete the damn mission. If its an issue of unsuitability to fight or follow orders or whatever, I say where is the proof that there is any truth to that proposition. If it's a question of morals and ethics, I say that our morality and ethics are outlined pretty clearly in the oath we take and the laws we follow...sexuality doesn't enter into the equation.
Sexuality has no place in a professional environment, no matter what workplace it is, including the military. That said, the transition will not be an easy one, whether or not it 'needs' to happen. People will get hurt, careers will be ended, and the media will eat it up, but then again that's what happened when Truman integrated the military in '48, and we're all still here.
Ideally, it shouldn't be 'don't ask don't tell', our end-state should be 'who cares?'
Not a clue, huh ???
Since you haven't spent much time in the military, or in 'life' for that matter ... perhaps you should check out the UCMJ, Article 125 ... or, as an alternative -- just check out your own common sense, assuming .... and I hate to do that -- assume anything ... that is an 'alternative'.
Do you 'understand' Article 125 ???
NYYanks
Tweaking off my coffee
Sir, going with 125, are you suggesting that a woman who likes it in the backdoor should be prosecuted as well? After all, some may consider that 'unnatural'. Just because a law is on the books doesn't make it right. There were laws (and I would bet UCMJ articles) about segregation amongst other things, were those right? You can take your wife to the court steps and beat the shit out of her on a Sunday in certain states of the 'great' south, again, is it right? Maybe because I am of a different generation then others, maybe because I have a gay relative (cousin), either way, this is an outdated law that needs to be changed. Whether it is due to political motives, or some genuinely want it changed, I am glad to see it going that route slowly but surely. Lord knows in my rate I have seen many straight guys and gals who couldn't pull their weight, if a guy batting for the opposite team can, I?ll take him on any bomb build or load, cause at the end of the day I want to go home in one piece.
I'm not trying to sea-lawyer this like you are, so let me make this really, really clear: I'm 'suggesting' that homosexuality -- which is covered by 125 -- is perverted. People who try to define themselves by their sexual orientation have severe character flaws ... some can deal w/ it and shut the fuck up ... others can't deal with it -- the guilt -- so 'they' want the rest of us to accept their failings. I don't accept their failings ... I can 'work' w/ 'it' AND them ... I just don't 'accept' it. I don't have to ...
Keep it -- i.e., your sex preferences -- to yourself. Just show up and do your job.
Just one question about that: any questions about that ... ???
NYYanks
Tweaking off my coffee
In the end, I def agree that this is what it boils down to. Do yer job, serve Uncle Sam (as I type that I can see the jokes raining down) and call it a day.
Time for a history lesson and some sea-lawyering.
Article 125 has had its battles too, particularly after Lawrence v. Texas was decided in '03. The article should have technically been invalidated right there, as Lawrence v. Texas made any law criminalizing consensual, adult, private sexual acts (no matter what they were) unconstitutional. The military was able to get around it by pointing out that homosexuals are not allowed to serve openly in the military, thus their actions are definitive of their orientation and can be prosecuted secondary to their dismissal for being gay (though I doubt that ever happened in practice). The Military Court of Appeals ruled that in order for members to use Lawrence as a defense (US v. Marcum), their conduct has to be ruled as being within the constitutionally protected shelter that the Supreme Court decision spelled out (consensual adults in private, which the military expanded to include 'off-duty and with civilians')
The problem is that Article 125 has almost nothing to do with homosexuality. The only reference to homosexuality in all of 125 is the following; "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy." It criminalizes an act, not an orientation. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say officers who are currently dismissed for being gay are being dropped under Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming), not 125. 125 prohibits sodomy in any fashion, between any two people, which was effectively made into a useless article under the Lawrence and Marcum tests.
Unfortunately, now that 125 can't be effectively used to bust sodomy, 133 is being used for that as well. (US v. Harvey)
BUT...at the end of the day I agree with your last sentence there; show up and do your job. All of this other discussion is just window dressing.
