DADT

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 8:57 PM GMT
    I know that it's more or less a non-issue now, but a recent conversation made me wonder. Do you think the repeal would have been easier to push through if proponents of the ban sold it less as a human rights issue and more as a budgeting issue?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 1:54 AM GMT
    Probably not, because the far righters/TBaggers have one thing on there minds, GOD says homosexuality is sin, GOD is supposedly the Author of Marriage and they don't want that messed with, money savings and gay human rights be damned. Nothing would then or will now change their minds.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 5:48 AM GMT
    Doubtful. And DADT still isn't repealed yet.

    I know a lot of gay people in the Navy that say it won't change much for them, so I am not sure what to think of it. Maybe it really was more of a political ploy than something that will actually help gay people in the military.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 6:48 AM GMT
    how is it a non-issue? it hasn't even been pushed through yet. and to be honest, im sick to fucking death of gay people who wouldnt have joined the military anyways and who - when it really comes down to it - are extremely anti-military acting as if this is some kind of gay rights victory for themselves. its specifically a victory (if you wanna call it that) for enlisted people who (like myself) enlisted before the repeal and would have anyways. im honestly concerned that people who would not have joined the military prior to the repeal will now join and use the service (as many people do) for 'government welfare' and turn the armed forces into some kind of fucking liberal coalition where everyone is treated "fairly". the military is not a democracy - this is a very simple concept that civilians can not grasp. i always knew i wanted to be in the Navy. DADT definitely is a sort of sigh of relief but sure as fuck would not have stopped me from enlisting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 6:50 AM GMT
    Except, as I have to keep repeating, DADT isn't the issue. That was the smoke & mirrors used to get around Republican opposition to actually changing the law, and the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

    What Clinton did, by Executive Order, was prevent the military from asking if troops were gay. But troops identified as gay can still be dishonorably discharged, because that's what the law has always said. Clinton's DADT work-around was simply to prohibit asking the question, and not require uniformed persons to answer.

    To openly admit gay persons into the US military requires a change in US law and the UCMJ, which the present Republican House will never do. DADT is not the issue. In fact, if DADT is voided, the existing laws against having gays in the US military will go back into effect. Openly accepting gays in the US military requires a change to the US Code. The Republican House will never allow that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 7:23 AM GMT
    as far as i know, the language of the separation act you sign when you enlist will not change. you flat out sign something saying that you've never been in a homosexual relationship of any kind. you are definitely asked and you definitely have to lie. if you've never gone through the process then you aren't aware of how often it is hammered into your head the repercussions of lying. i mean of course the lying they are talking about is not admitting about health conditions, dependencies or legal issues not already wavered...but its not a good feeling starting off your military career on a lie. still wouldn't change a thing though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 2:55 PM GMT
    I think y'all need to talk to your ADC's because y'all don't know what you're talking about.

    By the end of the year, at the completetion of the repeal of DADT - you will NO LONGER BE KICKED OUT OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR BEING HOMOSEXUAL. Not if you tell someone, not if they ask you and you say yes...not if they catch you making out with a guy in the BX/PX, off base, or sitting in your car. They have even for the greater part, stopped most cases of discharge due to DADT.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 3:06 PM GMT
    Presumably, changes to the UCMJ are part of the DADT implementation process.

    Once it has been implemented, the repeal of DADT will be extremely difficult to reverse. I do not necessarily mean legally, but (as happened in other nations' armed forces) the change will cause so little fuss within the armed forces, that, within a few months of its being implemented, there will simply be no political capital in using it as a campaigning issue any more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 3:08 PM GMT
    I agree with you.

    Since 1993, Israel has allowed homosexuals to openly serve in the armed forces. When was the last time, if ever, you heard them ranting/raving about it?

    Mil8 saidPresumably, changes to the UCMJ are part of the DADT implementation process.

    Once it has been implemented, the repeal of DADT will be extremely difficult to reverse. I do not necessarily mean legally, but (as happened in other nations' armed forces) the change will cause so little fuss within the armed forces, that, within a few months of its being implemented, there will simply be no political capital in using it as a campaigning issue any more.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jun 18, 2011 3:22 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidOpenly accepting gays in the US military requires a change to the US Code. The Republican House will never allow that.



