News:

"Wings and a Prayer [L-E]"
Congratulations OfferedToEros & Random for completing your RP!

Main Menu

Don't Ask Don't Tell Repealed

Started by Jude, December 18, 2010, 03:22:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jude

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101218/ap_on_go_co/us_gays_in_military

I'm kind of irritated about how the article calls this a "landmark for gay rights."  Woo, homosexuals can serve openly in the military -- now how about equal protection under the law in so many other ways?  Yes, this is a step in the right direction, but I really hope mainstream society doesn't look at this like, "OK, we threw homosexuals a bone, now they need to stop complaining about everything else."  This is a tiny step in the right direction, not a "landmark" on the journey to equality.

Callie Del Noire

I don't know.. the article is right on how big a deal that the 1948 integration of Blacks into the military did. You can't flick a switch and everything changes instantly to the way you want. It, that being institutions, take time to change. It's a sad simple fact.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' wasn't as bad as some folks present it. It allowed a lot of folks to quietly serve that wouldn't have. I know of at least three chiefs I served with who were 'not telling' and did their job with the utmost professionalism. One of them was a mentor to me and without her advice on how to look at the military and my role in it, I wouldn't have been able to grow into the supervisor I knew I could be.


goalt

DADT lost us a lot of mission critical personnel--including translators for rare-to-find-translators languages. This, plus the general rights thing, makes me quite happy.

It's another step along the road for us.
So, hey. Back now, and ready to write. Woo!
O&O

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: goalt on December 18, 2010, 07:13:13 PM
DADT lost us a lot of mission critical personnel--including translators for rare-to-find-translators languages. This, plus the general rights thing, makes me quite happy.

It's another step along the road for us.

Didn't say this it was perfect, merely another step forward. Military culture is typically a bit more rigid and conservative and it takes a bit of time to change (I still had senior chiefs who.. 10 years later.. thought coed deployements were a mistake on carriers and other ships)

Silverfyre

I look at it this way: Casting a stone into a river may not seem like much at first but soon, the ripples from that stone can create the greatest of waves.  We have to start somewhere, no matter how small and exclusive that step may seem.  The repeal of this act might very well be that ripple.  I think it's just common sense to get rid of such a bullshit act.  Now maybe the rest of the government will get their heads out of their asses and move forward in giving gays and lesbians all the rights they deserve as equal citizens of the U.S. 

Wishful thinking, yes, since politicians tend to love the view from the inside of their own butts but hey, one can hope.


Alsheriam

#5
As Colin Powell pointed out in his autobiography, the US military (oddly enough, with its thoroughly conformist culture that is required of its participants) tends to be at the forefront when it comes to social change. Look at where Powell got to by the end of the 20th century. These things take time. *snip*

Watch your words, and use them wisely. Thank you. ~Staff
A/A

HockeyGod

Congrats to Congress and the President for this important step forward.

Thank you to all the LGB and T soldiers serving in our military that now will not be discharged because of who they love.

Star Safyre

It will be much more difficult to justify the discrimination against and the restrictions on the rights of the LGBT community when they fight and die for those rights.
My heaven is to be with him always.
|/| O/O's / Plots / tumblr / A/A's |/|
And I am a writer, writer of fictions
I am the heart that you call home
And I've written pages upon pages
Trying to rid you from my bones

Noelle

I wonder if there will be any massive appeal to try and reverse the decision, or better yet, a push by conservatives to oust all the senators that voted for this since they're obviously overturning the will of the people.


Sorry, still feeling a little bitter after Iowa's "activist judges" got voted out :(

Brandon

One thing that bugs me about this is people proclaiming it as a landmark in gay rights rather then a landmark for the soldiers that got fired for being themselves. I mean its true, it is a landmark in gay rights but to me it feels like Im betraying those soldiers who were effected by dont ask dont tell when I, for lack of a better phrase, dumb it down like that.

Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Jude

More food for thought that is in direct opposition to my original post:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20101219/ts_yblog_theticket/in-a-historic-vote-the-senate-overturns-dont-ask-dont-tell

Honestly, I have to agree with this new post.  I think that writer knows what they're talking about better than me :P

Zeitgeist

And it's just a matter of months before a general or generals are called to the carpet before Congress for what will be perceived as a mishandling of regulations when a serviceman is hazed, assaulted or God help us, chucked overboard in the Indian Ocean because some hick doesn't want to share his bunk with a gay sailor.

I'm just saying, it's going to happen. I hope people are patient with the military, and understand that it won't change overnight.

For the record, and to avoid any confusion, personally, I'm for the appeal of DADT.

Star Safyre

The military went through similar situations when women were permitted to join as well as when they were desegregated racially.  There is protocol and precedence for these types of situation.  I don't anticipate the transition to be entirely smooth, but I don't think anything unexpected will occur for which there is no prepared action to address.
My heaven is to be with him always.
|/| O/O's / Plots / tumblr / A/A's |/|
And I am a writer, writer of fictions
I am the heart that you call home
And I've written pages upon pages
Trying to rid you from my bones

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Alsheriam on December 19, 2010, 02:11:12 AM
The Christiano-theocratic-fascist movement will also need to take time to admit defeat.


Tarring with a pretty broad brush there.

Xenophile

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on December 19, 2010, 02:12:31 PM

Tarring with a pretty broad brush there.

I don't really see it that way. He never really said that everyone opposing this motion belonged to the "CTF"-movement, or that it all Christians belonged to it et cetera.

I, for one, acknowledge that the Christiano-theocratic-fascist movement is a real group to consider... Whether or not it's a really good name for 'em.
Ons and Offs
Updated 2011 June 5th A's and A's

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Xenophile on December 19, 2010, 02:17:27 PM
I don't really see it that way. He never really said that everyone opposing this motion belonged to the "CTF"-movement, or that it all Christians belonged to it et cetera.

I, for one, acknowledge that the Christiano-theocratic-fascist movement is a real group to consider... Whether or not it's a really good name for 'em.

It denotes a fair amount of organization taht doesn't exist. (like the fictious 'Zionist' movement of the 60s and 70s.)

Xenophile

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on December 19, 2010, 02:32:58 PM
It denotes a fair amount of organization taht doesn't exist. (like the fictious 'Zionist' movement of the 60s and 70s.)

Perhaps, but the Conservative movement could in general be considered a very loose term, and I choose to see that Christiano-whatever-stuff movement in the same light. It's a name for a political phenomena and a group of people that share similar ideals and motives without it needing to be a organisational structure that controls every person involved in it.

But now I'm just assuming that was what Alsheriam originally meant.
Ons and Offs
Updated 2011 June 5th A's and A's

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Xenophile on December 19, 2010, 02:37:36 PM
Perhaps, but the Conservative movement could in general be considered a very loose term, and I choose to see that Christiano-whatever-stuff movement in the same light. It's a name for a political phenomena and a group of people that share similar ideals and motives without it needing to be a organisational structure that controls every person involved in it.

But now I'm just assuming that was what Alsheriam originally meant.

It is a divisive name, and hints that the person giving it doesn't want to work with them at all. Not a good attitude for any reform/educating sort of movement.

Xenophile

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on December 19, 2010, 02:40:00 PM
It is a divisive name, and hints that the person giving it doesn't want to work with them at all. Not a good attitude for any reform/educating sort of movement.

True, but groups and people with severely different opinions often do have issues when working dealing with each other in general. Especially when one, or both, parties have unshakeable policies when they see no need to reform.

And I don't think I'm assuming too much when I say that the Far-Right elements in the US (or any place else possibly) is a group that isn't easily perturbed or persuaded.
Ons and Offs
Updated 2011 June 5th A's and A's

Sure

Quote from: Xenophile on December 19, 2010, 02:48:34 PM
And I don't think I'm assuming too much when I say that the Far-Right elements in the US (or any place else possibly) is a group that isn't easily perturbed or persuaded.

