Obama consults advisers on military gay ban

[JohnP]

This was in today's Marine Corps Times

Obama consults advisers on military gay ban
By Anne Flaherty - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Mar 3, 2009 16:07:42 EST

WASHINGTON — The White House says President Barack Obama has begun consulting his top defense advisers on how to lift a ban on gays serving openly in the military.

But the administration won’t say how soon that might happen or whether a group of experts will be commissioned to study the issue in-depth, as some Democrats have suggested.

The move enables Obama to say he’s making good on his campaign promise to reverse the law, but doesn’t lock him into doing so anytime soon. The carefully calculated statement, released this week by White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, leaves enough wiggle room to prevent the hot-button issue from consuming Obama’s foreign policy agenda, which is dominated by ending the Iraq war and salvaging operations in Afghanistan.

“The president supports changing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Vietor said in the e-mailed statement.

“As part of a long-standing pledge,” Obama has begun consulting closely with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen “so that this change is done in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security,” Vietor said.

The statement was released in response to legislation reintroduced on Monday by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., that would repeal the ban. Tauscher’s bill attracted 148 co-sponsors last year, but House leadership never pushed for a floor vote.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she supports repealing the ban and would like to see a group of experts study the issue.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton sought to open the military to gays as one of his first acts as president. The issue quickly divided Democrats and helped GOP critics cast Clinton as a social liberal out of touch with the military.

I'll open this can of worms. :mad:

I have no problems with gays in the military. It's the same thing as having women in fighting at the front. It is a matter of discipline. I have served with men who came out of the closet after they did their time in the service. They were the same people I trusted with my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. There was never an inappropriate time or touch that I was aware of.

I am very much aware of my masculinity and challenge anyone else to make the same statement.

If you request, I will leave my discussions for women on the front for a separate thread.

Discuss.....

[pingjocky]

Speaking strictly as a Submariner, I don't want homosexuals on my boat any more than I want females on my boat. We live in such close quarters that it would cause more problems than it would solve. There is no other community like Submarines, and we are unique to ourselves. To a Submariner, the "gay" issue is the same thing as the "female" issue.....I also am fully aware of my masculinity, I just don't want 'em on my boat.

R/
Pingjocky

[HairyEyeball]

Have to disagree with you on this one, John. The people you knew and trusted 'came out of the closet', as you say, after their service. Their 'sexual preference' was never an issue because of the law, and due to their character and self-discipline. By reversing the law, we'd be opening up the military to a whole new 'class' of people, including flaming queens who would enlist 'just because they could', to 'make a thatement' - and there goes a large chunk of that 'good order and discipline'.

There are a large number of people who, for whatever reason, may not be 'suitable' for military service, but have found another manner of serving their country - the opportunities do exist, and if the desire is to serve, it can be fulfilled in any of those areas. Putting the desires of one class of people above the good of the service or the nation is gross discrimination against the overwhelming majority, it effectively grants 'privileged' status to one group: We no longer have 'equal' rights when one small segment has 'special' rights. This is a crystal-clear example of the 'class warfare, divide and conquer' strategy the socialists are known for.

I don't care what a person does 'in the privacy of his own home' - or in this case, 'off the radar' - and as long as the 'don't ask - don't tell' policy is, in your own words, working...like the man says, if it ain't broke...

[armysc_25b]

Since the comments about females serving in certain positions was brought up, it made me think of the comments of one of my female Drill Sergeants, and now that I think about that comment, it seems to apply to gays as well. "There's some things that females shouldn't do." In ping's submarine world, their place should be questioned for the reasons he's presented. On the front line, if it came to life or death, I wouldn't care if you're male or female, black or white, straight or homosexual, if it means my life is getting saved then so be it.

[Rabbit]

To be honest, I would have a problem serving with a homosexual. I suppose it just doesn't sit well with me and it may(or may not)prohibit me from performing to my best ability. And it would more than likely just be one big distraction for everyone. Try and imagine a lone male bunking with a bunch of females.

[SGM]

In a way I got to agree with Hairy, they didn't come out because of the law, thus no problem. I do agree with Ping, that they don't belong in some jobs, just like women don't belong in the Infantry or Combat Arms!!

If they want to serve, let them, but not everywhere!!

[JohnP]

If they want to serve, let them, but not everywhere!!

SGM, I used your quote because it was the least argumentative, but still relayed a point I wanted to pick out. The greatest thing about our great country is to be able to disagree and still function as a nation.

I can see there are still pre-conceived notions about a person by race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. Is this any different than the non-integrated forces of Pre-1947?

