Interesting article from an upcoming issue of The Advocate which reports on a Zogby poll that, for whatever value polls are, 73% of servicemembers do not care about the sexual orientation of their colleagues. It would be great if this attitude helps achieve the number one goal I have in gay rights: abolishing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. I firmly believe that with this impediment out of the way for qualified gays openly serving, many of the more reasonable rights called for by gays will follow. I suspect that opponents of this change believe the same thing, which is why they fight it so strongly even when their own reasoning for the policy is fatuous at best.
However, even if DADT were abolished tomorrow it would still take some time for real change to occur. As former Army Sgt. Sonya Contreras is quoted as saying:
“Even if the policy changed tomorrow, however, institutional changes in the military will take longer, predicts Contreras. “When the policy changes, the cultural change will take much longer,” she says. “Gay people in the military right now are not going to come out en masse, because a policy change is not going to change the way people think and feel.”
Such is to be expected I suppose, particularly from some of (though not all) those commanders of a previous generation. I’d rather get the show on the road and start this process now than later.
Former Army Sgt. Contreras obviously does not speak as an authority for the military, it’s a shame you use quotes from those outside the establishment to make your point.
But with that said, it is obvious from those you consider as experts that regardless of the left leaning pollsters at Zogby who you quote, Contreras’s words are even more telling. And that is “because a policy change is not going to change the way people think and feel.”
Live in your insular world and think it is only “commanders of a previous generation.” For the rest of us, we know the truth.
Peace.
BJ is supposed to be adding to his legacy, not subtracting.
Pity, you are all so young. I’m 77 and was a kinda cute teenager toward the end of World War II. The Military was a major resource for gay sports. Nobody asked – nobody told! (The Government had needed all the cannon fodder it could get.) At 18, my mother took me on a sort of “tour” of the US, starting with that marvel of the time – The California Zephyr. I immediately tied up with a Chirf Petty Officer who enlivened my compartment nightly (and later my hotel room in San Francisco), He was about 28 – and fun. My mother thought it so wonderful that I had selected so handsome a “role model.” In college, the first “love” of my life was a returning vet – 3 yrs. older than I. When we broke up a couple of years later. he re-enlisted and became a high-security diplomatic courier. It was all a sort of a logical extension of the “Boy Scouts.” I had been an “Eagle” and a Camp Counselor and you have no idea how much fun you could have in a “pup tent.” Thus – all this modern crap about “Don’t ask; Don’t tell” strikes me as a joke.
Honestly I think ditching DADT would be a great idea.
Sure there are some legitimate concerns-but all those concerns can be dealt with through the UCMJ.
I think it makes sense that the majority of military members are in favor of lifting the rule, most polls on gay issues shows those under the age of 30 tend to be supportive of gay rights. The majority of military members are under thirty. Problem is that the generals in charge-the people who have to ask congress to get rid of the ban, are in the well over 30 crowd. It isn’t the rank and file that need convincing so much as it is the guys at the top.
#3 I would love to read a book about Gays in the Greatest Generation
– Anyone know of one?
There’s a great book called “Conduct Unbecoming,” by Randy Shilts. It traces the history of gay people in the military from the beginning of the US, but he pays special attn. to the world war II generation, since they were seminal in bringing about a public gay rights movement in the US.
Cheers, Chet
I recently completed six years of service as a naval officer, three of which were on the crew of a submarine. I am also proudly conservative, both fiscally and socially. Nevertheless, I think DADT needs to be replaced with a more open policy that allows openly gay personnel to serve in the military with few if any caveats. We had at least one crewmember who was gay (he came out immediately after his retirement, but it was not a surprise) and probably a few more who may or may not have been. The guy who retired did his job quite well and was definitely as an asset to the sub. As long as people like him behave honorably and do their job honorably and obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice (i.e., they do not sexually harrass or fraternize), I think the military (or at least the submarine force) is better off with a more open policy than DADT.
Although I don’t agree with DADT and think the military should move to allow openly gay individuals into the military, I don’t think differing opinions should be automatically discounted. While some people (whether they are currently serving, have served, or have never served in the U.S. military) favor maintaining DADT (or reverting to an even more restrictive policy) because they have an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuality, some don’t want openly gay persons in their unit merely because of concerns as to how sexual feelings between members of a unit (whether mutual or not) could affect unit morale, cohesiveness, and war-fighting ability. Such concerns also arise within mixed-genders units. Although such concerns don’t necessarily preclude inclusion of openly gay personnel, I think they are valid concerns and must be dealt with. I myself only got to see a small part of the military during my six years of service in the submarine force, so I can’t pretend to understand the concerns of commanders, mid-level officers, and NCO’s of ground forces, special forces, or even other naval ships. For some of them, it might just be old school hatred and fear of homosexuality, but I think many of them have concerns that are actually valid and worthy of addressing.
Former Army Sgt. Contreras obviously does not speak as an authority for the military, it’s a shame you use quotes from those outside the establishment to make your point.
On the contrary, SGT Contreras voice is an excellent voice to be heard, as his impression is probably spot on. As anyone who has been in the military in the more junior ranks (both officer and enlisted) in recent years will tell you, institutionally the military is not gay friendly, but much of that “institutionalism” (for lack of a better word) comes from the top down. The junior soldiers and officers are very gay friendly, because they’ve grown up with gay friends and neighbors and really don’t care that much. And what is “the establishment” anyway? The senior leaders? The ones who are completely out of touch with social attitudes of those who execute plans? As someone who spent time in two warfighting divisions in relatively junior roles, I will tell you that the senior leaders always have been and alway will be out of touch with the social mores of the troops. Whether or not Zogby leans left is irrelevant. Even if they are, troops are more likely to be honest about what they believe when a poll is being conducted by any organization outside the chain of command.
