Recently I was handed a promotional brochure created by the Center for Military Readiness, an organization that is adamantly opposed to the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy enacted during the Clinton Administration more than 15 years ago.  It was signed by dozens — maybe hundreds – of retired flag and general officers who support keeping the policy intact.  It made me laugh.  I recognized many of those names and admire many of the men who contributed their names to this campaign.  But, it would have had a much more significant impact if it had been signed by veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom — 20-somethings who have recently served and can actually attest to the impact of the repeal on unit cohesion, morale and military readiness. 
 
I would assert that today’s youth share few opinions with their grandfathers on this issue — and the men who signed this document are almost two generations removed from the majority of today’s soldiers and Sailors.  They are, indeed, grandfathers to this generation.  It reminded me of a conversation I had with my own grandfather more than 20 years ago. Like these men, he was a retired flag officer and grew up in a vastly different America than the one that raised me.  He was an intellectual giant (in my opinion) and a decorated WWII hero – I beamed with pride at being introduced as his granddaughter.  But, he gave me pause one day when we were discussing gays serving in the military.  I assumed he was against it, but I had never heard him tell this particular story before he and I sparred that day on the issue. He admitted to me that his Naval Academy roommate was court-martialed in the 1920s for homosexual behavior and this former roommate asked my grandfather to serve as a character witness at his trial.  My grandfather refused, the man was convicted and thrown out of the Navy. He later committed suicide, and my grandfather angrily said, “If I had had a gun, I would have shot him myself.”  I furrowed my brow and said, “Why?  Why woudn’t you serve as a character witness for him?  Wasn’t he your friend?”  He responded, “He was a great roommate and friend. He used to make my bed in the morning when I didn’t have time.  He was a very talented naval aviator. I was so angry at him when I heard the news.”  I looked at him and said, “You just attested to his character, Grandaddy. You just told me what a great person and friend he was.”  Grandaddy was speechless and this legend in my eyes suddenly looked very small.  After a pregnant pause, he responded: “Well, I guess you just can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”  
 
I bring up this sad, personal story because the opinions of retired flag and general officers on the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are irrelevant and remind me of my grandfather’s attitude.  Today’s generation of youth — those who are joining and serving in the military today — have grown up with openly gay individuals.  I found online some results of a Zogby poll from December 2006 which concluded that 72% of returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are “personally comfortable” with gays.  An Annenberg poll from 2004 concluded that, a majority of junior enlisted personnel favor letting gays serve openly. They don’t see homosexuals as predatory threats; on the contrary, they see them as fellow professionals and friends. They expect them to be held to the same fraternization standards as heterosexuals. Simply put, their presence is not an issue. Organizations like the Center for Military Readiness — groups that profess to be strong supporters of the troops, should spend some time in uniform and spend some time with gay and straight soldiers and sailors to find out what issues are really important to them. Serving together is not one of them.



Posted by The Bunny in Uncategorized
Tags: ,
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

  • RickWilmes

    Here is the main website.

    Flag & General Officers for the Military

    ——————————-

    Intellectual bankruptcy at its worst.

    Exhibit 1: “have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service”

  • Paul

    What is the purpose of the Navy? It is not to be a nice, happy, inclusive place of employment. It is to preserve and protect American interests and freedoms and, if necessary, kill other people in pursuit of those goals. The acceptance of any class of person as candidates to be sailors is conditional upon their furthering the goals of the Navy. It is up to the advocates of openly homosexual sailors to prove, against reasonable skepticism, that the admission of openly homosexual sailors will further the Navy’s mission and that it will not pose a problem for privacy, command, or recruitment/retention issues (in other words, that said admissions will not cause an equal or greater number of worthy candidates to forgo enlistment or reenlistment because of their uncomfortableness with sharing such close quarters and possibly being forced to share berthing with someone who has an open sexual interest in them).

  • FormerJAG

    Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is not about advertising sexuality, it is about allowing individuals to be honest with their shipmates.

    As an officer in the U.S. Navy JAG Corps, it didn’t matter what I did in my bedroom, what mattered is if I could represent my clients (enlisted and officer)in the courtroom. When I wrote a will or a power-of-attorney, I highly doubt that my ability to write a document that would protect his/her family’s needs in the future was impacted by my sexuality. I doubt that when I deployed as the SJA to a strike group that the Commodore would trust my legal advice any less if he knew that I left my partner at home.

