If you’re reading only what you GayWired feeds you, you’d know that Private Kyle Lawson, formerly of the 309th Military Intelligence Battalion at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, was beaten by fellow soldier Private Zacharias Pierre. You’d know that charges were not brought against Private Pierre and that the military was not seeking further action against him. You’d probably know civil charges had been dismissed and the whole incident had been taken over by, and then supposedly dismissed by the military. You’d know that Lawson is now out of the military for being gay while Pierre goes on unscathed, and you’d be indignant that such an injustice was done.
Unfortunately, you wouldn’t have the whole story. For example, you wouldn’t know that Lawson voluntarily outed himself last month and therefore secured his separation from the US Army. You’d also not know that Lawson was coming on to Pierre. You might also not know that, according to his recruiter, Lawson knew exactly what the policy was and had been briefed on what to expect once enlisted. You also might not know that it’s common practice for the military to take charge of a situation that involves only military members and that such decisions and deliberations are by law and practice not open to the public.
Ultimately, it’s the commander’s responsibility to protect the troops under his charge. I don’t know the details about this incident, but it certainly smacks of a lack of discipline and morale within the unit that allows a troop to feel it’s appropriate or even excusable to assault his fellow soldier for any reason. Unfortunately, the leaders of the “Gay Community” have already seized upon this event as an opportunity to attack Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Just as in 1999, when a soldier at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, was beaten to death by his fellow troops, of course gay groups (and Hon., Barney Frank) will jump on the bandwagon and those who don’t appreciate the military sufficiently will miss the more important issue in order to forward a political agenda. It’s a shame that when something as base and simple (and obvious an example of lack of proper commander’s authority and presence) as a soldier beating up another soldier is diffused into simple gay politics. We do a disservice to the military when all we see in a clear-cut case of abuse and lack of esprit-de-corps is who’s gay.
Don’t ask, don’t tell as a policy needs to go-for one thing, there would then be clear guidelines for soldiers regarding sexual issues for gays and straights. The soldier who feels like a homosexual is coming on to them, would have a clear guideline and chain of command to follow for complaint.
Assault is not an appropriate option-period.
Although, it sounds like the army did the Navy equivalent of a Captain’s mast (sorry I am only familiar with the Navy terms), where the commander sets the punishment. Whether or not that was appropriate punishment is another debate, but it shouldn’t be charactarized as “nothing happening” to him either.
As far as the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy causes the marginalisation of homosexuals, it is likely to lead to situations such as that experienced by Lawson and Pierre. A possible overarching paradigm created by the policy is that gays are unsuitable for the military and are, in the obviously military culture of the army, not to be valued. Obviously, this will more likely lead to violence against apparent homosexuals.
However, the earlier commentator makes a good point in that there is somewhat of an institutional failing in not having a procedure in place for situations such as those faced by Pierre – if it is necessary to reverse the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in order to achieve this (see below), then it ought to go.
However, the focus of the gay media on this issue is no more hyped up or politicised than any other media coverage about similar issues – the ‘victimisation’ tack would have been followed by mainstream media too, I’m sure.
(I don’t think it is ultimately necessary to reverse the “Don’t ask…” policy to have guidelines for dealing with being chatted up by apparent gays, as the policy itself (rightly) assumes there are homosexuals within the military already.)
You’d also not know that Lawson was coming on to Pierre.
She was asking to be raped by how she was dressed, right? pathetic patriot.
Jeremy, if you don’t mind, will you do us all a favor and listen first, lest your remarks insinuating that gays should be allowed to make sexual advances to straight soldiers be used elsewhere?
As a fellow gay soldier, one who is intimately familiar with Lawson’s former unit, I find it somewhat difficult to believe that Lawson was assaulted without provocation. Regardless, Pierre should also have been punished as Assault is against the UCMJ. There are no specifics made for the cause and Pierre should have recieved an Article 15 for his actions.
Also, please understand this. the 309th MI BN is a AIT Unit. The soldiers in the unit are not considered Permanent Party, meaning they have not yet completed thier training to be soldiers. In the Army you have two phases of training before you are a full fleged Soldier. Basic Combat Training and Advanced Individual Training (AIT). I knew several gay soldiers in my time there who could not hack it and opted out under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and several who chose to sacrifice and serve, as I did.
Errr, CP, the article you linked to said the investigating police officer said that “there was no provocation.”
Pokes a hole in your “blame the victim” tirade, doesn’t it?
-Jeremy, if you don’t mind, will you do us all a favor and listen first, lest your remarks insinuating that gays should be allowed to make sexual advances to straight soldiers be used elsewhere? –
NDT, I can’t claim to know what Jeremy meant, but I think he meant it was not fair to put the blame for the beating on the victim. If he made a pass at someone, then he was wrong, but that doesn’t excuse a beating. Do we really have such low standards for straight men that we shrug at one of them turning violent because of a pass? And as Jody said, the officer said there was no provocation.
I’m quite shocked at this post, to be honest. Especially this:
—Unfortunately, the leaders of the “Gay Community” have already seized upon this event as an opportunity to attack Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Just as in 1999, when a soldier at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, was beaten to death by his fellow troops, of course gay groups (and Hon., Barney Frank) will jump on the bandwagon and those who don’t appreciate the military sufficiently will miss the more important issue in order to forward a political agenda.
—
So people who protested a man being BEATEN TO DEATH do not “appreciate the military”?
