Gay Patriot Header Image

DADT: A Gay Servicemember’s Perspective. Part VI: How Do You Really Feel?

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 4:22 pm - March 7, 2006.
Filed under: Gays In Military

Blogger’s Note:
This is the final in a series of posts regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. The previous posts are available here: Post I, Post II, Post III, Post IV, and Post V. Apologies for the delay with this one, but I ended up having a pretty long weekend.

First off, I’d like to thank everybody for their insightful (and sometimes incite-ful) comments so far. I’ve tried to present a dispassionate view from a servicemember’s perspective on the facts and logic of the policy. This certainly won’t be the end of the debate, but hopefully it opened some eyes and gave you a vantage different from the usually politicized anti- and pro- camps.

What follows is based not necessarily on fact or logic, but it is based on experience, and it is true. It’s not meant to try to persuade anybody or give you a reason to change your mind or as fodder for or against your argument. It’s simply how I feel, raw emotions laid bare. I don’t pretend to write for the feelings or experiences of anybody else, gay or straight, military or civilian. I have no idea how many other guys feel this way or how similar their stories are to mine, and I wouldn’t suggest what percentage of the military feels like I do. For the purposes of this post, it isn’t important. This is how I feel and everybody’s entitled to his own opinion. It’s just One Gay Servicemember’s Perspective:

While I appreciate the efforts of some who say they’re trying to free me from the yoke of DADT, it’s clear many still don’t get it. When people argue about the policy and yell about it being “unfair”, I have to laugh because it shows a pretty thorough lack of understanding of what the military is about in the first place. I endure a lot of unfair things in order to serve. I have to cut my hair a certain way. I have to wear a uniform, and wear it correctly. I can’t do many things my civilian friends are allowed to do. I can’t quit my job; simply walk away and tell my boss to shove it. If I don’t do something my boss tells me to do, I don’t get fired…I go to jail. I could go on. So who gives a rip if I have to stay closeted? Lots of people are in the closet by their own choosing. And even though I didn’t realize I was gay when I joined the military, I was well aware of the policy when I figured myself out. I was also well aware of it the numerous times I’ve re-upped since then. It’s a choice I made, and a choice I stand by, so get off my back about it.

If you want to talk about real sacrifices, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen husbands and fathers peering through the bus window down to their families on their way to who-knows-where for wh0-knows-how-long, with no guarantee they’ll return. What? I can’t tell people I’m a fag? Oh, okay, I guess I can do that. I can hardly consider my sacrifice to be even on the same scale.

There’s the argument about “denying who I am”. Denying who I am? Are you serious? You know who I am? I’m a fucking proud American and military member, that’s who I am. People who argue about “honor” and how somehow living a closeted life (at least at work) is contrary to the principles of honor that the Armed Forces are based on clearly either have never been in the military, or if they have been, learned a vastly different definition of “honor” than I did.

To me, honor means sacrificing and giving of myself for a higher cause. It doesn’t mean being who I am and demanding my way or I’m not going to join the fight. It doesn’t mean joining only on my terms. It doesn’t mean questioning the honor of those who are giving of themselves in some of the most fundamental ways because they don’t prize their gayness as much as the gay “leaders” say they should.

Here’s a mental exercise for them: What’s honorable about ditching your wife who’s 5 months pregnant to go off to a foreign country and kill people, knowing full well you may not come back? Aren’t you deserting them at a vital time? Do those who question my honor for “denying who I am” ever question the honor of a married soldier who leaves his family behind for months on end? No they don’t, because to them, gays need to be protected because we’re defenseless against the big mean military machine and its anti-gay policy.

I realize these people are trying to help and want to find a way for me to serve openly, and I appreciate that, but their methods are insulting. I know the score and am aware of what it takes to play. I signed up voluntarily knowing what it would mean and don’t need them and their self-righteous condescension. I am fully aware and making a sacrifice I knew I’d have to. Don’t cheapen it by trying to martyr me for your own political (or societal) purposes. If you’ve got a legitimate reason to change the policy based on what’s important (i.e., Defending the Nation), let’s hear it. That’s been my point of this whole series. But going on and on about my honor, my sacrifice, who I am, without acknowledging what’s important to me (my dedication to defending America) is insulting and petty.

As I’ve mentioned before, yea, it’d be great to serve openly. But that’s not why I enlisted in the first place. I’m not here for me and I’m not doing this for my own benefit. That I’m being treated “unfairly” is true. But I have a hard time looking anybody with a family back home in the face and saying that.

When I’m dead and gone, I’ll be much more proud of having served in the military and the sacrifices that entailed than I ever will be proud to have been into other dudes. It embarrasses me that some gay (and straight, too) folks can’t fathom that to some people, the honor of serving actually is worth that sacrifice. In fact, it’s the sacrifice that demonstrates the honor. The Air Force calls it “Service Before Self“, the Marines call it “Semper Fidelis“, the Army implores to “Put the Welfare of the Nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own“, and the Navy says they will “Make decisions in the best interest of the Navy and the Nation, without regard to personal consequences“.

That is honor. And that is “Pride”.

There is nothing more honorable than self-sacrifice to help one’s Country through military service. Sacrifice is what the service is all about.

When people ask me “how can you do it?”, I tell them that it’s just another sacrifice I make. It’s amusing sometimes to see the perplexed look on some peoples’ faces when I say that. I’m amazed how hard it seems for some people to believe that I’d willingly make such a sacrifice. For them, I can only presume, being in the closet is asking too much. That’s cool. I say it all the time: “The military’s not for everybody.” Would I like the policy changed? Of course, and I’ve said as much. But do I harbor ill feelings because of it? Am I bitter because of it? Hell no. I know full-well what I’m getting into, and I’ve had every opportunity to back out. The military and the Nation is bigger than me, though, and that’s why I’m here.



  1. Nick: I haven’t had the time to read all your posts on this (I hope to catch up this weekend), but know that even where I disagree with you on some points I would never question your honor or right to your view. There simply has been nothing I’ve seen from you which would even raise this in my mind. I mention this because it would appear that some commentary by others has angered you. Perhaps it is justified, I don’t know since I still need to catch up in reading all this, but as far as I’m concerned it isn’t necessary. You have a different view from others, so what? God bless you for your service and for just being you (corny as that may sound). Take care.

