Bill Clinton’s first 100 days were bruised by his efforts to lift Congressional law governing military manning by executive fiat. “Don’t ask, don’t tell (don’t harass, don’t pursue)” was the resulting compromise hammered out between the more morally refined chief executive and a reactionary Democratic-led Congress, with senior military officers occasionally consulted for their professional opinions.
Clinton’s effort split the Democratic Party and threw another log on the flames of the Culture Wars, potentially contributing to the Republican take-over of both houses in Congress after the mid-term elections in 1994 – the first time the GOP had controlled both chambers in 40 years.
President-elect Barack Obama – who has notably more disciplined in assembling a transition cabinet than was Clinton – has already discovered that having majorities in both Congressional chambers may not in itself ensure smooth relations between the executive and legislature, apparently calculates that the time may be right to re-visit DADT:
Sixteen years after Bill Clinton tried to end restrictions on gays in the military, the US armed forces under Barack Obama may be forced to give homosexuals the same welcome as non-gays.
Under president Clinton, the policy that once saw homosexuals discharged from US military service evolved to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing gays to remain in the military so long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation.
Obama has pledged to overhaul current law.
Some current lawmakers (and retired military officers) believe that the culture has changed sufficiently in the intervening years to minimize the political damages that afflicted Bill Clinton’s presidency. I guess we’ll see.
Subsequently, we’ll also see many fewer military discharges for gays and lesbians based on voluntary statements and overt acts, which is the ostensible, patriotic reason for changing the law. We’ll also see military regulations re-written to support such issues as single gender family housing. Which, being federal law, may then be cited as controlling precedent in further civil suits applied at the state and local level. An entirely fortuitous coincidence, no doubt. And perhaps we’ll see fewer self-serving political stunts.
Thus, change.
I have no problem with homosexuals serving openly within the US Military. I served with two, both aircrew on different crews I flew with, and each young man was a credit to the US Navy. We knew, they knew we knew, and nobody gave a rat’s patoot because there was no reason to. Both were professional and great sailors.
Having said that, I would definitely draw the lone at the Transexual stage. You cannot have physical males or females wearing the uniform of the other, or becomes a Monty Python skit.
To be honest, I just do not see how we can legally keep someone from serving in the armed services providing that they meet the same standards as everyone else.
We should always be recruiting the best and the brightest, regardless of the social community they hail from.
Besides, think about the added bonuses of having upscale berthing compartments and colorful interior spaces
I agree. I spent four years on a ship with a 2nd, then 1st class Petty Officer who we all knew was gay. No problem. He was an exceptional sailor and a credit to the Navy.
As long as the normal regulations about fraternization and harassment stay in place, there should be no problems.
I also agree on the “transexuals” though. They are just freaks and should be treated as such.
I was going through base housing the other day and saw a couple working on their lawn. I never knew that Joe and Jake were married. (snort, guffaw)
You’ll also see a down tick in folks who use the DADT policy as a means for excusing themselves from their contractual obligation to serve.
With two wars and the effort to overhaul Gitmo, it will be interesting to see if this policy change is postponed or slipped in under the radar.
I guess I’m going to be non-PC here and perhaps reflect my age as well. Despite all the well known examples of competent, non-disruptive military service by the homosexual community that we all can (and have here) speak/spoken to, it should be remembered that all of these examples come from a culture of non-officially sanctioned status. Let me run a few practical things by everyone here that I believe will inevitably flow from a sanctioning of official status for homosexuals in the Armed Forces with the reminder of the old saw that: “That which the Law does not forbid it inevitably actively promotes.”
We all know of the pressures to promote women in every category and of the unofficial quota system currently extant sub-rosa. What do you think will happen with the homosexual community? What sort of pressures will be applied to get “representative” numbers promoted in each grade slot?
And what sort of legal actions does it seem likely that disgruntled individuals passed over might take claiming sexual prejudice. Do we need MORE lawyers entangled in the system? Do we need more cultural politics injected into every aspect of service life? We already have legal definitions of “oppressive atmosphere” regarding sexual harassment to include one court case that found a picture of a man’s wife on his desk contributed to “a repressive sexual atmosphere.” If that’s not enough of a Brave New World for you, wait until the new boss comes to town.
And how about little things like two male officers wishing to kiss at the New Years Eve O-Club Party to celebrate the New Year? Think that sight won’t drive many good men away from the service? Or, speaking to ELP’s post above, what happens in married housing when one’s little son queries his Mother by asking: “Mommy, why do those two men sitting in the swing next door have their arms around each other?” What will be her answer? And why should she be forced to go there?
And of course space does not permit the listing of even the documented–let alone undocumented or suppressed statistics -of forced sex by superiors, especially in the enlisted ranks–and especially in basic tng. No human being, male or female, should have to endure that–and this happens currently, let alone under an open arrangement of official sanctions.
