FYI! What Next??

[OJR]

Gay Groups Fight 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

International Herald Tribune |

September 15, 2006

Three young men who tried to enlist at a U.S. Army recruiting station here appeared to be first-rate military material.

Two were college students, and the other was a college graduate. They had no criminal records. They were physically fit and eager to serve at a time when wars on two fronts have put a strain on U.S. troops and the need for qualified recruits is great.

But the recruiter was forced to turn them away, for one reason: They are gay and unwilling to conceal it.

"Don't judge me because of my sexuality," said one of the three, Justin Hager, 20, a self-described Republican from a military family who has "a driving desire to join" the armed forces. "Judge me because of my character and drive."

As the Pentagon's search for recruits grows more urgent, gay rights groups are making the biggest push in nearly a decade to win repeal of a compromise policy, encoded in a 1993 law and dubbed "don't ask, don't tell," that bars openly gay people from serving in the military. The policy, grounded in a belief that open homosexuality is damaging to unit morale and cohesion, stipulates that gay men and lesbians must serve in silence and refrain from homosexual activity, and that recruiters and commanders may not ask them about their sexual orientation in the absence of compelling evidence that homosexual acts have occurred.

The push for repeal follows years of legal setbacks, as well as discord among gay rights groups about how, or even whether, to address the issue. Now, rather than rely on the courts, advocates are focusing on drumming up support in towns across the country, spotlighting the personal stories of gay former service members and pushing a Democratic bill in the House that would do away with the policy.

In August the gay rights group Soulforce opened a national campaign by recruiting openly gay people, like the three young men in Madison, who would have enlisted in the military if not for "don't ask, don't tell."

As part of that campaign, two young people who were rejected as applicants on Tuesday at a recruitment center in Chicago returned there on Wednesday and engaged in a sit-in. They were arrested but later released without charges.

The move to change the policy faces stiff resistance from the Pentagon and Republicans in Congress, who, in a time of war during a tough election year, have no longing for another contentious debate about gay troops. The House bill, introduced last year by Representative Martin Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, has picked up 119 supporters, but only five of them Republicans.

"In the near term, it has zero chance," said Daniel Goure, a vice president at the centrist Lexington Institute. "It's hard to see how anyone would want to give potential opponents any ammunition to knock them off."

A 2004 report by the Urban Institute concluded that at least 60,000 gay people were serving in the armed forces, including the Reserves and the National Guard. But since 1993, at least 11,000 members have been discharged for being openly gay, among them 800 in highly crucial jobs, according to the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm.

For all of that, gay rights groups, gay veterans and some analysts say much has changed since the policy was adopted. A Gallup poll in 2004 found that 63 percent of respondents favored allowing gay troops to serve openly; a similar one, by the Pew Research Center this year, put the number at 60 percent; those majorities did not exist in 1993. Young people in particular now have more tolerant views about homosexuality.

In addition, 24 foreign armies, most notably those of Britain and Israel, have integrated openly gay people into their ranks with little impact on effectiveness and recruitment. In Britain, where the military was initially forced to accept gay troops by the European Court of Human Rights, gay partners are now afforded full benefits, and the Royal Navy has called on a gay rights group to help recruit gay sailors.

The new debate on "don't ask, don't tell" also coincides with multiple deployments that are being required of many U.S. troops by a military that has lowered its standards to allow more high school dropouts and some convicted criminals to enlist.

Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, retired, former superintendent at West Point and onetime assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said both the British experience and the shifts in attitudes at home would cause the U.S. armed forces to change, though slowly.

"It is clear that national attitudes toward this issue have evolved considerably in the last decade," said Christman, now a senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "This has been led by a new generation of service members who take a more relaxed and tolerant view toward homosexuality. This does not mean that we will move to a British-like policy of 'don't ask, don't misbehave' any time soon. But I think it is inevitable that the policy will eventually change along the lines of what the British military presently practices."

On the other side of the divide, Elaine Donnelly, president of the conservative Center for Military Readiness, said permitting gay men and lesbians to serve openly would prompt recruitment rates to drop and disrupt unit cohesion, a linchpin in the decision to allow gay troops to serve only in silence.

"People in the military live in conditions of little or no privacy," said Donnelly, who advocates a full ban on gay troops. "In conditions of forced intimacy, people should not have to expose themselves to other persons who are sexually attracted to them."

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Re: FYI! What Next??