    I shared a stateroom with fellow junior officers. I used the same head as the rest of the men on the ship. As a professional, I was doing my job and what was asked of me. I didn’t sit and lust over my shipmates, I didn’t invade their privacy any more than they did mine.

    The difference between me and those I served with – I knew all about their spouses, what their kids were doing in school, who they were dating, what they did on the weekend…but they knew nothing about me. I had to lie on a daily basis – I created fake girlfriends, fake dates – just so that I could be part of conversations, part of the Wardroom, part of the Navy.

    Everyone talks about how bad it would be to have gays openly serving in the military – lack of privacy, sexual tension, adultery, etc… How very shortsighted those arguments are – all of these issues exist with men and women serving together, but yet I don’t see anyone saying that women should be banned from serving so that we can make the military more harmonious. As in any segment of the population, there will be individuals that cause problems, but last I checked, heterosexuals are not perfect nor innocent of doing wrong.

    What do we gain by not allowing those that serve together the simple ability to be honest with each other?

  • RickWilmes

    Paul, bad logic. It’s the equivalent of me claiming you beat your spouse. Now prove to me that you do not.

  • ASteinman

    Tens of thousands of gay, lesbian and bisexual personnel are currently serving right now, in all branches of the armed forces, with the open knowledge of their peers and even with the knowledge of some of their commands. The recent Zogby International poll of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans found that 23% of them KNEW FOR CERTAIN THERE WERE GAYS IN THEIR OWN UNIT, and another 45% suspected THERE WERE GAYS IN THEIR OWN UNIT. So more than two-thirds of our current military either knows for certain or suspects there are gays in their own unit, and it’s no big deal. Combat readiness is just fine.

    The author of this piece is right on the money. The younger generation of troops has an entirely different attitude than do the flag officers signing the recent statement from the Center for Military Readiness. I can personally attest to the attitudes of the younger troops, as I give lectures on “gays in the military” to active duty and reserve soldiers and airmen at the local Army and Air Force base near where I live (as part of community college courses from a local college held on base). And these students tell me the same thing as indicated in the Zogby Poll. Hell, I even had one soldier come out in class, and he was an artilleryman. He said everyone in his unit knew and didn’t care. Neither did, apparently, the other members of this class (which included an Army E-8). This soldier is still on active duty.

  • Pepe

    “As far as equating homosexuality, and as you yourself call it, a ‘sexual preference’, with race”

    Race and sexual orientation are not being compared, however, prejudice is. If one form of prejudice is permitted, then why should we stop there? Why not prohibit other types of people simply because the majority doesn’t like them or approve of everything they do?

    Most of those serving today realize that homosexuality is not “contagious” and that, no matter what they might want to believe, there are gay people serving and serving honorably. They also appreciate the contributions that their gay brothers- and sisters-in-arms make to accomplishing the mission. The discomfort from being seen in a shower doesn’t outweigh that.

  • Drew

    Former JAG — thanks for your comments, and thanks for your service.

    The opinions of the flag & general officers no doubt reflect the climate at the time they were serving. They are not “wrong” — they just are not that relevant today. For that matter, the opinions of today’s generation of senior officers doesn’t necessarily reflect the attitudes of younger servicemembers.

    The fact of the matter is that society changes. We don’t discriminate against Jews & Catholics — both of which were formerly acceptable prejudices — and we allow women to serve, albeit with some restrictions. Blacks are no longer assigned to segregated units. At any time in the past hundred years, you could have heard arguments against any of these groups that wouldn’t sound too different from the arguments being advanced against gays today.

    Ultimately the question is one of fairness — an issue which Americans hold in some regard. There is no evidence that sexual orientation impedes job performance. So is the fact that some people are uncomfortable around gays in itself a sufficient basis to uphold discriminatory policy? That might have been true when DADT was enacted in 1993, but in 2009 it’s getting harder to make the case. Suggesting the sky will fall if gays are allowed to serve openly does discredit to the overall professionalism of our force.

    That’s not to say there won’t be some issues. A little discretion still goes a long way, particularly in a shipboard environment. But the military doesn’t get a free pass to hide out from social change forever, regardless of the views of its retired officers.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “Race and sexual orientation are not being compared, however, prejudice is.”

    Yes, race and sexual orientation WERE being compared. That is precisely the comment that was made. And prejudice? Do you mean discrimination? Yes, the military discriminates. Very much so. It is supposed to. It discriminates against that which is prejudicial to good order and discipline. The word “indiscriminate” has a negative connotation.