    Comment by Average Gay Joe — March 7, 2006 @ 4:40 pm - March 7, 2006

  2. God bless you Nick, as a “hard corps” member of Operation Gratitude Anyone who proudly wears the uniform of the US military is a hero, Thank you.
    I found your essay series very interesting, though seeing that the military is a very large beauracracy, it will take a lot to change it. Your suggestions made sense, but hey, I don’t run the military.

    Comment by Leah — March 7, 2006 @ 5:11 pm - March 7, 2006

  3. Well said. As for pride, that’s another word that’s been twisted to the point that it no longer has any meaning. You can’t be proud of who or what you are; you can only take pride in what you do.

    Thank you for your service.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 7, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - March 7, 2006

  4. Good points-especially in regards to sacrifice, and what that really means in this day and age. I think we sometimes get so stuck in our own self centered little worlds, that we forget what real sacrifice is, and we often don’t understand it.

    I admit I don’t like DADT-but I agree completely with you that to ditch the policy you have to make arguments the military establishment will listen and respond to.

    Thanks for your service and willingness to sacrifice in that service.

    Comment by just me — March 7, 2006 @ 7:48 pm - March 7, 2006

  5. As for “Honor”, my issue when I was of military age was that you had to lie to get in, and lie to stay in…that’s not Honor nor Sacrifice. And discovery meant you became a felon…and that’s not an honorable sacrifice in my book. At least under DADT you don’t have to lie to serve.

    Is “the closet” honorable? I’m not sure, and will say so, but at some point it is a sacrifice.
    “…In fact, it’s the sacrifice that demonstrates the honor. The Air Force calls it “Service Before Self“, the Marines call it “Semper Fidelis“, the Army implores to “Put the Welfare of the Nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own“, and the Navy says they will “Make decisions in the best interest of the Navy and the Nation, without regard to personal consequences“.
    These are all acts where the sacrifice brings the honor. But what about the sacrifice that brings dishonor? And that where we get to DADT. That’s to problem with DADT…it denies honor. It make honor impossible.

    Others may have grown up under DADT and have a different view, I still say DADT is dishonorable on it’s face.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — March 7, 2006 @ 8:31 pm - March 7, 2006

  6. Ted: How dare you. You may have your own definition of honor, but to suggest that what I am doing is dishonorable is dispicable. (Whether you think that’s what you’re saying or not, it is: “the sacrifice that brings dishonor? …DADT… It make honor impossible“)
    That was the point of this post, and you still don’t understand. I’m sorry you don’t.

    Until you can respect my choice and acknowledge that it’s a choice I am making for a purpose greater than myself and actually respect that, how can I believe you have any respect for me or my service?

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 7, 2006 @ 8:47 pm - March 7, 2006

  7. ColoradoPatriot, this installment of your series of essays is the finest thing I have ever read on this blog. Congratulations for articulating so well what patriotism, commitment, honor and sacrifice are all about. A lot of our society thinks it’s old fashioned, but you have truly put country above self.
    Thank you, sir, for your service to our country. My pride as an Amerrican has been greatly reinforced knowing that our armed forces can attract a real man like you to serve in defense of all we hold dear when one of the things so important to human dignity, equality before the law, has been denied to you.

    I wish every member of the House and Senate could read this piece. Anyone with an open mind and open heart would have to be proud of having someone like you in uniform and might wonder why in the hell the military risks losing you.

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 7, 2006 @ 8:48 pm - March 7, 2006

  8. Thanks again.

    Comment by wfoster — March 7, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - March 7, 2006

  9. Crap Ted can you find a way to be more insulting. I also disagree-I don’t think choosing to stay in the closet to serve is anything close to dishonorable-and the soldiers, sailors and marines that choose to serve under DADT are serving their country, and doing so with honor.

    Comment by just me — March 7, 2006 @ 9:33 pm - March 7, 2006

  10. Nick,

    First, you are my hero. You make the world a safer place, you make America safer and freer. You voluntarily gave up a large measure of your freedoms in order that the rest of us may take advantage of the freedoms we, as Americans, consider our birthright. And it is thanks to you that we can do this in peace.

    Thank you.

    I mean this very sincerely, in spite of the cliches.

    To move on:

    This has been an incredibly intelligent and informative series. It spelled out, very clearly, what the requirements are for change and that the people who want change are the ones with the ‘burden of proof’ on them.

    Thank you for so clearly articulating the potential problems as seen those in charge. A clear understanding of what we are up against is necessary for real change.

    Too many people, theoretically on my side in our mutual desire to remove the DADT policy, completely dismiss the concerns of the other side. I have faith that, if we are careful, we will be able to remove this policy so contrary to our views on equality without endangering our armed forces or the nation.

    Thank you for your sacrifices. And take care of yourself.

    Comment by DinaFelice — March 7, 2006 @ 11:42 pm - March 7, 2006

  11. ColoradoPatriot: “To me, honor means sacrificing and giving of myself for a higher cause. It doesn’t mean being who I am.” Sorry, but I have real problems with this sentiment from anyone in any context. I hope you’ll think more about it.

    One’s sexual identity seems to me and many others to be too core a reality to compartmentalize entirely. Yes, many may hide the sexual interests and activities from others (and that might be a good principle by which to live generally), but one can only suppress one’s emotions (lust, attraction, love, infatuation, and many other emotions) it seems at considerable expense to one’s self.

    When I was in the navy, buddies and I would go to bars for various entertainments. But even before we left base, conversation was already conumed with the hope of getting laid. For the straight guys, nearly every woman seen was the object of desire, and sadly, too often solicited with little decorum, frequently with abuse. For several months I remained sealed within my own world of desires, trying harder than hell not to let even my eyes veer towards another man. I just could not sustain that without intense frustration, boiling up into anger. Not only was I trying to suppress something so utterly natural and consuming, but it was the “veil” of deceit, the camoflage, that took the biggest toll. And this wasn’t an 8-5 office job; the military life extended itself into all domains of my being. Escape to “another” venue was held in suspicion, usually for the wrong reasons. Military fraternity is nearly 24/7. I finally came out to those closest to me, and to my commander, not knowing what to expect. But no matter the consequence, I could no longer prostitute myself for my country anymore than I could do so with another person. The self-imposed prison just became intolerable. Happily, I discovered it was not necessary, back then.

