RAAUZYUW RUEWMCS0000 0352024-UUUU–RUCRNAD

ZNR UUUUU

R 012124Z MAR 10

FM CJCS WASHINGTON DC//J1//

TO JCS//COCOM

INFO SECDEF WASHINGTON DC//

BT

UNCLAS//N01500//

CJCSMSG 043/10

MSGID/GENADMIN/CJCS/WASHINGTON DC/J1/MAR//

SUBJ/REPEAL OF DADT AMPLIFYING INSTRUCTIONS AND TRANSITION TO GAYS SERVING OPENLY IN ARMED FORCES

REF/A/MSGID: DOC/MCM/2008//
REF/B/MSGID: DOC/KGJ BBL/1AUG1611//

REF/A/IS THE MANUAL FOR COURTS MARTIAL 2008

REF/B/IS THE KING JAMES BIBLE

RMKS/1.AS WE TRANSITION TO AN ARMED FORCES CULTURE WHERE GAY MEN AND WOMEN SERVE OPENLY, CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS, POLICY, AND SERVICE ELIGIBILITY WILL BE REQUIRED.  THIS MESSAGE OUTLINES THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF THE ALTERATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE GAY SERVICE MEMBERS ARE ABLE TO SERVE OPENLY.

2. THE NEWLY-ESTABLISHED DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON GAYS IN THE SERVICE (DACOGITS) CHAIRED BY HON. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA) HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY:

A. REF/A/WILL BE MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE 125 (SODOMY) WILL BE DELETED.  NO REPLACEMENT FOR ARTICLE 125 (SODOMY) HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED.

B. REGARDING REF/B/, FOR ALL KING JAMES BIBLES ALLOWED ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS, THE FOLLOWING EDITS ARE REQUIRED:

LEVIDICUS 18:22 WILL BE CHANGED FROM “THOU SHALT NOT LIE WITH MANKIND, AS WITH WOMANKIND: IT IS ABOMINATION.” TO “THOU ART PERMITTED TO LIE WITH MANKIND, AS WITH WOMANKIND: IT IS NOW IN KEEPING WITH DOD POLICY”

LEDIVICUS 20:13 “IF A MAN LIES WITH A MAN AS ONE LIES WITH A WOMAN, BOTH OF THEM HAVE DONE WHAT IS DETESTABLE. THEY MUST BE PUT TO DEATH; THEIR BLOOD WILL BE ON THEIR OWN HEADS” WILL BE DELETED.

DEUTERONOMY 23:17 “THERE SHALL BE NO WHORE OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL, NOR A SODOMITE OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL” WILL HAVE THE WORD “SODOMITE” REPLACED WITH “INTOLERANT PERSON”.

3. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY BELIEF IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH THE VALUES OF MILITARY SERVICE.  DESPITE THE FIFTEEN CENTURIES OF RELIGIOUS TRADITION, SUCH VIEWS ARE NO LONGER IN KEEPING WITH THE MISSION OF OUR ARMED FORCES, THAT OF A VEHICLE FOR SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION.  MILITARY PERSONNEL OF ALL RANKS WHO PERSIST ON ADHERING TO THESE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WILL BE COUNSELED BY COMMANDERS AS TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THEIR VIEWS.  INDIVIDUALS REFUSING TO EMBRACE OFFICIAL DOD BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP WILL BE PROCESSED FOR SEPARATION.

4.  WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS MESSAGE, DOD SCHOOLS WILL INTEGRATE INTO THE CURRICULUM OF THE APPROPRIATE GRADES THE FOLLOWING CURRICULUM:

A. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (GRADES K-4): “MY TWO MOMMIES”, AND “DADDY HAS A BOYFRIEND”.

B. MIDDLE SCHOOL (GRADES 5-8): “STARTING A GAY/STRAIGHT ALLIANCE IN YOUR SCHOOL”

C. HIGH SCHOOL (GRADES 9-12): VIEWING AND DISCUSSION OF “BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN”

5.  ACTIVE DUTY PARENTS OF CHILDREN IN DOD SCHOOLS WHO OBJECT TO THE ABOVE LISTED CURRICULUM OR ATTEMPT TO INSTILL THEIR PERSONAL VALUES IN THEIR CHILDREN ATTENDING DOD SCHOOLS IN PLACE OF THE AUTHORIZED GAY-FRIENDLY/GAY ADVOCACY DOD CURRICULUM WILL BE COUNSELED BY THEIR COMMANDERS AS APPROPRIATE.  IF SUCH CONDUCT PERSISTS, THE SERVICE MEMBER WILL BE PROCESSED FOR SEPARATION.