Finally, no serving officer or enlisted,
when confronted by an unwanted sexual approach from someone of the same sex, should be forced to make a painful decision as to whether to risk one’s career by reporting it. Let’s not kid ourselves, sportsfans, we ALL know that in the VAST MAJORITY of the “he said, he said” situations the CO will, unwanted situation thrust upon him, throw up his hands with a “pox upon both your houses” approach and separate BOTH parties from the service
as the homosexual will ALWAYS claim he was egged on, and who is to refute him except the other party? The CO will INEVITABLY charge that the aggrieved officer/enlisted bringing the charges should “never have put himself
in the situation in the first place” and separate said individual for “conduct un-becoming”no matter how innocent the individual is in reality. Thus the aggrieved party will inevitably elect to suffer in silence the indignity suffered. These problems already exist–they will only multiply with official sanction of the “right to serve” by homosexuals.
“Thus change” states Lex. I would remind him that not all change is for the better. People thought they were voting for “change” and better times when they voted in Hitler and Il Duce. Likewise those who voted for Peron and Chavez and countless others. Closer to home, those who elected to succeed from the Union thought such a decision was also an improvement on the current status quo. And, on a more prosaic level, what about the Edsel, “New Coke” and a host of other “improvements” each of which was thought to be better than sliced bread? How many aircraft designs, etc., were proved failures after bitter experience despite the initial fanfare accompanying their introduction? Does anyone really thing women serving on submarines is a good idea? (And lets not even talk about construction costs, degradation of mission by vessel shape/size mods, etc. )
“Change” indeed. Brave New World, indeed. Sounds to me like those who counsel acceptance of such proposals as are being broached sound like those old hoary H.S. humor(less) jokes like: “Confucius say, if rape inevitable, relax and enjoy it.” Trust me sports-fans, whatever the mod. to current law, regulations/practices, the “ride” won’t be enjoyable.
In the WWII Army my Dad served in there was a common saying everyone used to jointly shout when some individual was picked for a “new” mission: “You’ll BE SORRYEEE!”
IMHO, if such proposals as currently outlined are carried out, the question is not whether, but by how much….
There was a man in the QM gang on the Courtney who we “knew” was queer. However, no one could ever prove it. He was a competent sailor, and as long as he didn’t wear it on his sleeve, no one was going to bother him.
When service becomes open, however, given the way those loonies act these days, it will be shoved in your face. It will then become quite repulsive.
The military is becoming just another social program, and the left is out to drag it down as they are the rest of society. I used to encourage a young man who didn’t know what he wanted to do with his life to take a hitch in the branch of his choice. I even tried to keep up with what was going on the military so I could offer advice, given the kids predilections, as to what he might find more or less interesting in each branch so he could weigh options and make a reasoned choice. I do it no more. I’m glad my son is out as it has already gotten bad since Bush didn’t do anything about the mess Clinton created.
When DADT goes away, I think you will see recruiting become more difficult, perhaps even tank. People don’t like depravity being shoved in their face, and even some of the more tolerant kids these days will bridle at it. Particularly when they are confined to a ship, or close quarter barracks. mixed sex ships have proven problematic, just wait until the queer rights gang starts marching on the fantail.
Virgil:
Hear;Hear. Boss
Back in the day, 62-66, had a known homosexual in the shop. All newcomers were told about him and advised when he made his move just tell him, if you were not interested, Sarge, I don’t go for that $hit. No problem thereafter. Sort of a live and let live attitude. Don’t think that attitude is to prevalent now. Relaxing of the DADT policy will open up a huge can of worms.
I don’t think the “queer rights gang” is actually going to be that interested if DADT is dropped. I mean really: Those ‘activists’ don’t really have an interest in serving in military.
Agree with everything Virgil stated.
Could state more, but covered sufficiently except anyone who does not think that the military will not suffer the law of unintended consequences has never been the target of these groups extreme animosity. Think California voters singled out for supporting the marriage amendment.
This subject came up at Christmas. The liberal stepdaughter and my son, the PFC, got after it (aided by my right of center SIL, her husband). Matt must have heard me too many times on this subject, because he had even Elizabeth agreeing that she didn’t want her daughter to be forced to live in a dorm where she was the only straight in the place. Matt told her, “then what is the difference between that dorm, and a forty berth berthing compartment, that has a similar distribution?”
Seems to me it’s more a case of lawsuits or the threat thereof killing unit cohesion and the ability to do the mission than any threat from some gay officer seducing a Sweet young Gunners Mate.
Doesn’t part and parcel of lifting Don’t Advertise Don’t Complain (sorry, don’t ask don’t tell) also imply When I say Not Interested I mean exactly that?
And when I say No I mean not even on a bet?
I’m thinking women have been in these situations for far longer than us men, particularly us sort of ugly men, and after integration women still form a valuable part of the force. Might be worth asking their opinion on this sort of thing.
I don’t really care if a man puts tab A into slots B or C, so long as he does it out of my view. I’m of the firm belief that sex should not be a spectator sport, and more specifically should not be a spectator sport *in my office during working hours!*
Otherwise? Hey, whatever floats your boat.
– Max
I think forced change in an environment where you can’t just up and go home when you don’t want anything to do with it is problematic. And I don’t doubt for one minute that activists will use any perceived breach of their interpretation of what nirvana should be to call attention to and create all havoc while wrapping themselves in the civil rights mantle.
