4

Quote :

"mincing faggotry"

LOL

5/21/2009 1:39:08 PM

Quote :

"How many of these over the top queers are in the service, and, if they are indeed suffering from such acute cases of mincing faggotry, how are they able to conceal that in the first place?"

Haha, hardly any as it stands right now. That is one of the good sides of DADT.

5/21/2009 5:11:40 PM

I would imagine the culture of the military would naturally lead to more "one of the guys" type behavior patterns with or without DADT.

5/21/2009 5:37:36 PM

One would think that, and it probably is the case to an extent, but there are plenty of cases that I've seen with women where it has NOT been the case--either from an EO standpoint, a flirt-my-way-to-my-goals standpoint, or a total lack of professionalism standpoint (as an example, I know a female Marine Captain who used to change out of uniform into pajamas when she'd have to stand watch overnight. I dare say that there is not a single male officer in the entire Marine Corps that would've done that.

Quote :

"Haha, hardly any as it stands right now. That is one of the good sides of DADT. "

I should offer one exception that I've seen, although in the opposite direction:

There is a female aviator who does the same job as me (we mostly all know each other, because there are only a couple hundred of us in the whole Marine Corps, and all 4 squadrons are located together at Cherry Point). I can't say for sure that she's a lesbian, but I can tell you that she is butch like you wouldn't believe, both in appearance and personality.

I think she's a little ridiculous from a personal standpoint, but it's not really the end of the world from a professional standpoint, per se. However, back when we were Lieutenants and were about to come up for promotion to Captain, we had to submit a promotion package, including a photograph of us in uniform.

This photo had specific, very clear requirements: Service "C" uniform, with females in skirt (they can generally, as a part of that uniform, wear either skirt or slacks). Well, she showed up to have her picture taken in the service "C" uniform, but with slacks. The photographer refused to take the picture, saying "Ma'am, I can't take this picture. It specifically requires you to wear the skirt, and taking this picture will be a complete waste." She balked and bitched about it, then finally went home, put on the skirt, and came back to have the picture made.

Well, about 2 weeks later, they lifted the requirement for females to wear the skirt. She wanted the command to appropriate more money to have her picture taken again! They, of course, told her to get fucked.

Another time, she was walking around wearing a male cover (hat). The SgtMaj (most senior enlisted man, probably had 30 years of time in service) spoke to her to explain that it wasn't authorized (partly as it's his job to keep people in line, and also to watch the officers' backs to make sure they're not screwing things up and looking like idiots). First of all, it shouldn't come to that to begin with--she shouldn't have been willing to accept looking like a bag of ass in a fucked up uniform. On top of that, she blew off the SgtMaj's advice. He saw her wearing it again the next day, and said something to her again--she argued with him, saying that someone had told her that it was authorized (a--you should look it up yourself, b--have you EVER seen any other female wear it? c--you do not know more about this kind of stuff than the SgtMaj). The SgtMaj accepted that he'd done his job, and couldn't do any more if this officer was determined to fuck things up. He mentioned the problem to my roommate at the time, who proceeded to put his foot up the Lt's ass (haven't seen her wearing any male uniform items since).

5/21/2009 6:23:43 PM

that's like 4 issues in one!

5/21/2009 7:38:24 PM

yeah, i hesitated to even tell those stories. it's an invitation for all sorts of tangents.

at any rate, I'm not really opposed to open homosexuals in the military, per se. I think that there may need to be a couple of caveats and special cases. However, I'm not sure of a good way to implement it. I mean, evaluating individuals would be silly and impossible. As it stands now, we're not keeping anyone out, as long as they stay closeted. Again, I don't think that being closeted is necessary, but it's the only defineable point on the spectrum, and I think that we might likely do more harm by declaring open season than we're currently doing by losing a relatively tiny handfull of personnel that we really should be retaining, and requiring that the homosexuals in the military remain closeted.

5/21/2009 8:26:24 PM

^^^
Your post has nothing to do with DADT. It has to do with not wearing proper attire.