    And Rick, nobody threatened you with force. So you can come out of your panic room. But if you want to kick the hornet’s nest, make the same argument you made here with some of those men (and women) I served with who were African-American. I assure you, the preponderance don’t see it your way. Stunning, I know, but they would be rather insulted and would tell you so.

  • RickWilmes

    URR says,

    “As far as equating homosexuality, and as you yourself call it, a “sexual preference”, with race, you would have a hell of a lot of the very finest I have served with ready to see how far back your adam’s apple can go before you pass out.”

    No panic on this end. The example between race and homosexuality was used to isolate the use of prejudice against a minority. If you can think in principle it is an easy identification.

    Pushing my adam’s apple back until I pass out is in fact a threat to use force.

    I will ask you again, why is your standard of what is right or wrong based on what a majority might think?

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Rick,

    Your searing logic is of course unimpeachable. I didn’t tell you I would move your anatomy around, but I know some who might be so inclined if you made such comparisons.

    And I didn’t say it was my standard of right and wrong. I think if you pay attention you will find I did not express my opinion at any time.

    The issue, with all of the comments here proving over and over again, is that any opinion, viewpoint, belief system, that might cause disagreement with what the blog is advocating, must be due to some moral or intellectual flaw in the person holding said values and viewpoint. A contrary opinion simply cannot be legitimate. Hence, the value system and opinions of an entire group of long-serving service members is dismissed as “a damned shame” and “intellectual bankruptcy”. Anyone whose beliefs are at odds with the views expressed in the blog is a “bigot”.

    And no, Rick, I didn’t say anything at all to the effect that right is simply a function of what the majority thinks. My statement was that one must be careful in protecting the rights of the minority that the situation does not evolve into the minority enforcing its will and values at the expense of the individual rights of those in the majority.

    The lack of admission of a legitimate opposing viewpoint, as is the sentiment of many of the comments here, should be cause for some serious reflection. You will mandate open-mindedness, and will not tolerate any dissent whatsoever. Opposing viewpoints will be forbidden, and anyone expressing any will suffer ridicule and ostracism. That is, until we can make such expression criminal, for which you will be punished.

    A very interesting brand of intellectual fascism, to be sure. I didn’t express my personal opinion on the subject of the blog, because it is not relevant to the above paragraph.

    Not that it makes any difference. Because in order to be deemed morally and intellectually passable, I would have to agree to each and every aspect of the blog, and disavow any hint of dissent. In the name of inclusiveness, of course.

  • RickWilmes

    URR,

    I can see right through your moral agnosticism.

    If you want to hide behind what others think or might do to me than by all means proceed.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Rick,

    Methinks your obtuseness is intentional. So, end of “discussion” with you.

  • Byron

    URR, ask the Admin for my email, please.

  • Hayball

    URR and Byron:
    Should you wish it, Admin may give you mine as well.

  • Iraq Vet

    I wholehartedly agree. My infantry unit is focused on the mission, not ancient stereotypes. The worst thing is what the opinions of the older generation does to tarnish generals and leaders of today. They slap us in the face. The American people deserve generals and leaders who are forward thinkers, selfless, and courageous- not selfish and scared followers of old and ignorant bygone era thinking. The generals make current leaders look disasterously unfit for command and that is the tragedy of those who abuse their former rank.

  • usna21412

    Why are women not permitted to serve on submarines? My impression is that it has nothing to do with physical strength.

  • Jay

    As I mentioned over at CDR S’s post: this issue was roundly discussed at “the stupid shall be punished” blog in Jan 2009.

    Here is my really great initial posting from there, but I recommend you all read the whole comment thread.

    Byron — I wonder where you get your “most” numbers from, it sure isn’t from the Navy I serve in (and have seen evolving).

    Good range of comments, some decent, some bizarre. That’s cool, this is just the right forum for it.

    That being said, repeal of DADT will happen. Likely after 2010, perhaps during.

    (Economy and other issues are too important to deal with right now.)

    DADT repeal is long overdue. We have a UCMJ, and if you can’t abide by professional conduct towards your shipmates, (whether gay/straight/male/female)you will be dealt with, on a case-by-case basis.

    Yes, because the force is relatively young, there may be some problems. However, there are none foreseeable that can not be handled by a squared away command.

    I very much doubt you will see entire units looking for an exit. If so, I would wonder had they ever really focused on their mission at all.