[ QUOTE ]

...The policy, grounded in a belief that open homosexuality is damaging to unit morale and cohesion...

[/ QUOTE ]

And there it is. Regardless of any particular gay person's fitness to serve, if it causes problems for the other soldiers, then they should be excluded.

[Gator]

Re: FYI! What Next??

[ QUOTE ]

On the other side of the divide, Elaine Donnelly, president of the conservative Center for Military Readiness, said permitting gay men and lesbians to serve openly would prompt recruitment rates to drop and disrupt unit cohesion, a linchpin in the decision to allow gay troops to serve only in silence.

"People in the military live in conditions of little or no privacy," said Donnelly, who advocates a full ban on gay troops. "In conditions of forced intimacy, people should not have to expose themselves to other persons who are sexually attracted to them."

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what the "these" people fail to realize, the detrimental effect of allowing gays and lesbians in the military. I for one DID NOT want to be around them, for the very reason stated above. I can only imagine the fallout that would take place if this did occur. I feel that there will be alot more "hate" crime instances take place also.

[BowJoe]

Re: FYI! What Next??

I say put them all on the front lines!

[Guest DJR]

Re: FYI! What Next??

[ QUOTE ]

I say put them all on the front lines!

[/ QUOTE ]

No thats where I'm at , and I dont want someone thinking about me and how i looked in the shower , I wnat all there attention on the enemy!!!!!

[Elwood]

Re: FYI! What Next??

Keep them out of the services, I don't want to have to watch my back with the enemy in front of me.

[WaCoyote]

Re: FYI! What Next??

When I was a young man in the army I felt the exact same way as you all seem to about gays in the military. The older I get though, the less I care. Let me put your minds at ease, just because a guy is gay doesn't mean he's got the hots for YOU. Does every woman have the hots for YOU! Are you really that arrogent? Thats just stupid. Frankly, if you can't defend yourself from a gay guy you shouldn't be serving in the military yourself. If that scares you what happens when the bullets fly? I guarantee that every one of you knows a gay guy or woman right now and don't even know it.

But, since the services are full of mostly young men who feel pretty much all the same way about the issue I believe that it is bad for moral and they shouldn't be allowed in. I surely felt that way when I was in and I said all the things that were said above. I have several gay customers now though, and I like them. They pay there bills, they're courteous, they are realistic, they are just plain easy to work with. I believe they could serve and they could serve well, BUT I also believe that the majority of the troops should be able to make this decision. Not BILL CLINTON with his don't ask don't tell policy. The openly gay militant types described in the above story definately shouldn't be allowed in, if only for there own safety. If these guys want to serve so bad why can't they just keep there mouths shut? I'm sick and tired of these militant gays so aggressively trying to make us think that anything they do or anything they say is ok.

[stevebeilgard]

Re: FYI! What Next??

don't ask don't tell is liberal enough. just do as it says, without boasting you're messed up.

[horst]

Re: FYI! What Next??

Lets see, the government goes after businuesses that dont hire minorities on the sole basis that thier minorities.

The same government wont enlist minorities itself on the sole basis that thier minorities.Makes perfect sense to me, clear as mud.

[oldksnarc]

Re: FYI! What Next??

[ QUOTE ]

Lets see, the government goes after businuesses that dont hire minorities on the sole basis that thier minorities.

The same government wont enlist minorities itself on the sole basis that thier minorities.Makes perfect sense to me, clear as mud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality is not a minority. It is a sickness and shouldn't be tolerated in either the military or not.

[slugshooter]

Re: FYI! What Next??

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Lets see, the government goes after businuesses that dont hire minorities on the sole basis that thier minorities.

The same government wont enlist minorities itself on the sole basis that thier minorities.Makes perfect sense to me, clear as mud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality is not a minority. It is a sickness and shouldn't be tolerated in either the military or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's a sickness, then why isn't there a cure? An anti-homo pill or something?

[Guest aitchie666]

Re: FYI! What Next??

In britain we have these stupid equal rights acts which is great if you not a white, christian hectrosexual. When i was in trainin for the marines even had some iraqi bloke who was born in basra, in training to become a royal marine commando. no work that out

[ParrotHead]

Re: FYI! What Next??

[ QUOTE ]

If it's a sickness, then why isn't there a cure? An anti-homo pill or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cause their still working on curing the common cold.....give 'em time though