Again this is a case of discipline for both the “regular” trooper and the individual in question. The aforementioned ex-airman and 44 of us deployed to distant lands under the most adverse conditions. This individual was treated as an equal, shared open bay barracks, open showers, fighting positions, and even the same river water for a bath as a group. I noticed no “erection” caused by him sharing anything with us.

When I deployed with my NMANG unit for the 1st Gulf war, we deployed with 4 Security Police Woman. Again, this was a case of discipline; all the women were young and single, the men ranged from 20’s to 40’s, married and single. During the entire deployment, there were no “extra-curricular” activities. When it came time to put lead down-range, it doesn’t matter if the person next to you is male, female or both, you need your buddy to do their job.

This same unit, several years later deployed to the field for training. This time there were a couple of individuals that fell into the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. All personnel shared the same sleeping area. In and out of the field; again, there were no cases of immoral conduct. (This even included a 24 hours pass to New Orleans.) Maybe this unit held a higher standard than other units or maybe it is because you can teach people to see past the obvious and work with anyone you’re assigned to.

I’ve not had the opportunity to be on a submarine but I do understand the exceptionally close quarters required to complete the mission. My questions to you are:

How is discipline enforced on your ship?

Can a member of your crew go into a quiet place and relieve stress on there own?

If that person is caught, what happens?

I’m aware of the 1st incidents when the allowed women on a Navy vessel. What happened to those individuals?

Are there any more incidents of this nature or this magnitude?

In the 1950’s the only job for an African American on a ship was a cook or a Captain’s Steward. What changed? It certainly wasn’t the color of the man’s skin. It was the perception and attitude of the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen.

[pingjocky]

How is discipline enforced on your ship?

Can a member of your crew go into a quiet place and relieve stress on there own?

If that person is caught, what happens?

I’m aware of the 1st incidents when the allowed women on a Navy vessel. What happened to those individuals?

Are there any more incidents of this nature or this magnitude?

""Discipline" is a multi-faceted word. When somebody screws up, they get hammered (and no I don't mean with Bud Lite). However, we don't think of discipline as most other services would. Would you call your Platoon Sergeant by his first name? I call my Senior Chief by his first name all the time...and it goes up and down the ranks. We grow our hair longer. Our uniforms aren't as "sharp." Are we "disciplined"? Heck, when the poop hits the fan, we all respond because we KNOW we are saving each other's lives....that's why we wear "Dolphins." Now, you add an openly gay man in the mix, and it's going to cause problems....not provide solutions to the military's sociological experiment.

By "quiet place" I assume you mean "personal privacy." The only space that each individual has for personal privacy is their own 3x3x6 ft rack...and on some boats, you share that rack with another Sailor (called "hot-racking" because the rack is still warm when you crawl into it). I guarantee you, if I caught two dudes in the same rack at the same time, there would be HECK to pay for those dudes.

Whenever two Sailors are caught having sexual intercourse (of ANY variation) on board a Navy vessel, it's a CO's mastable offense (NJP).

Yes, there are still episodes of that magnitude, they just aren't made as public as in days of old. I was stationed on a Submarine Tender, and we were nicknamed the "Baby Boat" because over two-dozen females came up pregnant during a 6 month period (contrary to popular belief, I had no part in contributing to that number!!).

R/
Pingjocky

[cscsmp]

One of my greatest mentors who made me choose the Army was a West Point grad in the Special Forces. He told me of times when he and his soldiers would have to cuddle next to one another to keep warm enough to get through the night because of the severe cold of some of the places where they were conducting missions. Now you're telling me that cuddling up that close to an out-of-the-closet homosexual wouldn't make you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable?

[fjer]

Here's a simple question, where do we put them? Are you going to put someone in barracks and showers with those that person is sexually attracted to? May as well put men and women in the same quarters.

[Wolfy]

Now you're telling me that cuddling up that close to an out-of-the-closet homosexual wouldn't make you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable?
I'm glad someone put this into simpler terms... I think the biggest factor is simply the mental unease it would put the rest of the unit at. I agree it's kind of unfortunate for those that want to "come out of the closet," but that's just the way things are: a vast majority of the military is straight, and having a few openly gay people in a unit would likely place some mental stress on a good portion of that unit. A lot of you would of course understand that any undue mental strain on a unit, especially in combat, is entirely "no bueno."