    Now to the political part of this — will the right wing, having been stung by losing the Congress and the White House in fairly short order, decide to “plant their flag” on this issue? If so, it could be a rough implementation (via Congress).

    Of course, the recent marriage brough-ha-ha in California and other states is fresh in people’s minds as well.

    Time will tell.

    So, here is a decent plan:

    1. Look at Fortune 500 companies for some ideas on how they implement non-discrimination policies. Why? Because they did so to attract & KEEP talent, talent that the services can ill afford to ignore/lose.

    2. Check out same on how the UK and other European forces have implemented their policies, so we have a good idea on how it has affected their (if at all) militaries.

    3. Publish the implementation POA&M. Give those whose dedication to their country really hinges on this single issue…the time and the chance to find employment elsewhere.

    4. Put a module in your POSH NKO training. Train your EEO reps.

    5. Pay special attention to USNA & NROTC students, after all these students are widely recognized to be leaders in training. Training is key.

    5. Then, lay down the law (without taking away CO’s authority) that they will be treated as any other Sailor. Period.

    6. Next, move on to more important issues, shipbuilding, aviation acquisition, China, etc.

    I think you will find that this will be an easier transition than you think.

    —End post

    One new wrinkle — with states approving gay marriage (slowly, but surely…) — the UCMJ will have to somehow take into account the same legal probs that exist now (does state law take precedence over DOMA?). I am not a JAG — but this will be complicated.

  • Fouled Anchor

    Or, using Jay’s plan above, skip steps 1 thru 5, and let’s all get bak to step 6.

  • RickWilmes

    Fouled Anchor,

    Does Number 6 include the war in Afghanistan? Bringing “democracy” to our enemies sure is working.
    Afghanistan Rape Law

  • Byron

    Jay, I didn’t use any “numbers”. The fact that you brought my name up first, and that we “know” each other from the CDRs blog, means this was personal, and you thought you could get a free swipe in. Stuff a sock in it.

    Rick, you’re a troll that hates the Navy. We get it. You want all of us to bow down to the god of Objectivism. We get that too. You want the Naval Academy completely re-vamped. Got that as well. After spending some time at the other fora that you hang out in, we get it that you want to dominate the discussion. It wouldn’t matter what the topic is, you’ll find a way to bring Ayn Rand into the discussion; Got that one, plain as day.

    Personally, I’m getting tired of having every good discussion turned into an Objectivism rant. Signal to noise ratio sucks big time, Admin.

  • RickWilmes

    Byron,

    Please explain how defending a gay individual’s right to defend the U.S. Constitution by serving in the military is an Objectivist rant.

    You can’t even ignore your own advice.

    I love my life, my country and my Navy. I hate altruism and what it has done to this great country and I am here to express my independent views on the issues at hand. Get used to it.

  • sobersubmrnr

    Rick,

    You can go on and on about this, but the fact remains that the majority doesn’t want you moral relativism. We don’t want the disruption your way will bring. It’s not for us, the majority, to adapt to a small but vocal minority.

    You would be better off just doing your own thing without trying to foist your lifestyle on the rest of us. Most homosexuals and lesbians in this country do just that and get along just fine (and I know a few).

    Oh, and this is not in the same category as race. One is about conduct, the other is about the level of melanin in one’s skin. The former is a legitimate concern, the other is not.

  • Jay

    Change is hard. The leadership has it for action & will implement when appropriate.

    To calm all you down a bit, one of my favorite Virginia jokes (once I moved there I found it very accurate):

    “How many Virginians does it take to screw in a light bulb?”

    “Four. One to screw in the light bulb, and three to stand around and talk about how nice the old one used to work”.

    :-)

  • The Bunny

    Wow. I did not intend to open such a can of worms, but I suppose that’s a bit naive, when you consider the topic. Social issues as they relate to the military always prompt these vociferous and hardened emotions; I suppose I should have expected it. I still feel the same way about gays in the military — repealing DADT is overdue.

    My grandfather passed down some wonderful, timeless values to future generations, as I am the third in my family to have served proudly in the Navy. But, I didn’t inherit his views about gays. A lot in our society has changed since the 1920s, including how we treat blacks, women and gays and I, for one, am glad to see these changes. I think, if Grandaddy were a member of my generation, he would feel the same way. (BTW–I’m a conservative, Republican-voting Christian who lives in Virginia — I LOVED Jay’s joke about the Virginians!)