    Apparently my experience is not uncommon. Jeffrey McGowan’s “Mortal Conflict” is a protracted ordeal over years what took me less than three months to resolve. My situation resolved itself much differently and happier; why, I’ll never know. Maybe those pre-DADT days were less toxic than today’s military. Indeed, I was hardly the only known queer, and many other guys were more conspiciously “out” than I was. Also, Adm. Zumwalt was a pretty cool guy, who obviously thought outside the box. Perhaps intermediate brass didn’t want to deal with the issue unless compelled. And certainly, there was not a public (esp. religious right) hue and cry to criminize and marginalize all things gay. That didn’t materialize until nearly a decade later. So today’s military is not yesterday’s military for a whole sundry of reasons.

    It’s not that we don’t all make compromises throughout our lives. Anyone who has had a beloved knows compromise is the art of the relationship. But “hiding” and “concealing” is not compromise, it’s subterfuge of one’s very being. I cannot and will not do it for anyone or anything. I’m not sure I ever could. I esteem honesty too much. Men continue to unleash impulses within me that is just too damned difficult to have always “compensate” for. And if America does not insist that heterosexuals “close one’s self off,” why should it demand that I try to do so?

    Obviously, you’ve given the matter much thought and have decided you can “live” this way. I respect your decision, but it’s so foreign to me I can’t imagine myself doing the same. On the Cost/Benefit scales of life, making your decision mine is inconceivable. And while I genuinely hope it works for you, even if you succeed, it has to exact a toll. When it does, and it will, I hope you will continue to deal with it not only cerebrally, but also emotionally. It’s one thing to “live” a Lie for someone else, just don’t let that lie “infect” you, as it apparently has many others. Think of it as a protracted Halloween Party in uniform drag, where exterior appearances are their concern, but “being true to yourself” is your primary concern. It can be a difficult tightwire to walk, but you seem already on your way. Best wishes in your endeavors.

    Comment by Stephen — March 8, 2006 @ 3:33 am - March 8, 2006

  12. Well, CP, I think that the majority of gay and lesbians in the USA care very little about DADT. In fact, I think most don’t like or approve of the military in the first place. Maybe those are the ones that offend you. I certainly find them offensive.

    But if you look at the organizations and the people that are doing the long haul work to get the law and policy overturned, such as SLDN, and AVER, they are full of veterans, either in front of or behind the scenes. Those are the people who you say are insulting you? Well, you are wrong, and while I appreciate and thank you for your service, that does not entitle you to being a jackass with a chip on your shoulder.

    You should talk to some of those that have been kicked out and ask them what kind of sacrifices they have made before blithely running around saying that DADT is just no big deal. I’m sure most of them don’t regret their decision to join the military, but the costs that they have paid for that decision is not something to just toss off as irrelevant. Even if its irrelevant to them.

    I agree that you are doing an honorable thing. But there is also no getting around the fact that you are breaking the law. It is illegal to be homosexual in the military, whether your are in the closet or not. And whether you act on your orientation or not. It is a fundamental conflict.

    You seem to be under the very false impression that being “discreet” somehow magically protects you from getting canned and/or getting thrown in the brig at any time in your career including up to five minutes before you retire. That is simply not true. It’s happened before, and it will continue to happen until the law is changed. And being in the closet doesn’t protect you, as too many service members have found out. It has little to do with how honorably you have conducted yourself. The reason you have been spared this so far in your career is just as much a matter of luck as of being discreet. You don’t have to be doing gay porn to get in trouble. Your mother could simply out you. That has happened BTW.

    And frankly, I’ve always found the “life isn’t fair” argument to be a little too morally convenient. No, life is not fair. But that does not free anyone off the hook that contributes to it being unfair, as has happened with DADT. And this is the US military, not the military of Cuba. Right and Wrong are supposed to matter. And DADT is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

    You have talked about the sacrifices military families make. I agree that they are many. But at least they are allowed to have families in the first place. You are not. You can’t even get married or enter into a domestic partnership in the states that its legal in. How many straight service members would really be willing to put up with that? They talked about trying to prevent Marines from getting married for the first few years of their service back in the 80’s, and you would have thought the sky had fallen in on the Pentagon.

    And BTW, you also seem to have another false impression, that no one has ever addressed the concerns of the military about the consequences of lifting DADT. They have been addressed many, many times. Just go back to the congressional record of when the ban was enacted into law. Or even before to the PERSEREC reports that were suppressed. Reasoned, logical arguments addressing the military’s concerns have been put forward again and again. The problem is however that DADT was not enacted out of logic and reason, but rather as a response to emotion-based gut-level feelings of disgust for gay and lesbian people. AKA prejudice.

    DADT isn’t just an inconvenience. It’s a moral blight on the soul of the country. Yes, I know thats melodramatic, but thats just the way I feel about the subject. It doesn’t offend me so deeply because I’m gay, it offends in this way because I’m an American, and DADT is a betrayal of the American ideals of judging people on individual merit, not on what class of person they are. It must fall.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 8, 2006 @ 4:12 am - March 8, 2006

  13. Ted, you’re absolutely right: DADT dishonors our military. It does not dishonor individual soldiers, but it soils the institution as a whole. This was precisely the sort of policy one would expect from Bill Clinton, who managed to compromise the integrity of nearly every institution he touched.