    I disagree. DADT is a thing of the past, and I doubt the repeal is ever going to be reversed. The U.S.A has moved into the 21st Century FINALLY on this matter and I suspect by the end of the year the implementation of the repeal will be close to completion, if not completely implemented --- and with flying colors. Like all things in government, I'm sure there will still be some kinks to be worked out, and probably a few isolated incidents of discrimination, anti-gay actions, or even gays pushing the envelope to far in terms of their own actions while on duty. Regardless, overall, I am confident that the implementation of the repeal of DADT will be a resounding success that can also serve in laying the groundwork for more pro-gay initiatives in other areas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 3:27 PM GMT
    DADT as a policy has been repealed. The services are allotted time to implement training before fully executing the change. That training is ongoing. Also, each service is permitted to determine how to implement the change: all at once, or by unit / career field.

    But DADT is all but done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 4:29 PM GMT
    Which is interesting, because DADT was put in place to "allow" BGLT's to serve.

    People hate on DADT, but before DADT, gays couldn't serve at all. DADT said they could serve as long as they hid their sexual orientation.

    Which begs the question: if DADT goes, doesn't that mean gays can't serve again? Or does it mean they can serve openly?

    The whole thing is very unclear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 4:34 PM GMT
    It's not unclear if you actually read the legislation that repeals DADT.

    They don't just say "DADT" is repealed. Then leave the details in the black abyss. There was a bill, with clear wording, that was passed by both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, then signed by the President of the United States.

    C'mon people, think.

    TroyAthlete saidWhich is interesting, because DADT was put in place to "allow" BGLT's to serve.

    People hate on DADT, but before DADT, gays couldn't serve at all. DADT said they could serve as long as they hid their sexual orientation.

    Which begs the question: if DADT goes, doesn't that mean gays can't serve again? Or does it mean they can serve openly?

    The whole thing is very unclear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 4:57 PM GMT
    Mil8 saidPresumably, changes to the UCMJ are part of the DADT implementation process.

    Once it has been implemented, the repeal of DADT will be extremely difficult to reverse. I do not necessarily mean legally, but (as happened in other nations' armed forces) the change will cause so little fuss within the armed forces, that, within a few months of its being implemented, there will simply be no political capital in using it as a campaigning issue any more.

    You are correct. This is what the current Republican House is trying to prevent from being implemented.

    And to be technical, DADT will not need to be "repealed" because it will have become unnecessary. Once the underlying law making it illegal to be gay in US uniform has been changed, the matter of DADT becomes moot. You can say whatever you like about your orientation without fear of legal action against you.

    And that's all DADT ever was, very similar to the Constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination. You didn't have to admit you were gay, nor could the military ask you. But if you were discovered to be gay, out you went. And that's still legally true to this day, though there's a "hold" on these actions until the matter is finally resolved.

    Though even after the US Code is changed (it's in Title 10 if memory serves, but otherwise please correct me) I'd still like to see some order, Executive or otherwise, that says sexual orientation doesn't have to be revealed. There's no reason to track that, so let's hope it just never is asked again.
  • marined8

    Posts: 81

    Jun 18, 2011 5:11 PM GMT
    SMH
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 5:54 PM GMT
    can anyone actually answer if this has been removed from the package you sign when you enlist:

    IAlthough we have not and will not ask you whether you are a heterosexual, or a homosexual, or a bisexual, you should be aware that homosexual acts, statements that demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, and homosexual marriages or attempted marriages are grounds for discharge from the Armed Forces.

    This means that if you do one of the following, you could be involuntarily separated before your term of services ends:

    Homosexual acts. You engage in, attempt to engage in, or solicit another to engage in a homosexual act or acts. A “homosexual act” means touching a person of your same sex or allowing such a person to touch you for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires. (For example, hand-holding or kissing, or other physical contact of a sexual nature.)
    Homosexual statements. You make a statement that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts. This may include a statement by you that you are a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect. It also may include behavior that a reasonable person would believe was intended to convey the statement that you are a homosexual or bisexual.
    Homosexual marriage. You marry or attempt to marry a person of your same sex. You will not necessarily be discharged if you do or say these things solely to end your military service. You may, however, be disciplined.