  • jwithington

    I don’t think Rick hates the Navy, but yes, it’s the same thing in EVERY blog post and it’s quite old by this point.

  • RickWilmes

    Jeff,

    Not once did I bring up the issues that Byron claims I did in this post.

    Being called a troll and being mischaracterized is what is getting old.

  • Byron
  • RickWilmes

    This is getting off topic. Byron, not once did I bring up those issues in this post which is about DADT.

    Dropping context is an understatement because I sided with Bunny on the issue on DADT.

    Does anyone want to address the issue of gay families and base housing?

  • http://www.usni.org admin

    Rick,

    After following your comments on a wide range of topics for some time now, I am curious about your interest in the posts on the USNI blog, and more specifically your overall objective in the dialog.

    It is always interesting to have a contrarian point of view debated, and you often find yourself in that position. At times your perspective is interesting and on-point.

    But more frequently your comments stray from the topic, prod without provocation and have the effect of derailing or distracting the substance of the discussion. It would help to clearly understand your intent as you interact with the USNI audience. Meanwhile, administration has been authorized to suspend your comments.

    May I encourage you to consider ways to inject your thoughtful perspectives without the distraction tactics that have characterized recent threads? If you care to participate and would like to respond directly to me, please do so, and we will consider lifting the temporary suspension.

    admin

  • Bill

    I am an old-timer. Served long tours at sea in small ships many years ago. Commanded a destroyer. Those of my vintage generally do not support the idea of mixed sex crews or acceptance of homosexuals in close quarters. Our experiences make us think this is pretty much all bad.

    I would enjoy learning the views of persons who have served in today’s submarine and destroyer crews and learn how they view this issue. I suspect their views would not be nearly so modern.

    Being “different” at a Battalion Command Post can’t be the same as being “different” while on a 60-day submerged s/m cruise.

  • Jay

    Bill,

    My estimate is most folks under 40 years of age (most of the force — average age is younger than that) don’t care all that much about these issues.

    Why? Because they have grown up knowing about them. If all you ever knew about ships was that they have a mixed crew — then it really isn’t an issue. We are getting to that point — where mixed crews are the standard (except for the submarines).

    Society has progressed on gay issues, and even what is considered to be a “mostly conservative” volunteer military force, reflects that, to a large extent. Because folks have grown up knowing about the issues (more realistically, knowing a friend or family member who is out to them), and it isn’t an issue.

    You would be surprised.

    The old adage of “don’t screw over your shipmate”, however, still applies.

    POTUS said he’ll address getting rid of DA/DT, just not right now. SECDEF has said, essentially, “change is coming, just not right now”.

    I suspect there is a very quiet working group in the Pentagon (or more likely, for the Navy, in a non-descript office in Crystal City, or Millington) that is conducting various implementation COAs studies on the as we speak. Rightly so.

    usna21412 — to answer your question — as I understand it, mostly due to berthing and head design issues. The Navy will design future subs to accomodate. As women have proved themselves in the surface and aviation communities, subs won’t be all-male crewed forever.

  • jwithington

    USNA21412,

    A fellow mid? Hello!
    -Jeff

  • Charley A.

    I know several recently graduated midshipmen (since 2004) who are either bisexual or gay. Their friends (fellow mids) seemed to be aware of their sexual preferences, but for the most part nobody seemed to care much one way or another. The point is that these men were able to develop bonds that helped them through their time at the academy, and their sexuality didn’t seem to prevent the bonds from forming. The idea that not being heterosexual will disrupt morale or destroy unit cohesion is a myth perpetuated by the inexperienced, the uninformed, or worse, the bigot.

    (All are currently serving in various commands.)

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “…a myth perpetuated by the inexperienced, the uninformed, or worse, the bigot.”

    Well, that sums up the character flaws and moral shortcomings of anyone with a dissenting opinion. Certainly makes those career service members who disagree understand where they fit into the equation. Since they can’t be inexperienced or uninformed, they must be bigots.

    Sort of the Pol Pot/Chairman Mao approach to free expression….

  • Hayball

    Ms Bunny, Ma’am:

    Err, I am just an old fossil from an extinct subspecies. I am not at all in touch with the modern vogue in what (forgive me, I’m a tad tone deaf in the pc range) the young smart set regard as up to date thinking about gender and sex as it affects the good order and discipline of the service.