What exactly is wrong with protesting Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? The policy is horrendous and has been used as a witch hunt in some cases. Even Glenn Reynolds is critical of some of the parts of this policy.
I think this post is beneath Gaypatriot. I’m sorry, but I do.
BTW, I don’t mean beneath Gaypatriot as a person. I know he didn’t write this post. I meant beneath the site. I know this is a conservative site, I agree with many of the comments made here, but this just repulses me.
You’d also not know that Lawson was coming on to Pierre.
Nice support of the “gay panic” defense. What’s next, justification of the “twinkie defense”?
If a gay man hits on a straight man, then the polite thing to do is say “Thank you, I am very flattered but I am heterosexual” and then ignore him.
Carl, &ct.:
Great example of a Straw Man argument.
Not that my argument needs a defense, but just to clarify: I never suggested or even insinuated that the actions of the accused could or should be excused based on what either of these unfortuante gentlemen may or may not have done. In fact, I went to great lengths to express my assertion that there is no excuse for this.
Those who imply that I have made this argument demonstrate perfectly the point I’m making: A clear-cut example of disciplinary faults at a military installation are being hijacked by the Victimized Left of the “Gay Community” to move its agenda forward. No other details matter whatsover, and the immediate conclusion of all is that DADT is to blame.
Thank you for dramatizing my point so much better than I ever could.
By the way, forgot to mention:
Great point, Geoff. Not sure I agree, or to what extent DADT may marginalize gays in the eyes of the troops. It’s definitely a point worth discussing.
However, be clear, there are rules in place that disallow beating up your fellow soldiers–gay or not!
However, be clear, there are rules in place that disallow beating up your fellow soldiers–gay or not!
Yes. And the rule seems to be, based on the example you cite, “If you beat up a gay solider, don’t worry. We’ll just get rid of him and leave you alone.”
[sarcasm] Nice. I should have followed through and accepted my commission after all. [/sarcasm]
Nice try CP. Next time someone calls you on the carpet for making a genuine editorial error, just accept it and move on. Your piece could very well have been intended to just critique the response of the “victimized left” over Lawson’s situation. But including the comment about him “coming onto Pierre” was where you lost your credibility.
No matter how you qualify the remark, you still imply that Lawson was to blame for his assult. There was absolutely no need to say “he was hitting on his attacker”. So in essence, whether you intended to or not, you justified the so-called “Gay Panic” defense and others that are similar because it is akin saying “She was dressed provocatively” in describing a rape victim.
Hang on a sec! We don’t know the exact circumstances. So we have to keep an open mind to what may have happened. I’m gay and have found myself in the occasional, unfortunate situation of being hit on by some obnoxious drunk who I had no interest in. If I knew how to fight I might have decked ‘em! Perhaps a similar scenario played out between Lawson and Pierre. Let’s not pretend that every gay man is some delicate angel seeking to honor you by deigning you worthy of his adoration. Gimme a break. These guys are SOLDIERS. There was a brawl. Everyone needs to get over it!
I knew several gay soldiers in my time there who could not hack it and opted out under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and several who chose to sacrifice and serve, as I did.
This is one reason I don’t care for the policy as well. It essentially gives some people an out, who don’t want to stay in-something heterosexuals don’t have available to them.
Also, if homosexuals are allowed to serve openly, then the UCMJ can set very clear standards with regard to sexual harrassement (by homo and hetero sexuals)-fraternization and other rules of conduct that apply to heterosexuals will also be clear and unambiguous.
But I don’t think assault should be tolerated as an appropriate response to a sexual advance. However, the military did punish the soldier-even if it may not be considered “enough” punishment by some-the military did hold him accountable.
I found the commentary below, which appeared in MarineCorpstimes last year, informative. (I’m not just providing a link because you need a subscription to see it). -Gryph
____________________________________________________
Zealous activists doing a disservice to gay soldiers who serve willingly
By Jeff Cleghorn
“Just a soldier.”
This is how a young gay infantryman in Afghanistan described himself in an e-mail I received earlier this year. He’s a first-termer, looking forward to getting out of the Army in two and a half years. I imagine he looks death in the face most days, but along with his infantry buddies, he says he “keeps drivin’ on.”
I thought of this brave young man when I read a recent Washington Post editorial criticizing the Pentagon for forcing gay soldiers to serve during this time of war. The reality of this gay soldier is very different from the perception proffered by the Post and much of the rest of the media.
The Post editorial was based on a new report from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay activist group that monitors the Pentagon’s compliance with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that allows gays to serve in uniform so long as they do not declare their sexual orientation. It also prohibits commanders from asking troops about their sexual orientation.
The report reveals that discharges of gays are down for the second year in a row. Discharges dropped from 1,273 in 2001 to 906 in 2002, and again to 787 in 2003.
In a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t twist of irony, the activists — who for years complained about the high rate of gay discharges — are up in arms because so few gays are being discharged. They cite a recent University of California study showing gay discharges always decrease during wartime, with the Pentagon forcing gays to serve in combat — when cohesion matters most — only to turn around and claim gays undermine military effectiveness during peacetime.
The activists think the past is repeating itself. But they fail to consider another possibility for the recent decline in gay discharges, one that focuses on the bravery and loyalty of gay troops rather than Pentagon hypocrisy.
Perhaps the reason fewer gays are being discharged during this war may be that gay troops — like the infantryman in Afghanistan — are choosing to remain in uniform to serve in combat and do their patriotic duty, not because the Pentagon is forcing them to remain in the military.