    Colorado: The problem isn’t that you’re asked to make sacrifices on behalf of your country. I applaud and admire you for that, as I think do most of us. But your heterosexual colleagues are not required to make sacrifices equivalent to your own: They are given special treatment, and many of us believe that this is needlessly unfair. Worse yet, DADT prevents many Gay and Lesbian soldiers from forming the sorts of domestic relationships that can provide moral and emotional support when they fight abroad.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 8, 2006 @ 4:31 am - March 8, 2006

  14. Wow. Stephen had an interesting post.

    I can’t for the life of me understand why one’s sexual interest has to be so paramount though. Granted, I’ve not been in a position where I’m surrounded by my peers 24/7 as in the military. The closest I’ve come is firehouses and EMS stations. I don’t find it necessary to discuss my personal sex life with others and the people that I work with have the decency to respect that. Sure there’s the lockerroom talk, but I still don’t share my life with others.
    I’ve worked in an office where I could keep a pic of TGCpartner on my desk. Nobody pried into my personal life there either. For the most part, though, I keep my preferrences to myself and have never felt pressure to tell everybody. Sure, I’d prefer a workplace where I could, but I tend to focus more on why I’m there and what I’m getting paid for.
    You go to work, you do your job, you go home. It’s best not to get your butter at the same place you get your bread and it’s best to avoid office drama at all costs.

    And no, I’m not a serious buzzkill. I have my fun at work when I can (KY on door handles and massive amounts of Armor All on the seats), but I won’t push it. I know the limits and I stay within them.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 8, 2006 @ 5:23 am - March 8, 2006

  15. They are given special treatment, and many of us believe that this is needlessly unfair.

    How are straight exactly given special treatment? Or do you mean only in that gays can’t live openly as gays in the military, because there isn’t anything that gives straights special treatment. Because I can say while my husband was in the Navy, there wasn’t any special treatment going on-or if there was somehow they passed him over for it.

    If you just mean it isn’t really fair that gays can’t be open about their gayness, then I would say it is more unfair, than so much special treatment. It is, I think, a stupid policy. But I think just screaming “descrimination” isn’t going to get things too far in getting it removed, which I think is the point of the whole series.

    Sure, it may look and feel like descrimination, but the military doesn’t exist to be a social experiment, the military exists to defend and protect the United States. My feeling is that almost every concern about gays serving (and some are legitimate concerns) can be dealt with through the UCMJ.

    Comment by just me — March 8, 2006 @ 7:42 am - March 8, 2006

  16. Stephen: Those are very thought-filled points and well put together into your comment. I hope that someday you find something in this world that is more important to you than your own libertine, animal wants. I’ve found that it’s through sacrifice and putting something bigger than me ahead of myself that this is the most fulfilling part of life. Nevertheless, I thank you once again for your service and hope you can find a way to not only enjoy the remainder of what you consider your own life, but also find a way to enhance the lives of those around you if that ever becomes something important to you.

    Patrick: Your errors extend from the point of my post all the way to the factual realm. First of all, (much like Stephen’s craven desires), I cannot choose whose choices insult me. I can say, however, come to the conclusion (which I believe to be very correct) that they and I have learned different definitions of the word “honor”. While I appreciate the service of all veterans, their choice to affiliate themselves with groups whose main purposes are to put the individual desires and predelictions of servicemembers ahead of the needs and mission of the military tell their own stories. And as I stated in my post, I’m not speaking for anybody but myself.
    Your further misconceptions about DADT (that being homosexual is illegal in the military, a statement which if you’d read my previous post and its links you’d find is exactly the opposite of the policy) further shows a lack of understanding of the military and its policies.
    In the end, I never said and never even suggested that DADT and its repercussions on a gay servicemember is “no big deal”. Re-read my post, it’s a HUGE deal, and that’s what makes this sacrifice so honorable.

    Tim: Not sure I could have put the selfish argument behind lifting DADT any better myself.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 8, 2006 @ 8:20 am - March 8, 2006

  17. Web Reconnaissance for 03/08/2006

    A short recon of what?s out there that might draw your attention.

    Trackback by The Thunder Run — March 8, 2006 @ 9:55 am - March 8, 2006

  18. Nick, just a quick note to thank you for your work on this series, as well as your service.

    I may disagree with you on a point or two, but as always, I appreciate thoughtful and intelligent debate.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 8, 2006 @ 10:47 am - March 8, 2006

  19. I never said that serving under DADT was “dishonorable”. I said that DADT was dishonorable. And that serving in the closet was a sacrifice…and one that I didn’t feel DADT honored, unlike the others specifically mentioned.

    Attack was I said, not what you think I said. …”Is “the closet” honorable? I’m not sure, and will say so, but at some point it is a sacrifice.” Is it honorable to you that you, as a gay servicemember, are forced into the closet? That you have to pretend? That you have to conceal and prevaricate about friends and loved-ones? Are you being treated with honor?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — March 8, 2006 @ 11:16 am - March 8, 2006

  20. After reading your comments Charging Rhino, I now understand why some rhinos are endangered species… when the headlights hit ’em, they freeze in the face of oncoming traffic –just like you did in demeaning ColoPat’s service. I agree with him, that’s how I read your comments too.

    Face it, the guys usually pressing for DADTDH in our society are often allied with those who espouse anti-military and anti-patriotic sentiments.

    Those political allies have treated the military with singular distain and, for the most part, have been part of the Democrat Party leadership and core constituencies.

    I don’t know why we can’t simply say that the GayLeft leadership in America has let our community down by allying our interests to those who are anti-military, anti-patriotic and would reduce the military to handing out condoms on the roadsides in Haiti or Somalia.

    The only way for DADTDH to get repealed is for patriotic, pro-military gay leadership to demostrate it isn’t all about emasculating the military into political correctness.

    Thanks for the work in putting this series together, Nick. I enjoyed reading it even if I didn’t agree with a point here or there.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 8, 2006 @ 11:56 am - March 8, 2006

  21. No. 17:

    CP, First I deliberately did not raise your hierarchy of needs, particularly the speciousness of a “higher cause.” If you find the military particularly valuable for your life, fine. But if you think what you do is somehow “more noble” than what someone else does, I find that blatantly contemptible, arrogant, and a put down to people who pursue other forms of life. If the military is your highest goal, and that works for you, fine; but there is absolutely nothing intrinsically superior about being a military man “over” that of being a garbage collector. All work is intrinsically noble and one career is neither more noble nor superior to any other career. A person who works in any capacity to provide food, clothing, and shelter for self (and family), working either as a janitor or a CEO is no better, nor any worse, than someone working for the military. Priests often make this special pleading, and it doesn’t work for them any more than it works for you. Ditto Firemen and Police. As I said, I didn’t address your convoluted notion of “higher cause,” because that is something highly contentious in the first place, and incredibly difficult to instantiate in any case.