That said it boggles my mind that this is even an argument.

[Edited on May 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2009 12:16:21 PM

Transcript excerpt from This Week with George Stephanopoulos, May 24, 2009

Quote :

"[George] STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me talk about the issues of gays in the military. The president has told you that he wants to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy so that gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military. And the Pentagon said this week that you personally, along with Secretary Gates, are working to address the challenges associated with implementing the president's commitment. What exactly are you doing? And what exactly are you worried about? [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike] MULLEN: The president has made his strategic intent very clear. That it's his intent at some point in time to ask Congress to change this law. I think it's important to also know that this is the law, this isn't a policy. And for the rules to change, a law has to be changed."

Quote :

"STEPHANOPOULOS: Measured, deliberate way. So it sounds like if the Congress calls you up to testify in this, you're going to say now is not the time to repeal? MULLEN: No, I actually -- I'm going to talk to the process that we have in this country, which is we follow the law, and if the law changes, we'll comply. There's absolutely no question about that."

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=7664072&page=2

More half measures, dodges, and euphemistic language from an Obama administration official concerning DADT. FYI.

5/28/2009 1:02:17 PM

Quote :

" half measures, dodges, and euphemistic language "

where? seemed like some pretty straightforward answers to me.

5/28/2009 1:09:56 PM

^ Then you and "straightforward" are completely unacquainted.

5/28/2009 4:40:29 PM

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/poll-even-conservatives-are-in-favor-of-gays-in-the-military.php?ref=fpblg

Quote :

"Poll: Even Conservatives Are In Favor Of Gays In The Military By Eric Kleefeld - June 5, 2009, 4:01PM A new Gallup poll finds an overwhelming majority of Americans, 69%, in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military -- it's so big in fact, that even self-identified conservatives are for it. The polling internals show 58% of conservatives in favor, plus 86% of liberals and 77% of moderates, for the overall top-line of 69%. Back in 2004, 63% of Americans were in favor, with 83% of liberals, 72% of moderates, and 46% of conservatives. This does invite an important question: Is a center-right country like the United States ready to have gays serving in the military?"

6/6/2009 2:23:59 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/08/scotus.gays.military/index.html

6/8/2009 12:32:26 PM

Lt. Choi & Major Witt & otheres still have their cases in the pipes, but I'm betting DADT will most likely be sorted out by the legislature or by the commander-in-chief before another case gets close to SCOTUS. One thing is for sure, there will never be a shortage of cases to keep trying with as long as the policy is in place.

[Edited on June 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2009 4:15:50 PM

Quote :

"President Obama's decision to grant some benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees is seen by some as his attempt to extend an olive branch to the gay and lesbian community, but critics say it's "too little, too late." "

Does the fudge packing community really not think that Obama has anything Maybe a little more pressing or important to work on his first 5 months in office instead of LBGT issues. I do not know small inconsequential issues like...

- the economy
- Ongoing military action in Iraq
- Flu outbreak etc
- N. Korea potentially with nukes
- Health care reform (even if i do disagree with his stance)

Seriously...

Quote :

"Moran said Obama has had multiple opportunities to fulfill his promises to the gay and lesbian community -- including by repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and standing against the Justice Department motion filed last week in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. "Here we are, several months after he's been inaugurated, and we've gotten basically nothing. So it is too little, too late," Moran said. "

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/obama.gay.critics/index.html

maybe they will vote for the alternative in 2012. Surely someone like Sarah Palin will carry the LBGT flag better than the liberal half african ameriacn president.

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 5:29 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 5:29 PM. Reason : a]

6/17/2009 5:19:03 PM

they're all justifiably pissed by the DOMA legal brief filed last week. it really is atrocious.

6/17/2009 5:21:10 PM

Quote :

"Does fudge packing community really not think that Obama has anything Maybe a little more pressing or important to work on his first 5 months in office instead of LBGT issues."

HUR

QFT.