    My question(s)are(please bear with me):

    The UCMJ states that homosexual (which I understood to include gay, bi, and lesbian behavior) acts are an offense against the Code, and the Manual for Courts Martial sets forth the maximum punishment which can be imposed by Courts Martial upon trial and conviction (I think, did I miss the memorandum interim change?).

    Homosexual behavior is part of the range of human behavior, reported since time past memory or record. Lately, there seems to be an effort to increase the toleration of those who practice it, and some attempts at persuasion that it should be regarded as within the normal range of acceptable behavior in society at large. The latter position has not previously been the mainstream view of our culture.

    The policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” established by President Clinton reportedly directs those in authority in the armed forces not to attempt to compel the admission of homosexual behavior from service members, not to vigorously inspect or investigate commands for individuals violating the pertinent articles of the UCMJ et al., and informs members who are inclined to homosexual acts that, if discrete, they enjoy a degree of immunity from investigation.

    I retired before the Clinton administration, please forgive me if my understanding from press reports is imperfect.

    To a degree this parallels historic practice concerning the articles prohibiting adultery. Open and notorious flaunting of homosexual acts, or inadvertant discovery of the commission of homosexual acts are not exempt from punishment by courts martial.

    Did I get that right?

    If I did, are you advocating that the Congress revise the UCMJ, or that the President initiate a policy change directing that the relevant articles no longer be enforced?

    Long retired, I am aware of the fact that the Congress may modify the UCMJ to permit or forbid any thing at all, and no longer care to discuss whether homosexuality is normal and healthy, or a heinous crime, or somewhere in between.

    For the record I am a happily married man of forty years standing, I don’t care what anybody else is, and thank them for not sharing.

    What I would like to know is are you advocating deletion of homosexual behavior as an offense under the UCMJ, or Presidential nullification by policy document of a portion of the UCMJ? and,

    Do you believe that it is good policy to politicize the content of the UCMJ by attempting to modify the code by directive or statute to accomodate interest groups supporting a newly incumbent President after each election? and finally,

    What benefit would or has HBINBT or DADT provide(d)to the morale, effectiveness, good order or discipline of the armed forces in general, and Navy in particular? What potential problems do you see in implementing the policy change? What guidance do you propose for members whose religious beliefs regard homosexuality as wrong at best and evil at worst? Do you envision just stopping the punishment of the behavior, or do you advocate compelling support for the position that homosexuality is right and acceptable and fully authorized, and that statements to the contrary will result in punishment and/or dismissal?

    Thank you.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “Do you believe that it is good policy to politicize the content of the UCMJ by attempting to modify the code by directive or statute to accomodate interest groups supporting a newly incumbent President after each election?

    What benefit would or has HBINBT or DADT provide(d)to the morale, effectiveness, good order or discipline of the armed forces in general, and Navy in particular? What potential problems do you see in implementing the policy change? What guidance do you propose for members whose religious beliefs regard homosexuality as wrong at best and evil at worst? Do you envision just stopping the punishment of the behavior, or do you advocate compelling support for the position that homosexuality is right and acceptable and fully authorized, and that statements to the contrary will result in punishment and/or dismissal?”

    Hayball, what you describe above is DoD advocacy of the lifestyle. Count on it. And it is dangerous ground.

    The debate about the creep from protecting minority rights and forcing the views and values of a vocal and protected minority onto the majority, denying its respective individual rights. Which, despite being the majority, they are still entitled to.

    Great summation of the questions. I will await the answers.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    *Burma Shave*

    I appear to have some kind of syntax injury. I MEANT to say:

    “This is about the creep from protecting minority rights to the forcing the views and values of a vocal and protected minority onto the majority, therefore denying that majority its respective individual rights. Which, despite being the majority, they are still entitled to.”

    Yeesh.

  • Hayball

    URR:

    That syntax injury is a mild form of brain damage, often attributed to beating one’s head on a brick wall for prolonged periods of time. Sometimes attributed to a low taste for cheap liquor. Occasionally caused by frequent and prolonged exposure to loud noises.

    Tell me, are any of these part of your medical history?

    Perhaps we should just quote poetry at each other until the return mail brings the anwers to all our questions.

    Would you like to lead off with “Gods of the Copybook Headings”?

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Hayball, you may have something there.

    “Firstly steer clear o’ the grog-sellin’ huts,
    They’ll sell you ‘fix-bayonets’ to rot out yer guts,
    A drink that would eat the live steel from your butts,
    An’ it’s bad for the Young British Soldier…”

    I KNOW RK has the answers in there somewhere. I am even willing to re-scan “The Jungle Book.”