Article 125 has had its battles too, particularly after Lawrence v. Texas was decided in '03. The article should have technically been invalidated right there, as Lawrence v. Texas made any law criminalizing consensual, adult, private sexual acts (no matter what they were) unconstitutional. The military was able to get around it by pointing out that homosexuals are not allowed to serve openly in the military, thus their actions are definitive of their orientation and can be prosecuted secondary to their dismissal for being gay (though I doubt that ever happened in practice). The Military Court of Appeals ruled that in order for members to use Lawrence as a defense (US v. Marcum), their conduct has to be ruled as being within the constitutionally protected shelter that the Supreme Court decision spelled out (consensual adults in private, which the military expanded to include 'off-duty and with civilians')
The problem is that Article 125 has almost nothing to do with homosexuality. The only reference to homosexuality in all of 125 is the following; "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy." It criminalizes an act, not an orientation. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say officers who are currently dismissed for being gay are being dropped under Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming), not 125. 125 prohibits sodomy in any fashion, between any two people, which was effectively made into a useless article under the Lawrence and Marcum tests.
Unfortunately, now that 125 can't be effectively used to bust sodomy, 133 is being used for that as well. (US v. Harvey)
BUT...at the end of the day I agree with your last sentence there; show up and do your job. All of this other discussion is just window dressing.
Everyone, straight or gay, defines themselves by their sexual orientation. They also define themselves by hair color, height, eye color, etc...
Plenty of straight people in the military violate 125 every day. Many of them even talk about it at work. So it's not really about the law, it's about your personal morality.
I think everyone here is saying exactly that.
In light of the fact that the DNI, Adm Blair, stated unequivocally his certitude of another AQ attack in the next 6 months in CONUS...coupled with trememdous casualty rates we are likely to see in Afghanistan starting in the Spring, this really is an inappropriate time to even be discussing whether DADT should be repealed or not.
It's about the law & morality -- but when sanctioning illegal behavior that collides w/ 'law' becomes the new standard, then the 'law' becomes hypocritical and meaningless -- unless, of course, that 'law' is changed or people chose to look the other way. You can change the 'law' ... but what about the other half?? What about 'morality'??? If you keep dumbing down everything enough, pretty soon you have no standards. You have no morality -- it's 'whatever goes' ... it's chaos.
Why, I'd even be willing to bet that if things continue to deteriorate from a moral standpoint, we'll live to see the day when a ball player at the Boat School will be smokin' dope and STILL not get kicked out !!! :icon_lol::skull_125
The 'pro' arguments are bullshit and rationalizations and most of you are NOT bullshit kinda' guys ... rationalizers, mebbe (takes one to know one) ... but not bullshitters. But here's the rub (no pun): I think all too many of you are willing to believe almost anything to go along, get along in today's society ... to 'be hip', to be 'enlightened', to be broad minded, to be 'compassionate' .... wa-a-a-a-a-a-ay too many of you, all the way up & down the chain of command.
But for me??? I don't, I'm not, never have, never will ... I march to the beat of my own drummer. I like it that way; it works. I KNOW the difference between right and wrong. I KNOW that if I get down an' wallow w/the pigs, I'm gonna' be 'dirty' when I get back up. I KNOW where the line is, and since I'm not perfect, when I cross that line, I am willing to bear all the responsibility for whatever I do ... my own history has born that out.
Here's my bottom line (no pun):
Homosexuality is perversion; it's aberrant behavior. That's why it's been in the shadows until the recent past when our society decided that 'everything's O.K.' in the realm of morals and mores. 'Personal choices', right?? Bullshit. As was pointed out, some heterosexuality will degenerate into perversion and violations of existing law and 'normalcy', but we're not trying to legitimize aberrant behavior #1 by putting a +/- relative value on aberrant behavior #2 -- as that's a fool's game. You 'even talk about that at work' and someone will tell you to STFU ... but you tell a formerly 'closeted' person to STFU, and standby for the lawsuits and 'hate crime' offenses and a whole world of pain comin' YOUR way -- should you chose to be the STFU-er. Or .. you can bite your lip, be quiet, and eat shit for YOUR beliefs, moral code, & standards.
I choose not to eat shit.
That's the way it's gone in society ... that's the way it went in the airlines ... and that's the way it will go in the military. Again, I've 'worked' w/all kinds ... no-problemo ... just stay out of my face with your personal baggage.
I recall a pathetic, weepy letter posted on the bull-board written by one of our Captains as he lay in a hospital bed dying from AIDs ... it went something to the effect of: "We never knew this would happen .. we just never knew back then ... " . Of course, some wag (not me) wrote across the letter: "Gee ... really, John ... you REALLY DIDN'T KNOW that when you did 'X' to 'Y' (edited for this family website
) that it wasn't 'normal' "???
I'm so fucking glad I don't have to serve today and 'swallow' (no pun) the social-engineering BS that some of you guys are trying to convince yourself is .... 'O.K.' ...