6/17/2009 5:24:21 PM

^^ agreed - the doma stuff was really ridiculous

I do agree that the president has a lot more on his plate to deal with that is arguably more important than LGBT issues - but the administration didn't need to create more problems with their stance on DOMA

6/17/2009 5:32:18 PM

apparently at least some senators and reps are working to get legislation going to repeal DADT.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/18/102658/380

6/19/2009 1:55:34 AM

and obama plans meeting with gay groups next week to hopefully smooth over some of the problems that have arisen in the past week:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/justice-department/obama-administration-set-to-hold-powwow-with-big-gay-groups/

6/19/2009 4:26:55 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31672918/ns/us_news-military/

Quote :

"Gates wants to soften gay expulsion rules Lawyers studying ways the law might be selectively enforced, he says WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday he wants to make the law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the armed forces "more humane" until Congress eventually repeals it. He said he has lawyers studying ways the law might be selectively enforced. "One of the things we're looking at is, is there flexibility in how we apply this law?" Gates said. ... For example, Gates said, the military might not have to expel someone whose sexual orientation was revealed by a third party out of vindictiveness or suspect motives. "

7/1/2009 6:03:13 AM

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11891/admiral-mullen-move-in-a-measured-way-on-dadt-repeal

Quote :

"ADMIRAL MULLEN: Well, what General Powell talks about is the policy and, in fact, the law. And with respect to that, we clearly are carrying out both that policy and law, and will continue to do that until it changes. Secretary Gates spoke recently about reviewing the policy to see if - to make sure that we were executing it in the most humane way possible. It's very clear what president Obama's intent here is. He intends to see this law change. And in my advice, you know, I've had conversations with him about that. What I've discussed in terms of the future is I think we need to move in a measured way. "

The word measured there might be mean "slow" or might just mean doing it the right & proper way, but either way it is still an Admiral saying that we need to move on this instead of keeping the status quo indefinitely.

7/6/2009 2:13:25 PM

After reading that article I'm fairly certain the admiral is advocating restraint, not progress. He does not appear to be for changing DADT right now.

7/6/2009 2:54:13 PM

I gathered that he doesn't want it done hastily, but it is still a shift from not wanting it done at all.

7/6/2009 3:22:52 PM

Quote :

"For example, Gates said, the military might not have to expel someone whose sexual orientation was revealed by a third party out of vindictiveness or suspect motives."

I would agree with this.


and as far as Admiral Mullen goes, I don't read-in any of his personal opinions. It sounds to me like it's simply (A) President wanting to soften DADT, and (B) Admiral Mullen saying "You set the policy, and that's fine...just don't do anything rash.

7/6/2009 3:40:45 PM

One of my toughest Soldiers in my unit on our last deployment was gay. There were rumors going around, but no one pursued it and the other Soldiers had no issues with him. I only confirmed it from his roommate after I went to another battalion.

Truthfully, as stretched as the military is right now on resources, this is probably not the time for a battle over DADT. If anything, the Obama administration should issue a executive order suspending the prosecution of service members who are found to be in violation of DADT. Once we're largely out of Iraq and the operational tempo has decreased the law can be repealed.

It isn't a perfect situation, but probably the most pragmatic one.

7/6/2009 4:29:20 PM

what happens when he issues an executive order like that and some people come out. and then for whatever reason the order is rescinded in a later administration or something? do these people get thrown out?

i don't like the executive order route for repealing dadt at all.

7/6/2009 5:46:00 PM

Good point, I'm not saying that it is the best solution, just a a prospect for now. Personally, I don't think that'd happen. Once these guys are out and serving like every other service member, the military will be loathe to let them go. Granted, they wouldn't have a choice, but I don't see the next Presidential election swinging far enough to the right to cause that.

7/6/2009 6:18:48 PM

Quote :

"obama plans meeting with gay group"

Well, that pretty much says it all. You should realize that saying that Obama is going to meet with gay groups to smooth things over, is a little like saying he's going to meet with Al Sharpton to improve relations with the black community.