6.  MILITARY PERSONNEL ARE REMINDED THAT EXPRESSION OF PERSONAL OPINIONS WHILE IN UNIFORM VIOLATE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND ARE PUNISHABLE UNDER THE UCMJ.  FAILURE TO AGREE WITH MY VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT WILL BE CONSIDERED AN INTEGRITY VIOLATION AND SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

7.  THIS MESSAGE IS APPLICABLE TO THE RESERVE COMPONENT.

8.  RELEASED BY ADM MIKE MULLEN, CJCS./

BT

#0000

NNNN

It is highly unlikely that Admiral Mullen or anyone else will release a message of the character above.  Which is too bad.  Because they should.  Many of the objections to repeal of DADT have been airily dismissed as the rantings of intolerant and hateful bigots.  Read the comments in this venue and elsewhere.  To many, dissenting opinion, for ANY reason, is strictly verboten.  Quite ironic, as those who may hold those dissenting opinions/objections are are accused of being the intolerant ones.  Now, Admiral Mullen has jumped in and told us that unless we all agree with repeal of DADT, we have integrity issues.

Those who hold religious or moral objections to homosexuality because of their faith are being swept aside and their views marginalized.  Worse, such is being done (again) with taxpayers’ dollars.  Those who hold that system of faith and values are having their own government undermine that system.  No longer is it proper to believe that a category of behaviors does not equate to race or gender.

Other issues that have not been given anything close to serious discussion:

The “diversity industry” will ensure that the gay lifestyle will be advocated for and promoted.  Despite those who find it offensive, such reminders will be purposefully omnipresent.  This same industry that has made such hash of womens’ and minority issues by the advocating for discrimination and favoritism (doing great disservice to all they “advocate” for) will do the same with gays in the military.  Gay advocacy and promotion will result in command-sponsored “gay pride” events, gay history months, and the glorification of a lifestyle a vast majority of Americans find objectionable.

The tolerance shown gay service members now serving under DADT may not translate into acceptance when open advocacy begins.  The effects on morale and unit cohesion have the potential to be disastrous.  Sexual tensions, unwanted advances, relationships within a chain of command, sexual assaults, all those things that plague current commanders with the integration of females, will likely be exacerbated. We consider all these currently to adversely affect combat readiness.  Yet, we are advocating policies that will very likely give us more of those problems?

Also, one has to ask: What will be next?  Transsexuals being allowed to serve?  Gay quotas for promotion and command?

None of the above issues have been given serious consideration.

Phrases like “an adjustment period”, or “some getting used to” mask the great and fundamental upheaval that will take place in our Armed Forces.  The very military culture which binds units and service members together stands to be irreparably fractured. The effect on combat readiness is unknown, but likely considerable.

To say that repeal of DADT will be “a non-issue” is probably true.  Provided such things as gender integration on warships and racial/gender double standards are “non-issues”.  Which is to say, very large and troublesome issues, but in the politically correct environment in which we live today, not a topic for open discussion.

I expect that comments below will include terms like “closed-minded” and “bigot” and “homophobic”.  However, these are not the terms of serious debate, something which this issue has of late been desperately short of.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is, in fact, Don’t Know, Don’t Care (to swipe Mr. Berube’s phrase).  Once the gay advocates and the activists of the “diversity industry” enter into the equation, you WILL know, and you WILL care.  They will ensure it.  That is what they do.  They will beat that drum day and night.  And it will be to the detriment of those whose system of beliefs such advocacy offends, those whose rights and opportunities will be subordinated to yet another special interest group, and finally, to those gay service men and women who want to be defined to their comrades by their skill and competence in uniform, and not by their lifestyles out of it.

*******************************************************************

Update:  The message from ADM Roughead, CNO, regarding the DoD-wide review is over at Salamander’s blog.

« Interview with Thomas Hone, Co-author of Battle Line The United States Navy 1919-1939

Telling an old Sub tale: History only helps if we let it! »

Posted by UltimaRatioReg in Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, Uncategorized

Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

← Older Comments

• UltimaRatioReg

  “We need the best people we can get, and treating people unequally is not the way to achieve the goal. But then what do we do when a particularly meritorious candidate just happens to be gay, or gay sailor is found out and forced to leave the service?”

  Don’t know. Weighty questions that would have to be answered if DADT was to remain in place.

  But that does not mean there aren’t a very long list of difficult ones that require thoughtful discussion, including everything I posited in my post, and will require solid and well-thought answers.

• UltimaRatioReg

  *Burma Shave*

  add to last: If DADT is to be repealed.

• Pingback: In Case You Were Worried That Someone Semi-Official Wouldn’t Make A Horribly Bigoted Argument About ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ « silbey.net

• Pingback: In Case You Were Worried That Someone Semi-Official Wouldn’t Make A Horribly Bigoted Argument About ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ « The Edge of the American West

• TR

  For someone who seems to think Biblical authority should be used to govern our military, you’ve proven you don’t know anything about the Bible.