    (FWIW, I think a very plausible case can be made for “productive” work over “destructive” work. But that’s more involved and complex, even if it seems transparently obvious. So the notion that “killing the enemy” is somehow a “higher cause” than making toilet seats that are comfortable to user is a very slippery slope. Once you think you can extol an essentially destructive career model over a productive one, I think it’s patently obvious you’d be wrong. But I deliberately did not go here; CP, however, insisted.)

    Once again, you make a categorical mistake. Your whole series has been fraught with them. What you identify as “libertine,” I identify as intrinsic. One’s sexual identity is a core human value (I did not claim one’s sexual liasons are of the utmost importance; the two are totally different.) This isn’t metaphysical speculation, it’s a biological reality. Sexual identity and the sex drive are two of the strongest insticts in the human animal, indeed, nearly all animals. That reality doesn’t make anyone a libertine, only cognizant of one’s biological constitution. It’s been overwhelmingly established that undo suppression of these instinctual wants can lead to serious mental disease. That doesn’t mean everyone must have sex in order to be happy, much less be a “libertine” and pursue every “body” in a constant state of lust. Rather, it means one needs to feel comfortable about these impulses and deal with them constructively. My other point was that camoflaging (hiding) something so basic to one’s ordinary life often leads to emotional and physical conflict and deleterious consequences. Living a “Lie” constantly about something so basic to one’s being puts one at fundamental odds with the world, and being “constantly onguard” can feel like self-imposed prison confinement. If you are willing to do both these things, for whatever reason, that’s your existential choice. But thousands upon thousands of people, who do attempt such a radical “denial” and “suppression” of who they are and love, have found The Lie to be a source of significant conflict and tension in both their work and other areas of their lives. Just be aware of it.

    Comment by Stephen — March 8, 2006 @ 12:42 pm - March 8, 2006

  22. The real problem is that there are so many straight guys who are too chickenshit to serve their country in the military. Some girl, just out of high school, is getting shot at because they’re afraid to, and they want to lie about it and claim that it is — as it was with Dick “Birdshot” Charlie Foxtrot Cheney — because they wanted to exercise “other options.”

    In my state, Arizona, they wanted to honor Lori Piestewa. But any monument to her would also stand as a perpetual reminder of the cowardice of those who would not serve. So of course there was a lot of stiff opposition against it.

    I don’t remember, right offhand, who it was who supported the idea of all-gay units in combat — I believe that it was Right Side of the Rainbow. But it is a very good idea. Just as all-black units showed up the white boys with their bravery under fire, so, too — I believe — would all-gay units prove themselves by their own bravery.

    Guys, I believe in you. And I heartily applaud your efforts to be of service to your country.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 8, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - March 8, 2006

  23. Your further misconceptions about DADT (that being homosexual is illegal in the military, a statement which if you’d read my previous post and its links you’d find is exactly the opposite of the policy) further shows a lack of understanding of the military and its policies

    All right Nick, lets take a look at the law as pulled from your links:

    From the UCMJ:

    (b) Policy. A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

    (1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that–

    (A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;

    Is this an accurate description of you Nick? Are you only gay part-time? Or put another way, does a person cease being hetersexual, even if they are not having sex with a member of the opposite sex at the moment?

    (B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;

    Have you completely put aside any possibility having a relationship or even just a sexual liaison with another gay man for the full 20 years or however long you remain in the military?

    (C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;

    (D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and

    (E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

    So Nick, do you no longer have a “propensity” for homosexuality? Keep in mind that the definition of “propensity” is “An innate inclination; a tendency”.(websters) Does this accurately describe you? Propensity does not refer to homosexual behavior, it refers to an innate character trait. In other words, its not acting gay that is illegal it is being gay that is the problem.

    (2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

    Nick, you have already violated this portion of the law by identifying yourself as gay on this website. This is not “coming out to your commander”, it makes no such qualification. It means you can’t tell anyone, at anytime, that you are gay. If you even tell your mother, you have violated the law.

    (3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

    So Nick, kindly point out for me, or perhaps a lawyer-reader can, where it says in this law that you can be gay and serve in the military. And I do not see anything in here that says its ok to be gay so long as you are closeted or as you say “discrete”. This outlaws identity, not just behavior. So please explain your point of view.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 8, 2006 @ 1:38 pm - March 8, 2006

  24. Patrick, I’ll admit that I’m heterosexual even when I’m not having sex. But seriously… it’s not all that important. I’m Norwegian all of the time too. And female. And Christian.

    In uniform I was… well…. green. Or greenish with some tan and brown. Or else blue, depending on the uniform of the day.

    Lori, I agree that Lori Piestewa deserves a monument, but she deserves a monument for a warrior and for a whole lot of people it would be a monument to what you said… a girl who got killed. And that makes me frustrated and angry. I’d almost prefer that she didn’t have one if it can’t be a monument for her bravery and decisive action.

    What Nick said above is so close to what I feel about women in the military. It’s like people say you can be part of that larger cause, but then pull the prize away and say you aren’t, not really, because you’re a girl, and being a girl is more important than being a soldier. And if you get hurt, or shot, it’s a *girl* that got shot, not a soldier. And I’m never able to quite explain why “of course we value the contributions…” disclaimers strike me as entirely hollow.

    What you said does make me wonder… it seems like lately every military recruitment ad I’ve heard (mostly on the radio) has only females in it. I don’t believe that the Army guard in New Mexico is hoping that girls will flock to the recruiters offices. Come to think of it… the sidebar Navy ads I’ve seen on blogs feature female sailors. I used to think this was to attract the guys, but I wonder if it isn’t to *shame* them.

    Interesting thought.

    Comment by Synova — March 8, 2006 @ 3:36 pm - March 8, 2006

  25. Patrick, I’ll admit that I’m heterosexual even when I’m not having sex. But seriously… it’s not all that important. I’m Norwegian all of the time too. And female. And Christian.