[HairyEyeball]

Sorry, John, but you're drawing parallels that don't exist. The black on a 'person of color' doesn't rub off on the rest of the team, and - 'culturally normed' - they have similar preferences, similar desires, similar 'hopes and dreams'. To a great extent, the individuals you have known with 'different sexual orientations' are either 'culturally similar' enough, and self-disciplined enough, to function in the semi-restricted confines of a 'don't ask - don't tell' environment. Opening the military to all sexual persuasions would - aside from being as objectionable to many of those as it would to the 'straight' majority - bring an influx of the least capable, least 'interested': The problem wouldn't be squad bays (does the military still have squad bays?) decorated like french whorehouses, it would be a small but significant minority flouncing around flaunting their 'otherness', having joined because 'they could'. Not only would they not contribute to the mission, they would detract significantly.

In the last iteration of this forum, we had a long, detailed, and exceedingly civil discussion on the 'place' of women in the military. Many opinions and experiences were shared, and the consensus was that there are positions that they can fill, and positions that should be closed to them (although somewhat less consensus on what those positions might be). This is a discussion that has many of the same features, and some unique ones. As you mentioned, there is no reason why 'covert' sexual deviants (in the clinical sense) cannot serve, and serve honorably, but even you have to admit that such service was under the current constraints. A wiser man than I (yes, there have been one or two) once suggested 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. The current constraints work. Segregated units didn't, and Truman 'fixed' that - but it was the attitudes that changed, not the individuals, not the military. This would change the military, and that would be 'bad juju'.

[Des]

Just as in the looong thread here:

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=687

I'll have to disagree with many of you.

I don't care if a soldier is a homosexual. I don't care if a soldier is a woman.

In the Canadian military, we allow both, as neither is illegal. We also do not limit them from trades.

I've never had any issues. As long as the servicemember does their job according to the Ethos, let them be.

I've lived barracks as both. In fact, a gay airman who lived in the barracks with us was incredible at picking up women for the rest of us.

But at work, he was a service member, and that was it. And we never had any issues.

[Woody]

Served with openly gay soliders on operations no known problems.Ok one soldier was reluctant to shower as he didnt want blokes checking him out. We thought he was just a soap dodger and it was just an excuse as it was forcefully pointed out to him homosexuals fancy men you barely pass as human:D.

[SWAMPFOXA1C]

I don't have much to comment about on this, except for I just don't agree with it..

[NightRunner]

When I was active, there was a very "effmaninate" male officer working for our wing's legal section who happened to be the point of contact for computer-related issues. When we took his phone calls at the help-desk we could tell who it was by his voice and.. er.. way of speaking, and by the way whoever answered the call had to struggle to keep a straight face (no pun intended). When he came to our customer service window and rattled his glossed-up finger nails against the counter top, wearing as much jewelry as possibly allowed in uniform, carrying himself with overt body-language it was a test of everyone's ability to maintain their military bearing and professionalism. We all knew; our chain of command all knew; but we never spoke of it and kept to the policy in place.

Gay people DO serve in the military; the law merely asks them to keep this to themselves. The "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is there to maintain good order and discipline--just like every other code of professionalism backed by military law. If Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654) can be disputed based on personal preference, why not also dispute Article 125, UCMJ wherein a male and female are prohibited from having oral sex? Should we also dispute Article 134 which allows military law the power to tell military members with whom and how they may have friendly and/or romantic relationships? No, these laws are in place to maintain good order and discipline because the military is a unique society which requires extraordinary personal discipline from its members in ALL aspects of their lives. Personal preferences and "lifestyle choices" can never be given priority over laws and lawful orders.

Remove the bounderies and you'll have a whole heap of people taking advantage of it.

[JohnP]

Just as in the looong thread here:

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=687

I'll have to disagree with many of you.

I don't care if a soldier is a homosexual. I don't care if a soldier is a woman.

In the Canadian military, we allow both, as neither is illegal. We also do not limit them from trades.

I've never had any issues. As long as the servicemember does their job according to the Ethos, let them be.

I've lived barracks as both. In fact, a gay airman who lived in the barracks with us was incredible at picking up women for the rest of us.

But at work, he was a service member, and that was it. And we never had any issues.

Des,

Thanks for finding and reminding me of the prior thread; and thank you for posting proof positive of my theories.

cscsmp,

I, too, have “cuddled” with other troopers when it came to staying warm. I’ve even crawled naked into a mummy bag with a victim of hypothermia. Survival, both in and out of a combat environment will lead you to do things you wouldn’t normally do; as Rabbit can tell you from both the book and practical use. In those situations, if you are thinking of sex, you’re in the wrong business.


HE

I will strategically withdraw to a defensive perimeter and table this discussion during face to face encounters. Though there are positive precedence’s in regards to gays in the military and women on the fighting line. This is a very hot subject when take into account to the feelings and pre-conceived notions in the US military.


I can't stress enough how I love this country. We had a disagreement and nobody went to jail or a coroner. :)