  For starters, it’s Leviticus not “Ledivicus.”

• Total

  By the way, you might also try–since your faith is so critical to you–to come up with a consistent spelling of “Leviticus.”

• UltimaRatioReg

  If it were my faith I would. But it’s not.

  But you can let those who have strong religious beliefs know of your disapproval. That should end any debate.

• Total

  If it were my faith I would

  So you’re so disrespectful of other people’s faith that you can’t be bothered to spell the words from their holy book correctly?

  Wow, your credibility reduces by the minute.

• UltimaRatioReg

  Yes, I am sure an angry God will come down and smite those who make typos and spelling errors.

• Total

  Yes, I am sure an angry God will come down and smite those who make typos and spelling errors.

  And you still haven’t made a correction, have you?

• http://www.usni.org admin

  Everyone,

  Due to circumstances beyond my control (i.e. a major snowstorm). I have been in airports and on airplanes.

  As a reminder, the posts are the opinions of our guest bloggers and the comments are those of the commentors.

  We do not officially sanction any position. Though we encourage debate on important issues.

• Byron

  Has this discussion turned the point from debate into acrimony? Sure sounds like it.

• claudio

  I keep coming back to this thread like a moth to a flame, or gawkers slowing down by a multicar wreck on the beltway. Alas, I have not been dissapointed…

  Mom, he’s misspelling Letivicus…..But Mom, he’s not paying attention to what I’m trying to say without saying it….Oh, he’s TOUCHING ME….I’m NOT, just pointing….Its just funny, don’t care what anyone says.

  I have served with gays both as enlisted and as an officer. Most were honorable and served ably. There will always be the 1% and we’re strong enough as an institution to take care of any issues. Just do what needs to be done, do it quickly and move on. Bigger issues to worry about, couple of wars, budgets, etc.

  Now back to your regularly scheduled entertainment.

• Jon H

  URR wrote: “But that does not mean there aren’t a very long list of difficult ones that require thoughtful discussion, including everything I posited in my post, and will require solid and well-thought answers.”

  Does an evangelical’s desire to live in a protected bubble, unchallenged by the existence of peers with different beliefs, outweigh the need of the nation for, say, a skilled Arabic linguist who happens to be gay?

  If someone wants to be sheltered, they shouldn’t be in the military.

• Barry

  “If you think the institution can’t handle it, then the solution is never change a thing until it’s easy. ”

  UltimaRatioReg Says:

  “Or perhaps make sure the issues have been very seriously and thoroughly considered before doing so. But then, that is so “old think”.”

  Truth just isn’t your strong suite, isn’t it? This issue has been hashed out since the 1980′s. The fact that some, like you, both won’t accept it, will disobey orders whenever possible and will lie about it doesn’t change that.

• Barry

  andrewdb Says:

  “3. DOMA aside, what of Chaplains whose denomination forbid recognition of same sex marriages? Will they be forced to choose between their church or the service? And recognition is your druthers. But is not the druthers of about 60% of the US voters.”

  Anybody who brings this up has got problem; have you really not noticed that religious groups in the USA refuse to recognize various marriages every day? And that ministers/etc. of those groups refuse to conduct marriages every frikkin’ day?

  I just got back from a friend’s wedding; her marriage is not recognized by her church (it was a secular wedding), and would not have been conducted by a priest because the groom was not catholic. At the previous wedding I attened, the bride may or may not have converted to catholicism; I dunno.

  Any minister who has a problem with such things should pehaps not seek out a chaplaincy. They’d just be uncomfortable with dealing with noon-members of their own flock. And if they are chaplains, they should be separated from the service on grounds of inability to perform their duties.

• Barry

  Jack Osborne Says:

  “For it is deemed that intolerance is not to be tolerated in the Armed Forces!”

  My first officer (in-processing at Fort Jackson) was female; half of my drills at Benning were black. I don’t think that even the dumbest f*ck-up of a recruit was stupid enough to be intolerant of things like that. In that sense, your words are true.

  “And it is deemed that the political correct is the only politcal correct that is correct!
  And that thinking is to be thought only in politically correct ways!
  And that if you want to advance your career think not in ways that are contrary to the brasses thoughts.”

  Yes, as a matter of fact. Have you ever served? The military does have certain ways of thinking that they, uh, ‘encourage’. Funny dat.

  “How about asking the troops what they think!”

  Now I know that you’ve never served!

• Sean

  I would argue that by enforcing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell the military is encouraging soldiers to violate the values it otherwise espouses (i.e. integrity, honor) since if one is gay one is forced to actively conceal one’s personal relationships for fear of reprisal.

• UltimaRatioReg

  Barry,

  Thanks for the reminder that only some opinions (yours, likely) are “truth”. I have been in the service since the 1980s, when, as you describe, “all of these things have been hashed out”. Don’t think so. As for lying and disobeying orders, well, your characterization of my military service has the same quality as your other remarks.