    The Armed Forces do not tolerate harassment or violence against any service member, for any reason.
  • Little_Spoon

    Posts: 1562

    Jun 18, 2011 6:24 PM GMT
    It's a huge issue!
    The rules of the appeal in combination with DAMA are horrible!

    They really make the love of two same sex couple seem second class to hetero love.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 6:26 PM GMT
    Most current cases involving homosexuality are on hold. Because that specific passage hasn't been stricken out yet doesn't mean it is enforced. There are laws still on the books in Alabama, back from the Jim Crow times that have yet to be struck down...do you think they are enforced?

    I'm not disagreeing with your original statement that you hope there isn't a flooding of gay people into the armed forces...fueled by the wrong reasons.


    blackstrap saidcan anyone actually answer if this has been removed from the package you sign when you enlist:

    IAlthough we have not and will not ask you whether you are a heterosexual, or a homosexual, or a bisexual, you should be aware that homosexual acts, statements that demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, and homosexual marriages or attempted marriages are grounds for discharge from the Armed Forces.

    This means that if you do one of the following, you could be involuntarily separated before your term of services ends:

    Homosexual acts. You engage in, attempt to engage in, or solicit another to engage in a homosexual act or acts. A “homosexual act” means touching a person of your same sex or allowing such a person to touch you for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires. (For example, hand-holding or kissing, or other physical contact of a sexual nature.)
    Homosexual statements. You make a statement that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts. This may include a statement by you that you are a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect. It also may include behavior that a reasonable person would believe was intended to convey the statement that you are a homosexual or bisexual.
    Homosexual marriage. You marry or attempt to marry a person of your same sex. You will not necessarily be discharged if you do or say these things solely to end your military service. You may, however, be disciplined.

    The Armed Forces do not tolerate harassment or violence against any service member, for any reason.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 18, 2011 6:28 PM GMT
    Kevin_Boring saidI know that it's more or less a non-issue now, but a recent conversation made me wonder. Do you think the repeal would have been easier to push through if proponents of the ban sold it less as a human rights issue and more as a budgeting issue?


    Actually, it was argued more as a national security and fiscal issue. That's the only way conservatives warm up to equality. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 6:43 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidThough even after the US Code is changed (it's in Title 10 if memory serves, but otherwise please correct me) I'd still like to see some order, Executive or otherwise, that says sexual orientation doesn't have to be revealed. There's no reason to track that, so let's hope it just never is asked again.


    It is safe to say you know more about the UCMJ than me! We in the UK armed forces now have a fairly simple Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct, with the 'Service Test' at its core:

    When considering possible cases of social misconduct, and in determining whether the Service has a duty to intervene in the personal lives of its personnel, Commanding Officers at every level must consider each case against the following Service Test:

    "Have the actions or behaviour of an individual adversely impacted or are they likely to impact on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Service?"

    This policy does not discriminate on grounds of race, ethnic origin, religion, belief, sexual orientation or social background. Neither does it discriminate on grounds of gender, disability or age, insofar as the legislation applies to the Armed Forces.


    Alleged social misconduct is therefore judged purely on its impact upon efficiency and operational effectiveness. For example, on deployed operations, sexual relations between two service personnel would be unacceptable, regardless of their sexual orientation. (Of course, in practice, such behaviour on ops does go on, but the discrete tend not to get caught!).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 7:20 PM GMT
    blackstrap saidhow is it a non-issue? it hasn't even been pushed through yet. and to be honest, im sick to fucking death of gay people who wouldnt have joined the military anyways and who - when it really comes down to it - are extremely anti-military acting as if this is some kind of gay rights victory for themselves. its specifically a victory (if you wanna call it that) for enlisted people who (like myself) enlisted before the repeal and would have anyways. im honestly concerned that people who would not have joined the military prior to the repeal will now join and use the service (as many people do) for 'government welfare' and turn the armed forces into some kind of fucking liberal coalition where everyone is treated "fairly". the military is not a democracy - this is a very simple concept that civilians can not grasp. i always knew i wanted to be in the Navy. DADT definitely is a sort of sigh of relief but sure as fuck would not have stopped me from enlisting.