There’s a great book called “Conduct Unbecoming,” by Randy Shilts.
I strongly second this recommendation by Chet. It’s an amazing book – you learn an incredible amount about not only gays in the military, but also some about more mainstream gay history. Really fantastic tome.
#4 – Well said.
I’m sure there are lots of untold stories of great gay patriots during the World War II/Korea era that do need to be told. And I for one would love to read about them.
I also seem to recall my father and uncle saying that during the war, there were special “platoons” of both non-coms and fighters that were created due to their (shall we say) “artistic” bent. Dad was in the Navy in the Pacific, and I’m sure he knows more than he’s letting on.
FYI – a great book that briefly touches on the impact of war on the gay population is “Behind the Screen” by William Mann. Even though the book’s primary focus is on gays and lesbians in Hollywood, he does recount the story of Frank McCarthy, the youngest brigadier general in history whose dismissal from the State Department (under Truman) is still a source of mystery.
Regards,
Peter H.
#5. I have written a book. The main purpose for writing it was to present the history of my family,the region where they lived and my personal history for the first third of my life. The book is not for sale but I send it to anyone as a gift who requests it. I have had four printings. I didn’t know I had so many cousins, nieces, nephews and friends. I spent 4 years in the Army from 1942 to 1946 and my book deals with much of that. However, we were NOT the greatest generation. I wish I could give you all a copy.
Attitudes in the Army are sometimes slow to change, but they would change. The sooner you start, the sooner it would happen. It really depends on the unit. The generals are always out of touch with the smaller units….but the Army works in teams, some down to 3 people ‘big’. I never wanted to risk my career but I always thought if I would have told my unit members (Military Police Company) I was gay, they would have said “yea, okay, time to get on the bus”.
…if I would have told my unit members (Military Police Company) I was gay, they would have said “yea, okay, time to get on the bus”.
LMAO…Mary, that made me laugh – I have no doubt you’re right. I often thought if I said something the reaction would have been “So what? Are the OPORDs done yet?”
The title of this post says it all: “who cares?” I distinctly remember watching the coverage of the attempted lifting of the ban by Clinton and I remember the TV cameras following two senators, Nunn and Warner, I believe, on board a naval vessel in an attempt by those two homohaters to “prove” just how terrible it would be for these sailors to have openly gay servicemen in their midst. Loaded questions were asked but interestingly, the expected answers were not forthcoming: I remember one sailor stating that it really wouldn’t matter to him if he had openly gay shipmates as long as they did their job. And this was twelve years ago! Today, I’m sure there’s even more tolerance.
In the early 1980’s, I dated a guy who had just been kicked out of the navy (submarine) for being gay and my partner of five years was also kicked out of the navy for being gay prior to DADT. And these guys did not get honorable discharges. Perhaps the navy has more than its share of gay people. My partner tells of how many gay guys he met on the aircraft carriers on which he sailed. And many, while not “open”, bordered on flaming. There were so many on one vessel, that it was nicknamed “Queen Mary.”
On one hand, I’m incensed that it takes a vanity war turned quagmire to put the military in a position of getting desperate enough for more cannon-fodder that the homohaters in power would consider lifting the ban but on the other hand, it may be the only positive thing to come out of this complete clusterf@ck in Iraq.
So why isn’t all this “tolerance” being shouted from the rooftops in MSM land?
Oh, yeah, I forgot – libtard bias. Anything to make the current Administration look awful. Doubtless if a Dhimmicrat was in office, it would be hosannahs in the highest.
Regards,
Peter H.
On one hand, I’m incensed that it takes a vanity war turned quagmire to put the military in a position of getting desperate enough for more cannon-fodder that the homohaters in power would consider lifting the ban but on the other hand, it may be the only positive thing to come out of this complete clusterf@ck in Iraq.
So how exactly does hate and dishonesty help?
#15 – So how does this square with the common belief that Bill Clinton, and absolutely no one else, is responsible for DADT in the first place?
#17 – Vaara, the explanation is simple if you know how Congress and the Executive branch work:
1. DADT was passed by both Houses of Congress under Clinton’s watch before the 1996 election.
2. It went to Clinton for his signature.
3. Under the Constitution, a bill becomes a law in two ways: (a) signed by the Prez or (b) by being “pigeonholed” by the Prez for 10 days, in which case it becomes law WITHOUT HIS SIGNATURE.
4. Clinton could have vetoed it but he DID NOT. (Presumably because he didn’t have enough votes in either chamber to prevent the veto from being overriden.)
In the case of Slick Willie, he was worried about alienating his GayLeftLib base but in order to shore up his mainstream voters (this is before Monica), he quietly allowed the bill to become law via pigeonhole.
This is before the other “hole” that came about in the Oval Orifice care of the zaftig intern heretofore mentioned.
This way, he could wag his finger at the GayLeftLibs and say “I did not sign this bill because I did not believe in it,” and in the next breath reassure the rest of the American public that he believed in “decency and morality.”
(Okay, you girls can stop laughing about that one now.)
Either way, he could conceivably not tell a lie because (a) he didn’t sign it (but it became law anyway) and (b) we all know how he stands on “morality.”
Okay, I stopped laughing now. That last one always gets me.
So vaara, did I answer your question?
Regards,
Peter H.