Not any more or less than the Far Left elements in any place. If Fascism is the extreme of the right, then Communism is the extreme of the left. Both are absolutist ideologies and ultimately end up not very different from each other. It's a good thing to remember.

They also happen to be similar in that the vast majority of people on both the left and right in our country find such things abhorrent.

Now, Alsheriam is known for his extremely anti-religious views, I'd suggest not letting them derail the conversation.

I'm not sure what effect, good or bad, this will have on the military. Personally, I don't believe it will be much in either direction. The military is made to withstand just about anything by its nature, so I'd imagine they can withstand having openly gay members. And on the other direction, a few hundred soldiers a year is not going to be particularly significant in a several million man service.

I am interested goalt's claim, though. I don't know about every soldier that has been discharged, but were there an unusually large number of homosexual translators?

Xenophile

I can definitely understand the point of combat effectiveness that the DADT supporters like to bring up, that an openly gay trooper might be treated or handled differently than someone that isn't, but the fact that those reasons stem from a non-acceptance of homosexuals that exist in society at large. If the military had kept that policy, it would only serve as a legitimate claim against open homosexuality. If the military firmly say that sexuality WILL NOT interfere with combat effectiveness as it is unacceptable, it will make a strong point for the case of homosexuals in the country and equality in general.

If marines can learn (or at worst be forced) to accept homosexuals, maybe there's some hope for the civilians too.
Ons and Offs
Updated 2011 June 5th A's and A's

rick957

#21
QuoteThese things take time. *snip*

Watch your words, and use them wisely. Thank you. ~Staff

I have nothing but respect and appreciation for the staff of Elliquiy, but I find the terseness of this explanation quite troubling.  I'm sure we all agree that putting restrictions on what people can or can't say -- i.e., censorship -- is a very serious matter.  If there was a rule that was violated by that statement, could someone please at least cite the rule?

Personally, I thought the snipped remark was both ill-considered and poorly phrased, but I did not find the statement offensive or inappropriate, in either its content or in the way it was expressed. 

I also hope that other people reading this would let their views be known on this matter, whether they agree with me or not.  I'd like to know what the community here thinks about this.

OldSchoolGamer

Time will tell how the DADT repeal will work out in the field.

I think Obama will--rightly or wrongly--take some heat for pushing the repeal.  And not solely from the anti-homosexual Right, too.  There's an old saying about American politics: during times of deep recession, the three most important issues to the electorate are the economy, the economy--and the economy.  Instead, Obama was pushing health reform and this repeal, among other things.  One reason his party was punished back in November was because--rightly or wrongly--the electorate perceived Obama as being distracted and disconnected from those three most important issues.

If the death of DADT goes over poorly in the field, and Republicans win the White House and Congress in 2012, we may not have seen the last of DADT.  Of course, if the economy is still flagging, Republicans may be reluctant to make restoring DADT a flagship issue for fear of being perceived as repeating Obama's purported neglect of the "Big Three" issues.

Trieste

Quote from: rick957 on December 19, 2010, 08:36:12 PM
I have nothing but respect and appreciation for the staff of Elliquiy, but I find the terseness of this explanation quite troubling.  I'm sure we all agree that putting restrictions on what people can or can't say -- i.e., censorship -- is a very serious matter.  If there was a rule that was violated by that statement, could someone please at least cite the rule?

Personally, I thought the snipped remark was both ill-considered and poorly phrased, but I did not find the statement offensive or inappropriate, in either its content or in the way it was expressed. 

I also hope that other people reading this would let their views be known on this matter, whether they agree with me or not.  I'd like to know what the community here thinks about this.

There are more mature ways to express a point than resorting to namecalling, and that's all I'm going to say on the subject. If you have questions, PM them to staff please.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on December 19, 2010, 09:48:41 PM
Time will tell how the DADT repeal will work out in the field.