Mostly gay groups are just glorified lobbyists that get their money from a number of dubious sources and don't actually represent anybody. DADT is an "issue" that they lobby for to justify paying the salaries of their administrative staff. One might argue that it's not in their best interest to win except incrementally, on occasion.

If they really cared about gay people, they wouldn't meet with Obama about reforming DADT. They'd run campaigns urging gay people to stay the Hell away from the military. Let's face it: it's a conservative institution, it won't change, and being gay there is a recipe for personal disaster. The inequality doesn't particularly bother me here because, frankly, the military isn't a democratic institution, it's a mini fascist state by nature and necessity.

7/6/2009 10:56:46 PM

Quote :

"Let's face it: it's a conservative institution"

Yes and no. I mean, yes, on the whole, no doubt...but I have found that the military--probably partly due to the age demographic, but partly just due to the sort of people who are attracted to it--has a pretty wide libertarian streak.

Quote :

"The inequality doesn't particularly bother me here because, frankly, the military isn't a democratic institution, it's a mini fascist state by nature and necessity."

I agree here to a large extent, too. In general, I really don't like rules & regulations or being told what to do. I tend to color outside the lines. When I first joined the USMC, all of my friends and family thought that I'd really be a square peg in that aspect...but I really haven't had much of a problem with playing by the rules, even when I think they're fucking stupid. I fight them when it's at a level that I can affect (that's part of being an officer--when you see something fucked up, I think it's incumbent upon you to try to fix it)-- but I shut up and color when it's not, or when I try and get shot down. Things that I would get spooled up about in civilian life don't phase me in the military, because it is by nature and necessity, as you said, a completely different animal.

7/6/2009 11:28:47 PM

The UK's military actively recruits gays, and can be seen here participating in a pride parade for like the first minute or so of this video, and apparently even set up recruitment booths at events like this. And the US military seems to have no problem serving along side the UK military & inviting them along on our military adventures in the middle east. I think I saw that the Prime Minister's wife was even taking part.


According to wiki, the UK's rules are:

Quote :

"United Kingdom The United Kingdom's policy is to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly, and discrimination on a sexual orientation basis is forbidden.[23] It is also forbidden for someone to pressure LGBT people to come out. All personnel are subject to the same "no-touching" rules."

[Edited on July 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2009 2:12:44 PM

might as well put this in the thread it belongs in as well:

patrick murphy (iraq war vet) takes the lead on the dadt repeal bill in congress:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/rep-patrick-murphy-iraq-v_n_228000.html

7/8/2009 4:21:00 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lsrn1Xp6qU

7/10/2009 10:43:42 AM

8/9/2009 8:37:30 PM

shit ain't gonna happen pre-health care

8/9/2009 8:45:50 PM

^ And ObamaCare ain't gonna happen.

8/9/2009 8:48:43 PM

Interview with U.S. Congressman Patrick Murphy by a North Carolinian & blogger from the triangle area (Pam Spaulding) from either late yesterday or early today, I'm not sure which.

8/15/2009 11:36:09 AM

I really wish they would get rid of this bullshit law and allow people to serve who want to serve. shit makes no sense

8/16/2009 7:45:05 PM

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113434316

Quote :

"Gay rights activists this week hailed as groundbreaking the Pentagon's decision to publish an essay calling for the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The analysis of the 15-year-old policy, which bars openly gay Americans from serving in the military, was notable not only for its systematic repudiation of arguments that gay service members harm military unit cohesion, but also for its unusual source and placement. It was written by active Air Force Col. Om Prakash, and it appeared in the Joint Force Quarterly, a journal published for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by the National Defense University Press. "This is the first time that repeal has been argued so forcefully in an official Pentagon publication. Period," says Kevin Nix of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which provides free legal services to those affected by the policy and lobbies for its repeal. "We think it is significant — a breakthrough moment," Nix says."