Eeesh. You guys do whatever the fuck you want -- I think I'm done here, but I guess this IS our quarterly discussion on the topic. No one is going to change any 'hearts & minds on this subject ...
Life's too short and there's too many good things to do ...
Why, I'd even be willing to bet that if things continue to deteriorate from a moral standpoint, we'll live to see the day when a ball player at the Boat School will be smokin' dope and STILL not get kicked out !!! :icon_lol::skull_125
The 'pro' arguments are bullshit and rationalizations and most of you are NOT bullshit kinda' guys ... rationalizers, mebbe (takes one to know one) ... but not bullshitters. But here's the rub (no pun): I think all too many of you are willing to believe almost anything to go along, get along in today's society ... to 'be hip', to be 'enlightened', to be broad minded, to be 'compassionate' .... wa-a-a-a-a-a-ay too many of you, all the way up & down the chain of command.
But for me??? I don't, I'm not, never have, never will ... I march to the beat of my own drummer. I like it that way; it works. I KNOW the difference between right and wrong. I KNOW that if I get down an' wallow w/the pigs, I'm gonna' be 'dirty' when I get back up. I KNOW where the line is, and since I'm not perfect, when I cross that line, I am willing to bear all the responsibility for whatever I do ... my own history has born that out.
Here's my bottom line (no pun):
Homosexuality is perversion; it's aberrant behavior. That's why it's been in the shadows until the recent past when our society decided that 'everything's O.K.' in the realm of morals and mores. 'Personal choices', right?? Bullshit. As was pointed out, some heterosexuality will degenerate into perversion and violations of existing law and 'normalcy', but we're not trying to legitimize aberrant behavior #1 by putting a +/- relative value on aberrant behavior #2 -- as that's a fool's game. You 'even talk about that at work' and someone will tell you to STFU ... but you tell a formerly 'closeted' person to STFU, and standby for the lawsuits and 'hate crime' offenses and a whole world of pain comin' YOUR way -- should you chose to be the STFU-er. Or .. you can bite your lip, be quiet, and eat shit for YOUR beliefs, moral code, & standards.
I choose not to eat shit.
That's the way it's gone in society ... that's the way it went in the airlines ... and that's the way it will go in the military. Again, I've 'worked' w/all kinds ... no-problemo ... just stay out of my face with your personal baggage.
I recall a pathetic, weepy letter posted on the bull-board written by one of our Captains as he lay in a hospital bed dying from AIDs ... it went something to the effect of: "We never knew this would happen .. we just never knew back then ... " . Of course, some wag (not me) wrote across the letter: "Gee ... really, John ... you REALLY DIDN'T KNOW that when you did 'X' to 'Y' (edited for this family website
) that it wasn't 'normal' "??? I'm so fucking glad I don't have to serve today and 'swallow' (no pun) the social-engineering BS that some of you guys are trying to convince yourself is .... 'O.K.' ...
Eeesh. You guys do whatever the fuck you want -- I think I'm done here, but I guess this IS our quarterly discussion on the topic. No one is going to change any 'hearts & minds on this subject ...
Life's too short and there's too many good things to do ...
I believe there is great wisdom in this post. I think many do not understand what you are saying. It seems to be we are at a point where we take a poll to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore, which UCMJ article are still "relevant" and which should be ignored. Complete chaos may be a bit down the road, but it does seem we are headed that way.
In a previous post someone suggested, inter alia, that the way to "get er" done is to rescind the DADT Executive Order and simply tell the "Chiefs" to ignore (all homosexual activity - some homosexual activity - ill defined homosexual activty --selected one) and it will get done. Well, while my direct knowledge of is very dated, from what I hear from friends, former shipmates and some limited direct exposure - The Chief's Mess is just that, a mess. It is broken. Captain Eyers essay in the January 1010 issue of the Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute also discusses this issue of a meltdown of the CPO mess. There is also on this site a thread discussing a total collapse (possible prostitution ring being ran by the CPO mess) the CPO Mess on board a US Naval Vessel. If that does not get someone's attention, the road may indeed by shorter than I thought. Should we have turned a blind eye to that sorrid scheme and dismissed it as their choice that they made that had no victims and be left alone. Appartently that is precisely the course of action that the CoC aboard followed.
Sure I would like to not have to talk about this given the weighty things we need to talk about. But do we ignore it? I think I had rather be shouted down than to go away quietly
RadicalDude
Social Justice Warlord
Shaking my head at this thread.