    In uniform I was… well…. green. Or greenish with some tan and brown. Or else blue, depending on the uniform of the day.

    I agree, however, I’m not the one making distinctions between heterosexuals and homosexuals in the military, it is the Congress and the military itself that has done this. I simply want the distinction removed.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 8, 2006 @ 4:30 pm - March 8, 2006

  26. #25 I agree.

    Comment by Synova — March 8, 2006 @ 4:40 pm - March 8, 2006

  27. CP, thanks for your service – and for making the effort to explain military pride and honor to the people who don’t understand it or refuse to grant its existence.

    Comment by Calarato — March 8, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - March 8, 2006

  28. Patrick, I don’t know which point you’re trying to make, but I was rebutting your statement (comment #12) that “It is illegal to be homosexual in the military, whether your are in the closet or not.
    You’re wrong. You’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong. As I’ve written here before. I can only explain it to you, I can’t understand it for you.
    If it helps, here is some spoon-feeding. (This, by the way, was from an earlier post in this series. Believe whatever you like, but the truth is still the truth.)

    And Stephen: Nevermind….
    Acutally, no, don’t “nevermind”. Come to think of it, you’ve almost got it figured out. You know the contempt some people may feel for that guy you refer to who’s picking up trash or putting toilet seats together for a living? You know how some people look down on him and view him as less than they are? Well let me tell you something, Stephen: That’s exactly how it makes me feel when you question the “honor” (as your mind sees it) of my choice to make my own sacrifices for a cause larger than myself. You almost get it, but throwing something like that in my face shows how far you really are.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 8, 2006 @ 6:01 pm - March 8, 2006

  29. No. 23.

    Patrick: Excellent point-on-point observations, the enormous hypocrisy involved, abnegation of self, criminality of being gay (despite Lawrence v. Texas, so the military doesn’t even abide by the law of the land), etc.

    I genuinely wish Nick well. While I could never make a career of the military, I understand that many people do, including gays and lesbians. What is wholly inconceivable to me, is not just the “camoflage” and “hiding” one must do to stay in the military, but if ever challenged about one’s sexual orientation, LIE about it. It’s so duplicitous and conflicted that I can’t imagine one feeling authentic or true to one’s very self. Hell, it’s one thing to BS a government agency that violates the law about who or what you are, it’s so totally depraved to “live” a clandestine life as a fabrication. If Nick really wants to do it, though, I really wish him success.

    The REAL issue is the military policy, not Nick per se. No one should be compelled into a life of duplicity, deceit, and hiding in order to serve one’s country. If given those choices, I would not serve. And, as I admit, I can’t imagine anyone else submitting to this policy. But the LARGER point is why anyone should have to? Lawrence v. Texas is the law of the land, and even the military, which does have extraordinary special pleadings, surely must abide by something so basic.

    So, Nick, while I and Patrick see almost nothing but conflict and deception, you have to make your own choices based on your needs. And DO know, that while some of us simply cannot go “there” with you, it’s not you that is the problem, it’s the policy. My principle concern is that you don’t come to ruin because of the untenable position our government sadly requires of you. Remember, the policy is inherently wrong. It’s morally indefensible. You don’t have to put up with it. But if you do continue to live this “split” life, always be honest with yourself. You are not at fault, the policy is. Never loose sight of that.

    Finally, it is noble to serve a country whose ideals are freedom, liberty, democracy, but DADT is contrary to these very principles. However you negotiate this contradiction, always remember it’s THEIR policy, not yours. And many GLBT are doing our best to change the military’s “homophobic” culture, because DADT is the antithesis of what our Founders envisioned. Always remember that this is YOUR country too. And the next time you kill someone to defend the U.S., keep in mind that what your really are defending is not America’s best. Not yet.

    Comment by Stephen — March 8, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - March 8, 2006

  30. I am also military, and heterosexual. I think that you (the gay patriot) are correct on many things, and agree with many of your views expressed in the blog. I do however believe that many people are missing a very important fact. The UCMJ does not give every member of the military the right to free speech, or any other expression. Most commands tolerate a certain level of free speech, but the tolerance is evidence of a privilege not much different from your driver’s license. You may also be familiar with fraternization. On board a ship, or other command where it is conceivable that everyone you see is military any sexual act is technically forbidden. until recently the DOD flat out refused to allow homosexuals in the military. That doesn’t mean that there were no gays in the military It just means that they, first, lied if asked, and then didn’t offer the information. Now, at least from a technical standpoint, homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals except that they are specifically mentioned for DNDT policy purposes. I believe that specific mention was necessary to show a change in policy. I guess my point is that the military is improving, and though it is slow, will probably continue to improve. The military normally lags behind general social change. As much as we don’t like to admit it Homosexuality is less morally acceptable in most social context, and that will also continue to change. Be patient, the specific mention of homosexuals will eventually leave DOD policy if you keep pushing.

    Comment by Greg — March 9, 2006 @ 12:12 am - March 9, 2006

  31. Another point I should have mentioned earlier. The goal of the DOD’s policy tends to corolate with what they thought was in the best interest of national security.

    When were not allowed in combattant positions many excuses were given as to why. The real reason was this:

    The current mass of soldiers would be reluctant to accept because of . This would lead to a decrease in moral. Low moral damages national security. We will not allow in the military until they can be integrated in a reletively harmless manner. And the transition will be slow and require much study.

    Unfortunately for you it will prove to not be the DOD that is homophobic, but the other soldiers you serve with. That is one small reason why the DOD has a DADT policy. They don’t care, but the redneck standing next to you with an M16 might.

    Comment by Greg — March 9, 2006 @ 12:24 am - March 9, 2006

  32. I disagree, just a bit, with what you said about the military lagging, Greg. It sort of does and it sort of doesn’t at the same time. Considering the integration of blacks and of women in the service, it lagged in that the general public attitude supported the move before changes were made. But the military, it seems to me, actually does a better job with equality despite a late start and despite the sexist, racist, fellow standing next to you with an M16.

    Why that is so, is because of what you said about controlled speech and because of controlled behavior. It also helps that promotions are by time and merit, as blind to favoritism as it’s possible to be. If you’re good at your job, and the red-neck mysogynist, racist, homophobe next to you knows that… it doesn’t really matter else. Nothing’s perfect in the world, but military discipline helps to hold until people get used to what’s new.