Before don’t ask, don’t tell, large numbers of gays were kicked out against their will after being ensnared by gay-hunting military investigators. However, the military no longer seeks to purge gays from its ranks. According to the SLDN report, gay and lesbian troops no longer are targeted for investigation or “inappropriate command-directed asking and pursuits” — a positive development.
As an attorney who worked for SLDN for several years and represented hundreds of gay and lesbian soldiers, I can confirm that most current gay discharges result from troops making “coming out” statements, not from witch hunts.
In their zeal to keep the heat on the military, however, activists do a disservice to gay troops by assuming the recent drop in gay discharges reflects a cynical Pentagon attempt to retain them during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Activists have overlooked the possibility that more gays are serving because, now that the bullets are flying, more are choosing to remain in uniform to do their duty.
Consider, for example, the case discussed in the SLDN report of Army Capt. Austin Rooke, who worked for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force before the recent fighting in Iraq.
When the Army called Capt. Rooke back to active duty to ship him overseas, he easily could have avoided additional military service by revealing his sexual orientation (because he was an intelligence officer, the Army knew Rooke worked for a gay organization). But he did not, and the activists — in yet another ironic twist — are criticizing the Army for allowing Rooke to serve.
Rooke, like many gay and lesbian Americans who are answering the call to duty during this time of crisis, served because he wanted to. He is quoted in the media as saying, “In my mind, I had a duty I was going to carry out.”
Another gay Army reservist activated for Iraq echoed Rooke’s commitment, saying, “I knew I was gay when I went in. I can’t use that as an excuse to get out.”
There are many others with similar stories to tell.
“Just a soldier.” This is how most gay troops view themselves. Their service and sacrifice for our country is proving the fallacy of the gay ban and will, on one fine day, be the reason why the ban is lifted.
Jeff Cleghorn, a former Army officer, directs the Military Education Initiative, http://www.military-education.org. He may be reached at jeffcleghorn@comcast.net.
I truly hate to side with those of a more liberal bent, but the posting did sound to me as if it implied Lawson brought this upon himself. There is no excuse, short of Lawson having forced himself physically upon the man, for Pierre to have battered him. This is the kind of climate which DADT reinforces and I for one will be glad to see it go. So if the liberal groups I usually find much to disagree with cite this case in their litany against this assinine policy I’ve yet to hear anything that will make me object to that. I’ve served myself and I’m tired of gay servicemembers having to live in fear because of DADT.
One more thing, you mention in your posting that Lawson “knew exactly what the policy was and had been briefed on what to expect once enlisted”. What exactly is this supposed to mean? Take it from someone who in spite of being in denial at the time did lie on the application (it was asked then) that this is hardly a point liable to engender much sympathy except among ardent supporters of DADT. The fact is that neither Lawson, myself, or anyone else should have to face that barrier in order to serve their country. It is as relevant as my religious faith (or lack thereof for some people).
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Cleghorn. As I understand it SDLN has cited the drop in discharges because of the hypocrisy — something perfectly legit to raise in criticizing DADT. I hardly think SDLN wants gays to be discharged to make a point, but instead the military’s failure to follow it’s own policy (also law btw) eviscerates the touted reasoning which claims gays are bad for “unit cohesion”. Somehow it seems the fact some soldier prefers his own sex makes little difference at the moment when every body is needed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides being patently discriminatory, DADT has given some “sunshine soldiers” an easy out regardless of whether they are gay or not. Frankly this is one reason it should be abolished because IMO it leads to malingering which I recall is punishable under the UCMJ. I signed the contract knowing the risks, anyone who is in now and takes this easy out to avoid combat is not someone who engenders much respect from me.
NDT, I can’t claim to know what Jeremy meant, but I think he meant it was not fair to put the blame for the beating on the victim. If he made a pass at someone, then he was wrong, but that doesn’t excuse a beating. Do we really have such low standards for straight men that we shrug at one of them turning violent because of a pass? And as Jody said, the officer said there was no provocation.
There was more than enough blame for everybody in that one, especially for the unmentioned “friend” who apparently thought it would be fun to out this individual.
Actually, I’m surprised that none of the sources commented on that fact; could it be because gay liberals can’t condemn forcible outing because they practice it themselves?
There is no defense for hitting someone. There is also no defense for sexual harassment, which is what unwanted advances are.
NDT: Of course, which is why there are policies already in place under the UCMJ to punish those guilty of such conduct. Yet if Lawson merely expressed his interest hoping it would be returned that does not constitute sexual harassment. Naturally it depends upon how such interest was expressed to Pierre. Yet given that the investigator found no provocation, which implies no advances were made by Lawson, harassment doesn’t appear to be the case here. Beats me but I do not buy into the “gay panic” defense. I’d like to see us move to the day when a gay man can ask out another man and if the latter happens to be straight simply turn him down without decking him. Idealistic perhaps but perhaps one day…
–
Thank you for dramatizing my point so much better than I ever could.-
I certainly agree that you did a bad job getting your point across. As for the rest of your statement:
-In fact, I went to great lengths to express my assertion that there is no excuse for this.-
Great lengths? I can see one sentence, possibly, where you move beyond implying the soldier brought the attack on himself and broadsiding “the gay community” for objecting to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
You claim that those who criticized the 1999 murder in Kentucky do not “appreciate the military sufficiently”. Do you have *any* evidence for this claim? Wasn’t this the case where a soldier who was not even gay was beaten to death in his sleep because other soldiers thought he was gay? It seems to me the other soldiers who brutally murdered him are the ones who don’t appreciate the military. It also seems to me that this is a primary example of the type of violence which is caused in part by the homophobia and secrecy of the military’s gay policies. These men were so obsessed with the idea that he was gay and hiding his homosexuality from them, they killed him in his sleep.