  • Hayball

    “This is about the creep from protecting minority rights to the forcing the views and values of a vocal and protected minority onto the majority, therefore denying that majority its respective individual rights.”

    Well, the devil is in the details. I just wondered what details were being contemplated.

    The silence is somewhat deafening at the moment.

    Perhaps the tide of modern opinion requires the Navy to conform to the newly promulgated norm (again). I’ve heard a lot along those lines lately. Did we learn anything from the last go around?

    Well, back to RK. Here is one I like better the older and more cynical I get:

    “There is a tide in the affairs of men
    Which, taken any way you please, is bad,
    And strands them in forsaken guts and creeks
    No decent soul would think of visiting.
    You can not stop the tide; but, now and then,
    You may arrest some rash adventurer,
    Who-h’m-will hardly thank you for your pains.”

    It’s a chapter heading from “Plain Tales From The Hills”.
    Just came to mind for some reason.

    Anyone care to contribute a verse while we wait?

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “Ship me somewheres east of Suez,
    Where the best is like the worst,
    An’ there ain’t no Ten Commandments,
    An’ a man can raise a thirst…”

  • virgil xenophon

    “The Devil is in the details.” Indeed. Are the services ready for two male officers openly, and in uniform, kissing at the O Club on New Years eve in front of the rest of the cadre? To even ask the question is to answer it. Or how about married housing when a young child asks: “Mommy, why are those two men next door sitting in the swing hugging each other?” Should parents be forced to be confronted with such explanations for young children? Even pre-school children? Further, no one wants to admit in general argument about the “Philosophy” or “moral rightness” of it all tha fact that a great many homosexuals are agressively predatory. It is difficult enough to deal with currently, let alone control unwanted advances in an open/legal atmosphere. No none wants to confront/deal with this fact of reality–and a great deal of effort is expended by the pro-homosexual crowd to deny/hide the statistics and/or the grimy reality.

    Finally. I am rather amused at everyone who talks about how “indifferent” and/or “accepting” the modern young generation is of same sex relationships as a basis for allowing open relationships. While true of the population at large, all of this “I’m cool with that” attitude has evolved within a distinctly non-open regime. The entire dynamics would change once open relationships were legalized, so it’s my opinion that all those who use present-day
    conditions within the services as proof that the generations have “moved on” and that open acceptance would be “no problemo” are whistling past the graveyard.

    And, as has been alluded to here by several, if history is any guide, the matter would not stop with mere “acceptance.” Homosexual activists would be sure to first use the law to leverage acknowledgement of moral/social and functional equality–later superiority as is reflected in their attempts to get the Calif. State Legislature do do away with the use of Mommy and Daddy in children’s texts, and to include an equal number of stories extolling the virtues of homosexual relationships.

    “What the Law does not absolutely forbid it eventually promotes.”

  • sobersubmrnr

    Bill,

    “I would enjoy learning the views of persons who have served in today’s submarine and destroyer crews and learn how they view this issue. I suspect their views would not be nearly so modern.”

    My last boat (688I) had two female engineers on board for about a year, usually in two week increments. They were IBM techreps working on the BSY-1 combat system. They and their male counterparts would come on board for several weeks, do their testing and then we would drop them off. They would fly to the next destination and we’d do it all over again. Those two were both mature, married women who made a good effort to stay out of the crew’s way. They slept in the torpedo room with the other riders, the lower level head was cleared for them by the TMOW and sign was posted warning the males that the women were in there. Their presence was still disruptive, with loss of privacy an issue and most importantly, the loss of that head to them during watch reliefs. A line of on-coming watchstanders would form outside the head, waiting for them to leave so the usual ant trail between the 21-man bunkroom and the head could begin. That experience proved that there always has to be separate sanitary and berthing facilities for males and females. We also did a short Middie cruise with females, having a pile of them on board overnight was a real pain. All those extra facilities would take up valuable space better used for equipment and stores. Doing it the Canadian or Swedish way (common facilities and little privacy) is unacceptable in the USN as it is in the US in general. Not many American women would put up with that anyway.

    There’s another issue. Submarines are, by nature, always undermanned. A 688-class boat has a crew of ~120-130 men. A FFG-7 (a far less complex vessel) has a crew of over 200. We could use that many bodies due to the high work load (just ask any submarine A-ganger), but don’t have room for them. On mixed gender vessels, billets are assigned by gender, among other things. Lose a female and she can only be replaced by another female. That greatly complicates keeping a small but very busy crew manned up. Submarines can’t afford that, especially with all the females that turn up pregnant just before deployment.