    Are you referring to me? Because I don't think anything I said indicated that I see the repeal as a personal victory for myself. Still, your logic is completely fucked. Saying LGBT servicemen can who enlisted before the repeal are the only ones who can celebrate the repeal, is like saying gay couples who've been together for 10+ years are the only people who can be happy about marriage equality. Whether or not I have a vested interested in the military, the repeal of DADT is a momentousness victory for equality. Get over yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 7:29 PM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    Kevin_Boring saidI know that it's more or less a non-issue now, but a recent conversation made me wonder. Do you think the repeal would have been easier to push through if proponents of the ban sold it less as a human rights issue and more as a budgeting issue?


    Actually, it was argued more as a national security and fiscal issue. That's the only way conservatives warm up to equality. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I agree and I definitely heard those arguments made in debates and whatnot, but I feel like they were always taking backseat to the equality issue. Then again, that could be because my news outlets tend to be pretty left leaning.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 8:38 PM GMT
    equality is a Civil Rights issue - which does trump all the other aspects. Our rights (our being Americans) doesn't have a price and *shouldn't* be determined based on budgets and political ideologies.

    Kevin_Boring said
    coolarmydude said
    Kevin_Boring saidI know that it's more or less a non-issue now, but a recent conversation made me wonder. Do you think the repeal would have been easier to push through if proponents of the ban sold it less as a human rights issue and more as a budgeting issue?


    Actually, it was argued more as a national security and fiscal issue. That's the only way conservatives warm up to equality. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I agree and I definitely heard those arguments made in debates and whatnot, but I feel like they were always taking backseat to the equality issue. Then again, that could be because my news outlets tend to be pretty left leaning.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2011 9:56 PM GMT
    Kevin_Boring saidI know that it's more or less a non-issue now, but a recent conversation made me wonder. Do you think the repeal would have been easier to push through if proponents of the ban sold it less as a human rights issue and more as a budgeting issue?



    DADT was a policy concerning sexual orientation, gays, and lesbians and so whether you argue for its repeal on the grounds of human rights, economics, or national security, there is no way around using the words 'sexual orientation', 'gays', or 'lesbians' and so those are the words that will stick in people's mind. Most people, even those not against us, will think of it first as a 'gay' issue before they think of it as a budgeting issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2011 7:30 AM GMT
    Kevin_Boring said
    blackstrap saidhow is it a non-issue? it hasn't even been pushed through yet. and to be honest, im sick to fucking death of gay people who wouldnt have joined the military anyways and who - when it really comes down to it - are extremely anti-military acting as if this is some kind of gay rights victory for themselves. its specifically a victory (if you wanna call it that) for enlisted people who (like myself) enlisted before the repeal and would have anyways. im honestly concerned that people who would not have joined the military prior to the repeal will now join and use the service (as many people do) for 'government welfare' and turn the armed forces into some kind of fucking liberal coalition where everyone is treated "fairly". the military is not a democracy - this is a very simple concept that civilians can not grasp. i always knew i wanted to be in the Navy. DADT definitely is a sort of sigh of relief but sure as fuck would not have stopped me from enlisting.


    Are you referring to me? Because I don't think anything I said indicated that I see the repeal as a personal victory for myself. Still, your logic is completely fucked. Saying LGBT servicemen can who enlisted before the repeal are the only ones who can celebrate the repeal, is like saying gay couples who've been together for 10+ years are the only people who can be happy about marriage equality. Whether or not I have a vested interested in the military, the repeal of DADT is a momentousness victory for equality. Get over yourself.


    am i specifically referring to you? no. i dont know you. just like you don't know anything about the military. just like when it comes down to it, i know so much less about the military than alot of other people. but i do know that issues that directly effect the military are military issues and should not be co-opted by special interest groups to further their own agenda even if do (i think i do) support that agenda. the military is not a democracy and the policies that are set forth should not be brought into public discourse because the way the armed forces are run are different than the way the rest of the government is run. you (not just you - lots of people) cant grasp this concept which i find incredibly fucking annoying.
    and i apologize if i sound like a huge asshole. i need to chill on being such a hard headed piece of shit even if thats what i am. you should try and ultimately fail to understand what its like to be in the military (gay or not). some people dont turn into huge douche bags, unfortunately i dont think im one of them.