I think you wrote this because you wanted to shock people or get attention. Perhaps you were looking for a reason to insult “the gay community” and you slammed these little round pegs into square holes until they were distorted enough to be close to what you wanted. I also think that you explain your rationale very poorly. Are you saying you support Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? By comparing two VERY different incidents, are you saying you don’t think gays should ever criticize violence against gays in the military?
Barry Goldwater spoke out against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Do you have the same attitude towards him you have towards “the gay community”?
-There is no defense for hitting someone. There is also no defense for sexual harassment, which is what unwanted advances are. –
The article says Lawson made “suggestive remarks” at this party. That is inappropriate, but is that sexual harrassment? Did Lawson have a position of power over this soldier and threaten him if he did not put out? Did he repeatedly threaten and intimidate this other soldier? That’s what I would consider sexual harrassment. If someone makes suggestive remarks to me, I don’t beat them up. Neither do most of the straight men I know, some of whom are very macho guys.
–
There was more than enough blame for everybody in that one,-
If that’s the case, then I wish ColoradoPatriot’s comments had not placed so much blame on Lawson, and the gay community in general, to the point where he dragged in a 1999 beating death.
Do you agree with him about gay groups having no right to speak out about that murder, or that the gays who criticized the beating death do not appreciate the military enough?
The article says Lawson made “suggestive remarks” at this party. That is inappropriate, but is that sexual harrassment?
According to the military and the ECOC, suggestive remarks can amount to sexual harrassement, and a heterosexual soldier making suggestive remarks to another heterosexual can be charged with it.
I think this is one area where the don’t ask, don’t tell policy fails. There isn’t a clear definition of what would be considered sexual harrassement as applied to homosexual advances.
Although, I wonder where the whole macho factor may fit in this. Straight men may not be willing to complain up the chain of command, and feel like they should deal with it themselves. I am not a man-so not exactly sure how this will fit, but at least if there is a clear procedure for complaints, there isn’t going to be much of an excuse, if they choose to take matters into their own hands and respond with an assault.
-According to the military and the ECOC, suggestive remarks can amount to sexual harrassement, and a heterosexual soldier making suggestive remarks to another heterosexual can be charged with it.-
Then he could have filed a complaint. Instead he beat Lawson up.
We don’t know what really happened, but a common excuse straight men use when they beat up a gay man is that he hit on them and they had to defend themselves, he asked for it, etc.
While I fault gay publications for leaving out facts from articles (which they do quite frequently), I don’t know that their inclusion in this case would have much changed my evaluation of the situation.
It seems to me that Pierre, the soldier offended by his gay colleague’s advance, forfeited any defense he might have had with response disproportional response to the original offense.
Thank you, GWP. It’s a load off my mind that you don’t agree with some of what was said in this article, because I think you set a high standard with what you write for the site.
Do you agree with him about gay groups having no right to speak out about that murder, or that the gays who criticized the beating death do not appreciate the military enough?
I’ll thank you, Carl to cease your misrepresentation of what I said. I never said these things, and you continue to degrade this debate by further suggesting I am saying things I’m not.
Imagine what a great discussion this could be if you refrained from this type of defamation. I may, in fact, find agreement with you if you chose to respect my actual words.
CP, perhaps if you wrote a little more clearly….
-Imagine what a great discussion this could be if you refrained from this type of defamation. –
I asked you questions about what you meant, because I – along with some other people – was unclear about what you meant. I also had no idea why you needed to compare the Lawson incident to the 1999 murder at Ft. Campbell. I’ll quote part of your statement:
—
Unfortunately, the leaders of the “Gay Community” have already seized upon this event as an opportunity to attack Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Just as in 1999, when a soldier at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, was beaten to death by his fellow troops, of course gay groups (and Hon., Barney Frank) will jump on the bandwagon and those who don’t appreciate the military sufficiently will miss the more important issue in order to forward a political agenda.
—
This is why I thought you said that those who criticized the beating death did not appreciate the military enough.
I am not trying to defame you. If you would like to talk about your views on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, on people who object to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, on the 1999 murder, I will be happy to listen. You were trying to say so many different things, and you used such generic terms (like “the gay community”), I could only go based on my interpretations. None of us are psychic. I’m sorry if I can’t decipher your exact meaning. The most I could see is that you think gay leaders are trying to politicize some discharges of gay soldiers, and this bothers you. But Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a political issue from the beginning, for both Democrats and Republicans. “The gay community” often gets the blame for most problems, instead of trying to work on solutions.
As I said above, I’m sorry if you thought I meant to defame you. I just think you are trying to talk at us, and then you seem surprised when we don’t have the reaction you expected.
Let’s see. We live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, and have a constitutional protection for freedom of speech. Certainly, you are not claiming that one person’s expression of interest in another person, regardless of gender, must first always be subordinate to homophobe’s fears? But, yes, you dudes support unconstitutional restrictions on our freedom of speech, especially the speech that says the most basic thing about our being human, while defending the “protocols” of military chain of command.