    Stephen, I know you weren’t trying to, but that was really incredibly insulting. Look, you don’t have to have the temperment to serve in the military but for anyone who does, self-denial is going to be a big part of that, at least self-denial in expression. That’s for everyone, not just gays. Different people are going to be more comfortable with that than others. No doubt some gay soldiers find it unbearable. Some heterosexuals find it unbearable. If Nick is comfortable with his choices it’s beyond condescending of you to assume that he’s not being honest with himself about that. And I *know* you were trying to be supportive. I’m sure we’d all prefer DADT to be replaced with “who the heck cares.”

    Comment by Synova — March 9, 2006 @ 1:40 am - March 9, 2006

  33. I agree more with Synova I think on the issue of the military integrating well. In generally once the military decides to committ to an action they usually do it well, and better than anyone.

    I have been thinking about this, and I actually think DADT and the whole idea of gays not being able to serve for whatever reasons will likely phase out to some degree. Polls among young people don’t show nearly as much discomfort/bigotry with homosexuality compared to polls of older people.

    I suspect that right now the lower enlisted/young officer corps is probably far more open to ditching DADT than those higher in the chain of command.

    I believe with careful planning, DADT could probably be ended without any real problems.

    Comment by just me — March 9, 2006 @ 7:41 am - March 9, 2006

  34. Patrick, I don’t know which point you’re trying to make, but I was rebutting your statement (comment #12) that “It is illegal to be homosexual in the military, whether your are in the closet or not.”
    You’re wrong. You’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

    No Nick, you are mistaken. I have looked up your links. You are relying on DoD directives. Those are Administration policies, they do not have the force of law. They can be changed at anytime by the DOD and/or the President. In fact prior to Clinton, thats all that the “ban the homosexuals” rule was, just an administrative policy. After Clinton, the Congress enacted the ban into the UCMJ, making it a legal statute. It is BTW, to Bush’s credit that he has not rescinded the “don’t ask” policy, it is what allows you to serve unless found out.

    The UCMJ however can only be changed by an act of Congress. It is “the Law”. And according to the law, it is illegal to be gay in the military. This is why you have always seen me refer to DADT as a combination of policy AND law.

    This is also a major reason why DADT is so wrong, bad, stupid, etc., it actually has a law conflicting with an Administration policy. But it does not leave gays and lesbians in any kind of legal limbo. The law is quite specific. And if you are found out, whether through your own actions or not, you are kicked out. The law trumps any administrative policy.

    It’s clear to me that if even those gay and lesbian people that are in the military do not have a firm grasp the way DADT works, then both the military and the gay groups need to do a better job of education on this.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 9, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - March 9, 2006

  35. So, Nick, while I and Patrick see almost nothing but conflict and deception, you have to make your own choices based on your needs.

    Um… Stephen, please don’t use my name, often what you write makes me cringe. I do see the conflict, but I believe Nick is mistaken, not self-delusional. I do not question his honor, just his understanding of DADT. And also I think that in some of his criticisms of those trying to change DADT, he is being a jackass. But that is all. I do not agree with what you have been saying.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 9, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - March 9, 2006

  36. Patrick, I’m officially giving up on you ever understanding DADT or the law behind it. There is no law that states that “It is illegal to be homosexual in the military, whether your are in the closet or not.” or even words that would suggest so. This is what you said, and you’re wrong. I can’t say it any more times, and unless you choose to see this, this argument is going nowhere. You are wrong. Face it, or show me the statute that says so. You can’t, becuase it doesn’t exist. Period. Sheesh, this is exhausting.

    As far as “understandig” DADT, you have a long way to go. From whose perspective do you think it is more vital to have the facts, Patrick? What on earth makes you think you have (or ever would have) a better understanding of the policy? I live and breathe this policy daily. You, on the other hand, spout off about it at whim in the comments section of a blog (and in the main body of your own from time to time).

    Not to be more of a jackass (good call, by the way, I’d be the first to admit that!), but you really have a lot to learn about the facts of the issue first. And by facts, I don’t mean what SLDN , HRC, and CSSMM use as their talking points.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 9, 2006 @ 4:00 pm - March 9, 2006

  37. A soldier is no better than a garbage collector… wow… just… wow. Stephen, you make a bad name for liberals. There are some liberals out there that I can relate to on many levels because “liberal” for them is about being open-minded and progressive. Then there are the kind of “liberals” who want to drag everyone else down in order to feel better about themselves- the communist mindset that aims to apologize for mediocrity and downgrade those who excel. I guess, the doctor who pushed him and busted his ass for years to become a doctor is no better than the garbage man, right? The soldier who goes into a line of work that is well known to be particularly demanding and potentially life-threatening with little monetary reward is no better than the guy who picks up people’s garbage, and is probably paid better as part of some government employees union. We are not all the same, Stephen. People are different and I would even be so bold as to say some are better than others in some pretty crucial respects.

    Government policy really is directly tied to your personal self-esteem, isn’t it? For the love of God, get some therapy for your issues.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — March 9, 2006 @ 4:04 pm - March 9, 2006

  38. No. 37. Dale in L.A. Okay, Dale, you’re a snob. Instead of self-aggrandizement, try justifying it. Otherwise, you’re just another snob.

    Comment by Stephen — March 9, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - March 9, 2006

  39. Instead of self-aggrandizement, try justifying it. Otherwise, you’re just another snob.

    I’m not claiming to be better than anyone else. I’m pointing out that there are exceptional people and ordinary people and all ranges in between. You live in a fantasy world where people are all the same. It may be good for the self-esteem of the less than extradinary people but it’s not reality.