I think Obama will--rightly or wrongly--take some heat for pushing the repeal.  And not solely from the anti-homosexual Right, too.  There's an old saying about American politics: during times of deep recession, the three most important issues to the electorate are the economy, the economy--and the economy.  Instead, Obama was pushing health reform and this repeal, among other things.  One reason his party was punished back in November was because--rightly or wrongly--the electorate perceived Obama as being distracted and disconnected from those three most important issues.

If the death of DADT goes over poorly in the field, and Republicans win the White House and Congress in 2012, we may not have seen the last of DADT.  Of course, if the economy is still flagging, Republicans may be reluctant to make restoring DADT a flagship issue for fear of being perceived as repeating Obama's purported neglect of the "Big Three" issues.

My impression on DADT. It's not the grunts on the field that will be the problem mostly (aside from a few exceptions) but the way the military handles it from the top down.


There have been some tragic episodes in the past  (pre and post -DADT) and like I said before, the military culture is a lot more static and generally conservative to the 'average' slice of America. That being said, unlike the civilian world, the military CAN enforce changes like this. You go against the rule of Military Law..and they WILL hammer you flat. As it was pointed out a LOT of times by my bosses, and later by myself as a supervisor, we (the military) are here to protect democracy NOT practice it.

If it goes all the way through, the DoD will enforce the laws given to them. And the folks in the chain of command WILL do what they are told or suffer the consequences. The converse of this is that as they come out, homosexuals will have to see that they have to measure of to the same measure of conduct that the heterosexuals have to. Question is, will it be okay for them to be punished for fraternizing and such? Or will there be a lot of the same sort of stuff that happened after Tailhook?

The reason that I ask, is that for several years after Tailhook and the hearings, it was exceedingly easy for a woman to get a guy into trouble in some sections of the military. It was seen by the grunts at the lower levels as 'we can't win' against such claims. Not every woman did this mind, hell I can only name 3 in my 15 years in the Navy that did it. But the ones that did, damaged a lot of people's perceptions. I saw one particular woman damage no less than 10 careers before she finally fell on her own sword.  (It took no less than going UA (Unexcused Absence) overnight in Dubai with a Senior Chief to do it)

I hope that there is no flashback in either way BUT I think there will be. No matter who gets hurt, I hope it's not used as a bludgeon that our troops will have to suffer through like they did with the Tailhook scandal.


Funguy81

i say if anyone wants to serve, and has the capability to serve in the military they should serve. whether the that person is straight, gay, bi, or anything else that comes to it. the orientation does not determine the capability as a soldier, its the personality. I have met bad and good soldiers of all orientations in my time in the army. 

To this day i still find it funny the excuse some of the politicians used the excuse that straight male soldiers will find it uncomfortable during guard duty if they share a guard tower with a gay soldier, because the gay soldier might see the straight soldier as a sexual object. Yet it was policy of the army that if a female soldier is on guard duty, a male soldier has to accompany her at all times. I'm sure neither one of them wont see the other as a sexual object in that same situation.

The way i see it, as long as the person performs his job with the skill and dedication of a soldier, i dont care what that person does during his off time.

HockeyGod

Quote from: Funguy81 on January 20, 2011, 08:44:59 PM
Yet it was policy of the army that if a female soldier is on guard duty, a male soldier has to accompany her at all times. I'm sure neither one of them wont see the other as a sexual object in that same situation.

He, he...good point!

Oniya

An excellent point - although there are still a few old bast-ions that disapprove of women in combat regions.  I'm not sure I agree with the statement that a soldier will see an opposite gender soldier in a sexual light, though (had to suss out a double negative there - hope I interpreted you correctly).  I would actually think that in that sort of highly interdependent situation, the rest of the team is seen more as 'teammates' and less as potential bedmates.  Something like the idea of sleeping with your brother or sister.