If Party A and Party B meet, exchange words of interest and/or disinterest, each to the other, that exchange cannot be tolerated if it is same gender, but otherwise is normative if it’s opposite gender. Why am I not surprised you support this unconstitutional policy (DADT for gays)? Apparently the mere expression of interest by Party A for Party B is wholly acceptable for opposite genders, but disrupts military protocols for same or mixed genders.
Everyone recognizes that the military is its own unique institution that necessarily curtails several civil liberties. But how does one’s interest in another person, if opposite gendered, is permissible and proper, but not if same gendered? Such expressions in their appropriate domain are constitutionally-protected “free speech.” Or does “patriotism” supercede everyone’s most basic civil liberties?
And in NO case, is the physical assault of one person by another acceptable in any form unless it is a state of declared war and the other Party is empirically the “enemy.” The military’s discipline of one’s proper exercise of free speech, and its concomitant support for a homophobic attack, is not and cannot be ever justified.
you dudes support unconstitutional restrictions on our freedom of speech
Actually, most of us oppose politically-correct speech codes. Liberals support them.
Most of us oppose restrictions on political speech in the form of campaign finance reform. Liberals support it.
Most of us oppose government regulation of opinions expressed on TV and radio. Liberals support it.
Most of us are against the idea that academics like Lawrence Summers should be punished for raising politically incorrect subjects for debate. Liberals feel that public discourse should be bounded by political correctness.
(Yeah, I know, Stephen just likes to hear himself rant and really isn’t interested in debate, but still, the point had to be made.)
If unwanted flirtation equals sexual harrasment, then the entire armed forces would be guilty. My days in the Army (and frequent nights in Army town bars) bear witness to that.
North Dallas Thirty – in numerous comments to previous posts – has defended the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” policy. He has claimed that it shouldn’t be changed until the “culture” of the military is ready to accept it. That’s a pussy of a defense, and defends pussies in the military who aren’t man enough to conduct themselves properly. Flirtation is legal and excepted. Harrasment – whether sexual or physical – needs to be enforced regardless of sexual orientation.
I enjoy most of the pro-military posts on here. However, for a site that claims that it supports military personnel, this particular post doesn’t belong in the same category as those previously offered by GP and GPW.
V the K, how do you feel about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? Up to yesterday I thought, perhaps based on my own overreaching assumptions, most of the people here opposed the law. Now I’m starting to wonder how many people here do oppose Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I thought since Clinton and the Democrats pushed the law through, more people would be opposed, but there seems to be a big question mark.
I personally believe Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has been a disaster for the military, and only encourages the worst of behavior in both straight and gay soldiers.
Jeremy, I agree with you about the culture of the military. Many of the higher-ranking personnel are those who are most resistent to change (so much of the higher-ranking personnel seem to revolve around evangelical fundamentalism — I read an article last year about some big academy which was awash in anti-Semitism to the point where they had to have people come and teach classes), and they aren’t going to change their minds anytime soon. A lot of them opposed Harry Truman’s plan to integrate the military, but he pushed ahead, which turned out to be for the best.
I don’t think the policy will be changed for a long time, probably decades, but even our allies like Australia and the UK changed their policy with no negative consequences, even though many people in those countries said the military would be destroyed.
In answer to Carl’s question, I think the DADT policy is misguided, but I also think it’s irrelevent. The real issue ought to be behavior. A military environment is not the place to make a statement about one’s sexuality (and I would argue the same goes for professional and academic environments).
Also, a good friend of mine happens to be a squadron commander in the Air Force, who has been responsible for processing people out of the service, and his experience is that 90% of discharges under DADT are actually straight soldiers using it to get out of their commitment.
I agree with you, V the K. I don’t think gay men should go into the military focused on sexual practices (although I know those happen at a high rate even with current laws…I guess that will always happen when a lot of men are alone together). I just feel sorry for the men who really do want to serve their country and don’t want to pretend to be straight when people ask them about their lives, or don’t want to deny that they have a partner. I know some people would not sympathize with them because they knew what the policy was when they joined up, but it’s a painful duality for those who want to serve their country yet become mentally crippled from living a lie day after day.
It’s a painful duality for those who want to serve their country yet become mentally crippled from living a lie day after day.
That, on the other hand, sounds melodramatic to me. But then, I’m a very private person.
A military environment is not the place to make a statement about one’s sexuality.
Exactly – we should stop allowing families to attend ceremonies marking the return of troops from Iraq. I’m sick of seeing those statement’s about the sexuality of those soldiers. They shouldn’t be able to tell anyone that they are married or straight.
If unwanted flirtation equals sexual harrasment, then the entire armed forces would be guilty. My days in the Army (and frequent nights in Army town bars) bear witness to that.
It does, especially in a workplace setting or between coworkers. The fact that it isn’t enforced well enough does not make it right.
North Dallas Thirty – in numerous comments to previous posts – has defended the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” policy. He has claimed that it shouldn’t be changed until the “culture” of the military is ready to accept it. That’s a pussy of a defense, and defends pussies in the military who aren’t man enough to conduct themselves properly. Flirtation is legal and excepted. Harrasment – whether sexual or physical – needs to be enforced regardless of sexual orientation.
Indeed I have, both on the basis of military culture, practice, and current sexual harassment law.