    We ask a lot of our soldiers. We ask them to bust their asses in a demanding job and risk their lives so we can live our cushy lives in safety, and we don’t give them much in return. The least we can do is give them the respect they deserve for having that kind of courage and discipline. You, and others like you, put them down and that’s messed up.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — March 9, 2006 @ 5:54 pm - March 9, 2006

  40. I hope you get exposed as a homosexual and get kicked out of the military. You DO NOT BELONG IN THE MILITARY, my friend. The best thing for you is an honorable discharge after being exposed as a homosexual. I have no respect nor sympathy for you. You must be aware of the evidence that shows that homosexuals are BAD FOR MORALE in the military. If you truly love the military so much, as you claim, why do you insist on decreasing the morale of the military with your presence. Your professions of solidarity with the military strike me as hollow.

    Dan in Baltimore

    Comment by dan cobb — March 9, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - March 9, 2006

  41. Service? Please! Self-service is what you meant to write, no doubt!!
    Dan in Baltimore

    Comment by dan cobb — March 9, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - March 9, 2006

  42. Excuse me, but I’m turned off by the self-aggrandizement and
    the self-proclaimed “sacrifices” and heroics from a homosexual who has placed himself in the military! Sounds very narcissistic to me.

    Dan in Baltimore

    Comment by dan cobb — March 9, 2006 @ 6:37 pm - March 9, 2006

  43. Patrick, I’m officially giving up on you ever understanding DADT or the law behind it. There is no law that states that “It is illegal to be homosexual in the military, whether your are in the closet or not.” or even words that would suggest so. …….but you really have a lot to learn about the facts of the issue first. And by facts, I don’t mean what SLDN , HRC, and CSSMM use as their talking points.

    The law that you say does not exist is section 15, etc:

    (15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

    (b) Policy. A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations: …..

    (E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

    The key wording is “having a propensity” aka having a character trait. It does not say in that section “demonstrate a propensity” aka a character trait.

    You also need to look at the above section in light of they way that they define the term Homosexual later in the document.

    ……. The term “homosexual” means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms “gay” and “lesbian”.

    Once again, look at the language of “has a propensity”. They are describing a character trait, not a behavior or action.

    Nick, if you identify at all as gay or lesbian, whether you express that identity or not, you “have a propensity”- aka an inclination, to homosexual acts. For the purpose of the UCMJ, there is no difference between homosexual (identity) and homosexuality (behavior).

    So yes, it therefore follows that it is illegal to be both homosexual and in the military. That is what the law says. What the administrative policy says is that the military will not directly ask a servicemember what their sexual orientation is. But that is a policy, not a law.

    But I’m tired of arguing this with you. So don’t take my word for it. Go ask a JAG or another attorney. And BTW, I have not read any “talking points” on the issue from SLDN or HRC and I don’t even know what that other organization is. Jackass.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 9, 2006 @ 6:53 pm - March 9, 2006

  44. Dan:
    It’s an honor to serve on your (and Stephen’s and Patrick’s, too) behalf. If that troubles you, as it seems it does, I’d welcome you to take my place.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 9, 2006 @ 8:19 pm - March 9, 2006

  45. Wonder if Dan will be back.

    Dan… you sound a little wound up. Get over it already. Are you in the service? Have you been? I’m just wondering because while I know that many people share your opinions, quite a few straight people in the service don’t.

    I had an NCOIC once who was excitable. We called him “Pinger” behind his back because of the habit he had of pinging off the walls. You sound excitable. You should work on that.

    Comment by Synova — March 9, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - March 9, 2006

  46. Dan:
    It’s an honor to serve on your (and Stephen’s and Patrick’s, too) behalf. If that troubles you, as it seems it does, I’d welcome you to take my place.

    “rolls eyes” I am indeed very grateful that men and women like Nick are willing to guard the night so I can sleep more soundly in my bed. Even if some of them are jackasses, they are still “our” jackasses. Peace.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 9, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - March 9, 2006

  47. Tim: Not sure I could have put the selfish argument behind lifting DADT any better myself.

    Selfish arguments are often the best arguments.

    By the way, Colorado, your posts on this blog have placed you in direct violation of DADT. You could be discharged for what you’ve written here, even under a pseudonym. We know that Gay and Lesbian soldiers have been discharged for much less than what you’ve done: Online profiles, private chats, and personal correspondence have been used to establish sexual orientation in dismissal hearings.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 9, 2006 @ 9:06 pm - March 9, 2006

  48. Hooah!

    Comment by Red — March 13, 2006 @ 3:10 pm - March 13, 2006

  49. I am a 16 year old female from Montana and a Sophmore in highschool.. In a class of mine we are to write a “Position Paper” on what we feel is right or what is wrong. I have chosen to write my paper on Openly gay men in the military.. I have done extensive research and even though i may not understand everything, i still feel as though ones sexual orientation is not a reflection of ones courage..And those who are gay/lesbian and fight for freedom shouldn’t face discrimination from the Government they protect…In the recent research i have done i have found that a large majority of Republicans, regular churchgoers and people with negative attitudes towards gays think that gays and lesbians SHOULD be allowed to serve openly in the military..
    Also i feel that the military should be promoting honesty and not Secrecy.. It is imperative to have the BEST and BRIGHTEST fighting for freedom, their sexual orientation should have nothing to do with serving on the front line.. “Research shows and even the military admits that a sizable percentage of those kicked out of the armed forces for being homosexual are actually heterosexual. They use this “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” Policy like a free card to get out.. Each year the military spends millions of dollars investigating these violations.. By eliminating this policy the money used for investigations could be used to improve our national defense…If there is no law that states it is illegal for homosexuals to be serving in the military then why are there so many being kicked out of the military for being homosexual? None of this makes sense whatsoever.. Our country is contradicting itself..

    Comment by Jaci — March 20, 2006 @ 10:13 pm - March 20, 2006

  50. Super Post!
    Thanks for the enlightening informaiton.

    Comment by Tanning Bulbs — April 11, 2006 @ 10:20 am - April 11, 2006

  51. You said that married men and fathers going off are giving a greater sacrifice than you are in staying closeted. What of those who have to leave their partners behind without making them the immediate family contact? What of those who have to both give up their love to serve and must constantly serve in fear that they may lose the right to serve? What of those who, unlike married men and fathers, cannot share their worries and their fondest memories of their loved one with their fellow servicemen? That, I think, is a greater sacrifice.

    Comment by Vin — March 15, 2007 @ 10:32 am - March 15, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.