I'm sure that those who have actually served in mixed-gender settings will probably weigh in on this - I'm only the daughter of one who served, and I'm pretty sure that was before women were allowed in combat units.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Funguy81

actually to be honest, i served in mixed gender units and in all male combat units. while i know i am probably gonna be blasted for this, i kind of hope male combat units stay as they are. i seen so many problems in mixed gender units that i was not even an issue in an all male unit. guys always trying to one up eachother to gain a female soldiers attention, the females playing the helpless damsel that could not lift a box so she works her sexuality to get guys to do her work for her. it distracts people from the mission and adds drama that is not needed. again, that depends on the individual person and i met female soldiers that could do the job better than any male soldier.

just from my personal experiences that as long as the temptation is there, it adds complications. i have no hatred to a female becoming a soldier and more than welcome they join the military. just dont want to add them to a front line combat unit not because they cant do the job if they are capable, but to keep complications to a minimum.

Zeitgeist

I'm not settled on the matter myself, but what ever is done, should be done to make the unit better. Making changes to the makeup of a unit on the basis of fairness only, in my opinion would be foolish. We are not talking about a book club, this is a combat unit.

Women have, and already do serve in combat situations and zones. To suggest they've been left out of the loop or not included, only denigrates the service of those women who have already served.

Oniya

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on January 21, 2011, 08:42:37 AM
Women have, and already do serve in combat situations and zones. To suggest they've been left out of the loop or not included, only denigrates the service of those women who have already served.

I don't think anyone has suggested this.  I only meant to imply that there are some in the military - primarily those that started their service before that was allowed - who haven't come to terms with it, and don't particularly like it.  My father's term of service was prior to gender integration on the front lines, so I don't have any personal anecdotes to go by, but when I was in college, women were already attending places like VMI and West Point (and well entrenched in the latter, based on the dates).
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Oniya on January 21, 2011, 08:52:29 AM
I don't think anyone has suggested this.  I only meant to imply that there are some in the military - primarily those that started their service before that was allowed - who haven't come to terms with it, and don't particularly like it.  My father's term of service was prior to gender integration on the front lines, so I don't have any personal anecdotes to go by, but when I was in college, women were already attending places like VMI and West Point (and well entrenched in the latter, based on the dates).

Indeed. I would just hate to see the service they've already done brushed aside and not well though of, simply because they don't serve in one particular aspect of the military. God knows serving as a nurse or medic in WWII, Vietnam or other times of conflict was and is just as honorable and substantial as a front line soldier.

Oniya

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on January 21, 2011, 08:56:48 AM
Indeed. I would just hate to see the service they've already done brushed aside and not well though of, simply because they don't serve in one particular aspect of the military. God knows serving as a nurse or medic in WWII, Vietnam or other times of conflict was and is just as honorable and substantial as a front line soldier.

And is also very well established, whereas women serving on the front line is still fairly new.  I personally remember being surprised at the idea of women at VMI (I was in college at MBC when that particular court battle was being fought), although the idea of a woman wanting to join the army as a nurse or medic was barely blinked at by that point, at least by my contemporaries.  People my age and older have seen that particular change go from the 'surprising' to the accepted, and now we are witnessing a similar evolution with respect to DADT.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Oniya on January 21, 2011, 10:43:00 AM
And is also very well established, whereas women serving on the front line is still fairly new.  I personally remember being surprised at the idea of women at VMI (I was in college at MBC when that particular court battle was being fought), although the idea of a woman wanting to join the army as a nurse or medic was barely blinked at by that point, at least by my contemporaries.  People my age and older have seen that particular change go from the 'surprising' to the accepted, and now we are witnessing a similar evolution with respect to DADT.

Yeah, bringing it back around to DADT, I have to support the idea of allowing, or rather, discarding such regulations from the military so that they can serve if they wish to. Ironically, I think, in the absence of DADT and without a new regulation in place, we are currently at a period prior to DADT which means there is no implied policy of 'we won't ask', if 'you don't tell', and that the UCMJ is in full force.

Republicans and other opponents of this policy I think would be wise to let it go and reserve energies and political capital for more important issues. Our allies have gays in the military, so there shouldn't be any reason why we can't. Choose your battles, choose them wisely.