You see, Jeremy, your post establishes your belief in the double standard. If a woman expressed concern about sleeping with or showering with men, would you call her a “pussy” and say that she’s “weak” or “unable to conduct herself properly”? Or when a gay soldier is called names, do you call him a “pussy” and tell him to take it?
Yours is typical of the trophy mentality of “gay activists”, whose only concern is personal revenge and gratification, or getting what you want regardless of anyone else and damn the consequences. You can’t even ponder the concept NOW of a gay soldier making unwanted advances to a straight one; you’ve made it clear that, if a straight soldier is harassed, you’ll just call him a “pussy” and tell him to take it.
As it stands, under current law, heterosexual male and female soldiers could not be compelled to share private quarters with glbt soldiers. Glbt soldiers would then have to be housed separately and under strict fraternization rules.
DADT is not by any means an ideal policy. However, it strikes the best balance now in terms of laws, culture, and military practice, and it asserts the important point — that a soldier’s sex life, regardless of what or how or whom, should not interfere with their duties or the cohesion of their unit.
North Dallas Thirty – I forgot you have a thing about showering with other men. Its always hilarious to see you argue for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell because showering with gay personnel would freak out straight guys. Yeah, I call that being a pussy.
But homosexuality does not have to equal sex life, NDT. Someone can be openly gay and not make advances on other soldiers. I read somewhere that the soldiers in quite a few units know some of their fellow soldiers are gay, and they have no problem with them. I think DADT encourages paranoia, and was also created in a very different time. Today, with the war on terror, homosexuality is not going to be as dominant of an issue. Look at Israel, where they accept openly gay soldiers in part because they will take any able bodies they can get.
-That, on the other hand, sounds melodramatic to me. But then, I’m a very private person. –
I don’t think soldiers have to go around saying, “I AM STRAIGHT” or “I AM GAY”, but soldiers talk to each other, they talk about their lives, their families. If somebody has to constantly lie about who they are, it will take a toll.
Re: #39 — That old cliche that anytime a straight person mentions his family is “shoving heterosexuality in our faces” argument always struck me as childish and stupid. With age, it’s merely gotten tiresome.
The way it plays out is, “Straight people wear wedding rings, therefore, Gay Pride Parades should feature cross-dressing S&M orgies.”
No, V THE K – you are the one that is being loopy. A straight soldier is allowed to acknowledge that he has a family and he is fine, but a gay soldier isn’t allowed to acknowledge his family because that is freaky and comparably to S&M orgies.
I always, always argue with people that gay conservatives aren’t self-loathing. I hate that label. However, it appears to fit here. What you have done is reduce sexual orientation down to just sex. If there was nothing shameful about being gay, then there would be no excuse to hide it. Sexual orientation, V The K, gay-or-straight is not just about sex. Otherwise, you would simply be just another cocksucker.
I doubt that you blog about gay stuff simply because you like to suck cock. That wouldn’t make any sense.
RE: #43 “Straight people wear wedding rings, therefore, Gay Pride Parades should feature cross-dressing S&M orgies.”
I’m sorry but what could that possibly mean?
I think 99.9% of all gay groups make the point that mentioning one’s family is not “shoving heterosexuality in faces”. And mentioning “my partner and I have been together 8 years” is not “shoving homosexuality in faces”.
Comparing straight wedding rings to “cross-dressing S&M orgies” has me completely stumped.
Bernie
Even back in college, whenever I have criticized the excesses that are displayed in Pride Parades and/or other gay events, the inevitable answer I have always gotten from gay activists is “Straight people shove their marriages and family in our faces every day.”
But you argue that soldiers should hide the orientation – unless they are straight. That makes no sense.
I think anyone who becomes psychologically debilitated because they can’t discuss their personal life probably isn’t stable enough for military service. Serving one’s country does entail personal sacrifice. If you can’t handle the sacrifice, you don’t belong there.
Exactly – we should stop allowing families to attend ceremonies marking the return of troops from Iraq. I’m sick of seeing those statement’s about the sexuality of those soldiers. They shouldn’t be able to tell anyone that they are married or straight.
This is a stupid argument.
I don’t think don’t ask, don’t tell is a good policy, I would much rather permit homosexuals to serve openly, with clear guidelines as to conduct, harrassement etc. At least that way, everyone would know where they stood, and where the lines are drawn.
I do think NDT makes a good point about the issue of housing and showering-and I don’t think concerns of hetersexuals should be dismissed in this regard. I am a woman-and I admit I wouldn’t feel comfortable at all living with, showering with men-shoot I wouldn’t even be comfortable in coed type dorms. I don’t think it is fair to just say a person who is uncomfortable has a problem or is homophobic-anymore than we would say that about a woman who didn’t want to shower with males. But I think these issues and concerns can be dealt with through rules and regulations that involve fraternization, sexual conduct and sexual harrassement. But as stupid as I think the policy is myself, I also think it is stupid to disregard concerns hetersexuals would have about living in close quarters with homosexuals. I can’t say that I would feel uncomfortable living with or showering with a lesbian-provided she didn’t make sexual advances-but that doesn’t mean somebody who isn’t comfortable is totally wrong in feeling uncomfortable either.
“I think anyone who becomes psychologically debilitated because they can’t discuss their personal life probably isn’t stable enough for military service.”
So, lets apply that to straight soldiers.
#50 — What makes you think I don’t?
North Dallas Thirty – I forgot you have a thing about showering with other men. Its always hilarious to see you argue for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell because showering with gay personnel would freak out straight guys. Yeah, I call that being a pussy.