Quote :

"To see that article in an official Pentagon publication, as opposed to hearing an activist on this issue, gives credence to a lot of people who perhaps wouldn't be sympathetic. It's so incredibly important. - U.S. Army veteran and gay rights activist Jarrod Chlapowski"

10/3/2009 11:43:55 AM

Quote :

" (CNN) -- Women were dismissed from the military for being gay at a greater rate than men last year, according to new statistics obtained by a California research group. Women were dismissed from the military for being gay at a greater rate than men last year. Women were dismissed from the military for being gay at a greater rate than men last year. All the services kicked out a disproportionate number of women under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, according to Department of Defense data obtained by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The center studies gender and sexuality in the military. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, implemented in 1994, bans troops who are openly gay from serving in the military. In the Air Force, a majority of those removed were women, the first time a service has had such a record since the implementation of the controversial law in 1994, according to Palm Center senior research fellow Nathaniel Frank. Video Watch CNN's Randi Kaye report on Obama's promises » In fiscal year 2008, the Air Force dismissed 56 women and 34 men. In addition, the Army removed more women under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy at a greater rate than men when compared with the ratio of women to men in each service. Of those discharged under the policy, 36 percent were women, although women make up only 14 percent of troops in the Army, the data showed."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/09/military.gays.dismissals/index.html

10/9/2009 11:16:53 AM

I still do not see what the issue is with DADT

ZOMG HOW UNJUST THAT I CAN'T BRAG ABOUT MY FAIRY GAY BOYFRIEND TO ALL MY STUDMUFFINS GUYS WITHIN MY PLATOON

10/9/2009 12:11:02 PM

the big deal is the ridiculous double standard.

10/9/2009 12:45:01 PM

^ exactly. Why should one guy be able to brag about how many chics he banged last week in front of his platoon while another guy can't talk about all the dicks he sucked?

10/9/2009 12:47:47 PM

Here's the deal, once and for all, about homosexuality in the Military.

The Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was signed into law in 1950. If you look at the constitution, it specifically gives congress the power to regulate land and naval forces. In other words, Congress sets the law for the military, not the military.

If you want homosexuality stricken from the UCMJ, you can yell until you're blue in the face at the military, and there's not a goddamend thing they can do. Go bitch to your congressman instead.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 1:12 PM. Reason : s]

10/9/2009 1:07:22 PM

The video features First Lieutenant Daniel Choi who is a West Point Grad, has a degree in Arabic, & has served in Iraq discussing the National Equality March on Washington happening this weekend.


This video features Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach telling his story, after being outed by a third party, & the air force is losing someone they spent $25 million training.



I wonder how much of a connection there is between this "National Equality March on Washington" happening this weekend & gay related media stories & congressional legislation happening at the same time. When I first heard about this march, I heard it was timed to occur just before congressional hearings on DADT.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 1:21:42 PM

So have there been any problems with people purposefully having themselves outed just so they can get out of a commitment?

10/9/2009 1:32:06 PM

Quote :

"If you want homosexuality stricken from the UCMJ, you can yell until you're blue in the face at the military, and there's not a goddamend thing they can do."

That's basically what the Secretary of the Navy said on The Daily Show.

...

OK, my take: I have a neighbor who was in the army and admitted to me that before then, he was to some degree a racist. But he told me that fighting along side different kinds of people forces you to trust them with your life, and in the process you learn that they are valuable people too, and you learn how stupid your prejudices really are. So I don't see why this shouldn't work with gay people as well.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 5:01 PM. Reason : ...]

10/9/2009 4:57:38 PM

This talks about the President's gay rights speech this weekend, and discusses DADT as well:

10/10/2009 7:15:54 PM

good. another speech. that'll really fix shit

10/10/2009 7:46:34 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33255971/ns/politics-white_house/

^We'll he did mention his support for repealing DADT, but I agree a speech is a far cry from action.

10/10/2009 9:16:19 PM

i'd like him to stop his rhetoric and put some fucking pressure on Congress to get rid of the ban.

10/10/2009 9:38:13 PM