The military has, due to its mission, unique requirements without parallel in civilian life. What may be relatively easy to implement in a stateside environment in, say, a major systems command hq environment, proves increasingly problematic in deployed scenarios – especially in wartime. Since all deployable scenarios are potentially warlike at a moments notice it is hard to envision non-disruptive accomodation unless you are willing to impact mission readiness, etc.
In today’s military you vounteer so it would seem you would know what you are volunteering for vis a vis this policy. We’ve already started down the slippery slope of “accomodating” every “aggrieved” identity one way or another I suppose so its hard to put the geenie back in the bottle. The cost of not better accomodating homosexuals opening joining in the military is to lose the potential contribution they demonstrably make in some cases cited above. But the cost of a more “tolerant” approach than DADT seems a risk we can’t measure and a cost we can ill afford at the present.
VX hit it dead nuts on.
VX/eYat/Y’all,
Back in Lex’s ‘06 post I made my opinions (non-PC and scientific) known. Haven’t changed them a bit. Once a dino always a dino.
What has changed in my outlook on this slippery slope is that DADTs a lost cause. I’m just happy I ain’t on AD. We have enough problems with gender sap-risings in the fleet today- just read navy Times, etc….. Adding a couple more ‘non-biological’ genders or more out there detracts from the mission already suffering from social engineering like this….
How much diversity for the sake of diversity can the institutions take on? I know lots of righteous genXers like Salamander think it’s time to open this Pandora’s Box, y’all on AD will have to live it. Once it becomes law it’s done and there ain’t no going back.
Being in the military actually ‘reduces’ one’s constitutional rights as suborned to the UCMJ..Since when has the priority for individual ‘expression’ (not biology) vis a vis sexual preference as a lifetsyle choice, been considered more important than unit morale OR the efficient defense of this nation? This likely decision answers that question I reckon.
b2
The PC crowd is under the delusion that civil law can change natural law. Until human nature does away with the normal male visceral revulsion at homosexual behavior allowing openly homosexual individuals to remain in the military will be a bad idea. It is one thing to ignore the faults, proclivities, and even public sins of another, which don’t immediately undermine unit cohesion (whether its homosexual or heterosexual in naure), quite another to give it the sanction of law.
The PC crowd is under the delusion that civil law can change natural law. Until human nature does away with the normal male visceral revulsion at homosexual behavior allowing openly homosexual individuals to remain in the military will be bad public policy. It is one thing to ignore the faults and proclivities of others which don’t immediately undermine unit cohesion (whether its homosexual or heterosexual in nature), quite another to give it the sanction of law.
If you ask me, the rot set in with the twentieth century and the psychologists. Buncha pwogwessives. The Articles of War did not look into a soldier or sailor’s mind, to see if he had homo tendencies, it just punished him if he acted upon them. The UCMJ criminalized mental tendencies.
And got caught.
Umm,”And got caught” goes after “…acted upon them”, and before “The UCMJ…”
Sorry.
Since the sub-drivers don’t want any girls on the boat I think it’s only fair that all the gays should be detailed subs.
I love B2’s comment, “I’m just happy I ain’t on AD” since that brings to mind the old fleet days when all the girls were piled on the ADs and the red blooded sailor-men really wanted to go serve on tenders with the tender personnel. (the category of red blooded sailor referred to above was mostly made up of E-4 and below since no sane person of any rank or experience wanted to serve on a Destroyer tender (AD)).
Curtis,
I meant AD for active duty, but I get your point.
b2
The long term consequence of openly serving gays is the removal of the separation of the sexes. Once gays are openly sharing living space with those they are sexually attracted to, how can you justify separating males and females? The whole purpose of separate berthing is to manage the sexual attraction. Bunks will be assigned by rank and position without regard to sex. Sexual interaction will be managed using current regs without the physical barriers.
Is America ready for this blending of the sexes? Once the military mixes berthing/facilities can the lawsuits for mixed college dorm roomates, lockerooms, etc. be far behind? Will Obama want his daughters assigned a male roommate when they go to university?
The alternative is to berth heterosexual males with heterosexual males, heterosexual females with heterosexual females, homosexual males with homosexual females and give the bisexuals are room by their self.
Been reading this discussion with interest.
From a Canadian point of view (short form: wholly gender-integrated, all trades and services, and no restrictions by orientation), the heralding of impending disaster vis-a-vis scrapping DADT seems premature.
The CF has had no restrictions on homosexuality for a good few years, now, though I’m none too sure on the timeline – and there’s been no loss of Service capability or cohesion thanks to the presence of gays in uniform; or, for that matter, women in the combat arms, and in submarines.
Different overall national culture? Different Service culture(s)?
As to the loud and protest-y, rainbow-flag crowd, they’re unlikely to join, regardless… gay or straight, it’s a certain set of people that join the Armed Forces and serve their country.
And… just for the sake of discussion… imagine the troubles DADT and related policies would cause if the draft were ever re-activated, given the reduced or entirely removed stigma associated with homosexuality in the greater populace.