If having concern for how others feel is being a “pussy”, I’ll gladly take that label. Just Me does an excellent job of explaining why this is important.
But homosexuality does not have to equal sex life, NDT. Someone can be openly gay and not make advances on other soldiers.
So you can be gay without having to disclose or discuss your sex life.
What in the h*ll do you think DADT is asking you to do, Carl?
Good Lord! Doesn’t anybody here have a job? Get back to work – especially you nuts who ASSUME that it was only a tiny little sweet flirtation that resulted in a beating. Get real!
NDT, I think that DADT asks soldiers to make an impossible choice. I think that private life should be a private life, yes, but I think that just a simple situation where someone can say, “yes, I’m gay, and that has nothing to do with my job” would be a lot better than what we have now, which is, “I’m gay but I can never, ever mention this, and people can entrap me or out me at any time”.
-I think anyone who becomes psychologically debilitated because they can’t discuss their personal life probably isn’t stable enough for military service.-
I think anyone would become unstable if they had to pretend a huge part of their life did not exist, and had to be in a situation where you are pressured to prove you are straight, or the other soldiers will be suspicious of you. That’s what happened to the guy in Ft. Campbell who was beaten to death, the suspicion led to murder, and I think he actually was straight.
I just think anybody who would be like, “Oh, I know I should be fighting the enemy right now, but I’m just too torn up inside because of my inability to discuss my private life,” should really question whether soldiering is the right career option for them.
Perhaps they should, but at a time when so many people are refusing to join the military, I think that people who would be proud to serve if they knew they would not have to constantly live in fear or lie about themselves should be encouraged to join.
If you were in a situation where you had to constantly be alert for any chance that anyone might think you’re gay, then you’re going to have some problems. I’ve read about some women in the military, straight women both gay and straight, who wind up sleeping around with men because they get so paranoid that people will perceive them as being a lesbian.
Sorry I meant some women both gay and straight.
Anyone who reveals that they are gay to anyone else (mother, partner, confessions on a blog) is in violation of the policy. Its not about shoving your sex life in someone’s face. If you’ve told anyone that you are gay, and they tell anyone, and then it gets back to anyone in the military, you are in violation.
I think that private life should be a private life, yes, but I think that just a simple situation where someone can say, “yes, I’m gay, and that has nothing to do with my job” would be a lot better than what we have now, which is, “I’m gay but I can never, ever mention this, and people can entrap me or out me at any time”.
Problem with the former, Carl, is that the military is a work AND communal living situation. Thus, the latter is the risk that you take and requirement that you have for choosing to join it.
Moreover, what exactly does one mean by “pressured to prove you are straight”? If the military is tolerating a culture where men are required to have sex with women or public displays with women to prove themselves, it needs to be brought to the fore, and one would think they’d be quick to do that, what with all the sexual harassment lawsuits they’ve had.
Because, NDT, in normal conversations people as you about your family, girlfriend, or that hot pussy across the bar. Gay soldiers have to pretend to be straight to follow this policy.
Actually, Carl’s and Jeremy’s stereotypes are kinda hilarious. In the case of my friend, for example, he is going through a divorce, and he has to be uber-vigilant not to put himself in any kind of sexual, romantic, or even flirtatious situation because the military has strict codes of conduct regarding sex and adultery. I know it’s hard on him, a.) because he tells me and b.) because I know what a horn dog he is. But it goes to show that the rules can be just as tough on heterosexuals.
Because, NDT, in normal conversations people as you about your family, girlfriend, or that hot pussy across the bar. Gay soldiers have to pretend to be straight to follow this policy.
Of course they ASK you. It’s how you answer.
For instance:
“Do you have a family?” can be answered by the following:
— “Nope, I’m single.”
— “Nope, it’s just me and Mom and Dad”
Notice that there is no need to insert “because I’m GAY! GAY! GAY!” into either one of those to answer the question. Nor do you have to deny that you’re gay, or claim that you’re straight, to do it.
When you come back with, “But they’ll speculate…” well, yeah, they will. But if they want to keep their jobs, they’ll keep their mouths shut, because making disparaging remarks or rumors about another person’s sexuality publicly is a policy violation as well. If SLDN wants a cause to get behind, pushing for better enforcement of what is laid out in DADT would be a good one.
#63 — Yes, but if you’re not “in their face” you’re self-hating and repressing yourself, and that is, apparently, psychologically crippling.
/sarc
It’s like, if some asks me what I did last night and I said “Watched TV” instead of “Watched ‘Battlestar Galactica'” am I repressing the part of myself that likes Sci-Fi? Do I owe everybody who asks a thorough explanation of my personal life?
–
“Do you have a family?” can be answered by the following:
– “Nope, I’m single.”
– “Nope, it’s just me and Mom and Dad”-
And then they say:
“Single? Know any hot girls?”
and if you don’t give the right answer, they will probably ask again and again, and wonder why you don’t just say, “Yes”. Then the tension and pressure will build. If you say, “just me and Mom and Dad”, then they will probably be even more convinced that someone is gay.
-But it goes to show that the rules can be just as tough on heterosexuals.-
He can tell people he was married. He can tell people about his feelings, even if he can’t sleep around with other women while he is being divorced. If he’s distracted, then the other soldiers will know why. If he could never tell anyone he was getting a divorce, then I could compare the situation to DADT.