    The women on submarines issue was given considerable study in the 1990s when then SECNAV Richard Danzig was pushing the issue. The case was made against it back then and nothing has changed. The problems with do it on the current classes of boats don’t go away with future classes because those boats will be just as cramped.

  • Jay

    Virgil — your comments are silly. Gays are no more “aggressively predatory” than Straights. Odd that you don’t quote any statistics. You’d prob have to manufacture them to support your case & they could be disproven in fairly short order.

    Hayball — yes, the UCMJ will likely be changed. Since “Lawrence v. Texas” in 2003 invalidated sodomy laws nationally, it makes no sense to keep it in the UCMJ. Same goes for UCMJ prohibition against homosexual conduct.

    This isn’t an attempt to politicize the UCMJ. It is simply an long overdue overhaul.

    In regards to religion — nothing would change. You are free to practice your religion as best you can (sometimes not easy when underway, or detailed to remote areas, etc.). You are not, however, allowed to attempt to impose your personal religous beliefs on others. (that is just common courtesy)

  • Byron

    Jay, I’ll agree to disagree with you, and even respect your argument. What I don’t respect is the use of the word “silly”. Virgil has paid his service dues as you have, and deserves the same respect that you would expect.

    I don’t have a dog in the hunt in this discussion. I’m not in the military, nor have I ever served, so I have no opinion other than I don’t believe that a martial society is ready for an abrupt change at this time. Re-visit in another generation, and allow DADT to mellow some attitudes. In this, patiences is truly a virtue.

  • Hayball

    Jay:

    Thank you for your views on this matter. I await having my questions answered in detail by Bunny.

    Cheers

  • Jay

    Byron — noted.

    This is a serious issue. Not only is this the right time to make this change, it is overdue. Kicking the can down the road is a failure of leadership. The folks making the decisions deserve to see debate on it.

    I don’t let bogus comments go unchallenged, especially when they are uninformed & perpetuate an inaccurate stereotype.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “I don’t let bogus comments go unchallenged, especially when they are uninformed & perpetuate an inaccurate stereotype.”

    You had better redefine what you consider “bogus”. The state of MA is undergoing the very same “acceptance” as open advocacy that Virgil speaks of. The school system, public organizations, etc., are being required to recognize the “equality and legitimacy” of homosexual marriage, turning such “equality” into open advocacy, at taxpayers’ expense.

    And the rights and values of those morally opposed to such homosexual behavior? Inconsequential. To raise their children and instill them with what they consider proper values? Impossible. In fact, forbidden. But because those people do not have the news media, Hollywood, and the education system openly and willingly “advocating” for them, their rights are not important and will be ignored or curtailed at every turn.

    Stereotype? Hardly. Facts, and disturbing facts at that. Dissenting opinion and conflicting value systems will not be tolerated. Those holding them will suffer ridicule, and eventually, punishment. Nebulous and dangerous legal concepts such as “hate speech” will be used to make those views and values illegal, and anyone daring to express them, criminals.

  • Natty Bowditch

    Methinks URR protest too much. Note how his example of MA gradually fantasizes into “open advocacy.”

    That’s opinion. And bogus opinion at that.

    These arguments have been made before; we saw them during the Jim Crow and civil rights era.

    I find it amusing URR talks of “dissent” while at the very same time militating against the rights of some Americans. IIRC, there are over 35 states where one can be fired, without redress, for no other reason than being gay.

    Morality is highly, highly subjective. There are those who find nuclear weapons morally objectionable.

  • Jay

    URR — Mass is working through the issues, and it looks like the rest of New England will be in fairly short order. The folks in Vermont and NH and possibly Maine who don’t like it don’t have the excuse of “activist judges” to blame it on.

    I think your gloom and doom take on tolerance is a bit far fetched. I don’t know any of my friends in NE (single/married/gay/straight) who think this is anything but a positive step. Granted, that is anecdotal evidence, at best.

    The obvious problem here is that facts are short. Since the change is relatively new — there is not much hard data to look at, spot trends, cause & effect, etc.

    This is simply an issue of fairness — treating people open & honestly. It may be uncomfortable for a time, but, in 10 years, I think many folks will look back & wonder what all the angst was about.

Subscribe

Get blog posts delivered to your inbox
* = required field

video title