Even if DADT were ended tomorrow, do you really think straight soldiers would even want to hear the details of a gay soldier’s private life? What are you going to do, make it a hate crime for them not to listen to him?
I’m a nuts-and-bolts kind of guy. I am interested in how things play out in the real world, not in symbolic abstractions.
And then they say:
“Single? Know any hot girls?”
Actually, Carl, the fact that I’m a gay man has never prevented me from knowing any hot girls, being good friends with them, or even setting them up on dates with my straight friends. It doesn’t prevent me from looking at, comparing the virtues of, or flirting with hot girls. It doesn’t even prevent me from dancing with them.
All it precludes me from doing is sleeping with them, and I quite honestly worry about people who need to publicize how many women they’re fucking (or men, for that matter).
So in short, I can say “Yes, I know some hot girls” without having to lie, pretend, or do anything else. What’s your point?
-Even if DADT were ended tomorrow, do you really think straight soldiers would even want to hear the details of a gay soldier’s private life?-
No, I don’t, but I think that the gay soldier would at least be able to say, “I’m gay,” and end of discussion. He would not have to lie, or play games, or feel that he needed to prove his heterosexuality.
-So in short, I can say “Yes, I know some hot girls” without having to lie, pretend, or do anything else. What’s your point? –
My point was that if you get to a place where you have to talk about the hot girls you know, then they will ask about your involvement with them.
Soldier #1: Yes, I know hot girls.
Soldier #2 then asks some kind of question about how good they are in bed, or about their physical attributes, or if they have a friend.
Now soldier #1 can lie and say they’re good in bed, or he can go on about their sex appeal and mislead the other soldier into thinking he’s straight, or he can try to fix up the other soldier and as a result bring these female friends into the equation and has to worry they might let people know that he’s gay.
All of this goes back to gay men either staying quiet and causing people to suspect them, or feeling that they have to lie and pretend they are straight.
Soldier #1: Yes, I know hot girls.
Soldier #2 then asks some kind of question about how good they are in bed, or about their physical attributes, or if they have a friend.
For God’s sake, Carl, what is wrong with saying:
— “I don’t know how good she is in bed; I’ve never slept with her.”
— “Well, she’s kind of tall, brown haired, green eyes…..”
— “Sure, she’s got lots of friends. Want to meet one?”
Sheesh, this isn’t difficult.
-For God’s sake, Carl, what is wrong with saying:-
What’s wrong is that all answers would still lead to two conclusions – evading and bringing more suspicion on yourself, or lying and pretending to be straight.
I guess someone could say they are saving themselves until marriage, and don’t want to disrespect women by talking about their bodies.
Indeed they could, and that’s a perfectly valid answer.
He would not have to lie, or play games, or feel that he needed to prove his heterosexuality.
There’s no reason he has to do any of that now. The “don’t tell” part of the equation exempts him from having to do any of that.
This whole, “Oh, I just have to tell people that I’m gay or I’m psychologically crippled” thing just seems really drama queenish.
Wow…V The K and ND30…you really are pathetic. Its sad that you think you are infieor to straight people and need to justify policies that treat you that way.
Yeah, Jeremy, I’m totally wounded. I’ve lost the respect of a person who evidently can only think in cliches and can only “argue” with personal attacks. Man, I’m so devastated right now, this could be psychologically crippling.
Regarding the sleeping quarter and showering issues, I see a big difference between the issue of separating men and women, and separating straight men (or women) and gay men (or women). Outside the military, there has always been separate facilities for men and women, such as bathrooms and showering facilities. They don’t have such separate facilities for gay men and straight men. I don’t see why it should be different in the military.
The point has been made that if a person has psychological issues because they can’t discuss their family and shouldn’t be in the military. Then I would also make the argument that personnel who have issues of sharing sleeping quarters with someone of same-sex attraction, then I don’t think they should be in the military either.
Anyway, other countries have done it, and it stuns me that the country with the best military in the world, and the best democracy in the world, can’t have gays openly serve in the military.
In the meantime, there are ways that gays can answer questions regarding their family, significant other, attraction to the opposite sex, etc. I’ve had to do it for many years. But I find out later, that everyone was suspicious and speculated, etc.
If we can’t rid of DADT, or we have to (unnecessarily IMO) raise the bar for equality by worrying about further separating facilities, then maybe the policy should be amended to DADT for everyone. In other words, NO ONE can discuss their sexuality, their families (except about Mom and Dad, the siblings, and the nieces and nephews), who’ve they had or would like to have sex with, etc.
Wow…V The K and ND30…you really are pathetic. Its sad that you think you are infieor to straight people and need to justify policies that treat you that way.
Actually, Jeremy, I think you’ve mischaracterized us. It’s not that V the K and I think we’re inferior to straight people; it’s just that we don’t think we’re superior to them. That’s why we have such qualms about disregarding their concerns and demanding that we receive special treatment that we wouldn’t allow to others.
If we can’t rid of DADT, or we have to (unnecessarily IMO) raise the bar for equality by worrying about further separating facilities, then maybe the policy should be amended to DADT for everyone. In other words, NO ONE can discuss their sexuality, their families (except about Mom and Dad, the siblings, and the nieces and nephews), who’ve they had or would like to have sex with, etc.
Or, in other words, we require the same level of decorum of the armed forces that we do other workplaces.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
Oh maaaan! I have to put the heap of garbage out at the front this week or the house won’t be livable. Great job you guys!
God made man and then rested. God made women and then no one rested.