  Your screeching here is typical of the responses. Part and parcel of the refusal to recognize the serious issues that setting aside DADT involves. We shall see if debate at higher echelons is a little more considered.

• Jack Osborne

  Barry, yours truly enter the USNavy in 1940 and left the US Navy in 1946!
  Why did I leave! There was no future as the war was a war to end all wars, and we did not need sailors in the future.

  Yes, indeed I was one of the enlisted sailors that fought that war, and saw what the future was, and I was wrong about the future!

  But, here I am, a member of the institution and still care about the USN!

  Why? My father put 42 years in the canoe club, my brothers were in the canoe club ,my sister was in the canoe club, and my son put 6 years underwater in attack nukes!

  And, I tried desperately to get my grand kids in the canoe club, but world conditions and society have made that service an anathema to some civilians.

  DADT did not help, imho, DKDC will not help, imho, but what I think will never override the political decisions of the staff, whatsoever they may be!

• Jack Osborne

  OK , rightly , or wrongly, I say this!
  You can work with homosexuals, you can bunk with homosexuals, you can fight with homosexuals,, you can do most things with homosexuals, but , you can not bond with them if you are heterosexual.
  And, in my opinion, in many groups of the armed forces it is necessary to bond with your group partners. You have to be willing to share your life stories, your accomplishments, your conquests of sexual exploits, your jokes , your activities, your drinks, etc., that bring people together.
  Hey, I went on the beach , and a beautiful blonde in a Ferrari picked me up and took me to her beautiful home in the Hollywood hills and we spent 2 hours in bed. Wow, what a time we had! Here is her picture, so you know I am telling the truth!

  Now imagine the response that would get if the same scenario was told by the gay man to his heterosexual shipmates. LOL

  I can visualize it, but I hope it never happens.

  As an enlisted man, during war service, I can tell you that most of what you thought and talked about was sex, lies, and sea stories about sex.

  I think it would not be the same if half the group was gay!

  Oh, hell, maybe it would be different and not affect the group, but I don’t think so.

• andrewdb

  Barry – please read carefully.

  I am actually on your side with this one – the #’d points are URR’s questions from further above.

• ThirdWatch

  There is something surreal about an organization dedicated to making war to enter into a discussion about the Hebrew scriptures’ Holiness Code. After all, doesn’t the same text contain ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and a bunch of rules of war, itself? Somehow, all those are obviated by a secular oath, an oath that is also forbidden.

  Still, as surreal as it is, there is no doubt that the ‘religious question’ is on the table.

  A more friendly exegetical reading of Leviticus is that, if you are not gay, don’t have gay sex. The passage is silent about gays.

  I think the focus can be that one can continue to lead a good, clean, Christian life and serve the country. Most people will fall into this category, many who would call themselves devout.

  And even for those who still have trouble with that, they ought to be able to see that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That’s an appeal to the same secular oath that got them a place in the fight in the first place, right?

• karen marie

  This is absolutely disgraceful. Whoever is responsible for it being posted out to be given a dishonorable discharge.

• wister

  If you are in the navy you live off the taxes I pay. If you can’t even spell ‘Leviticus’ I don’t see why I should have to take your thoughts on the Old Testament seriously.

• UltimaRatioReg

  Third Watch,

  You are getting close to the bullseye. These issues have to be very carefully considered, including those tho don’t necessarily read Leviticus the way you or I do. But “should” and “ought to” are not directive in nature, and would be very difficult to make them so when they involve personal beliefs of a significant portion of military personnel.

  One thing that will not help is the shrieking emotionalism of either denying such issues exist or worse, declaring those who hold those beliefs have no right to do so. Such things will do nothing except make whatever potential problems that may be involved with repeal of DADT exponentially more difficult.

• ThirdWatch

  URR,

  I concur that leadership on the issue needs to meet the ‘emotionalism’ head on, and I believe, as does RAND, that leadership is key to successful, long overdue change.

  I try to imagine what I would do if I had tension in my own unit. What would I say? How would I diffuse a ‘situation’? How can I anticipate problems and deal with them before they occur, on a person-by-person basis (not platitudes, but pulling someone aside).

  I think the answers to these leadership issues are available. It’s not completely necessary to wait for JCS to ‘hand them down’. These forum are as good as any to overcome ‘imagination bias’ in terms of finding solutions to problems that seem unsolvable.

  Why not have some, er, ‘pocket coaching’ cheat sheet, that could help if you have to pull someone aside?:

  1. You didn’t join the military to proclaim the gospel or to evangelize, but to lay waste to our country’s enemies and fall in line to do so … country, corps, unit.
  2. You can live a good, clean, Christian life (or any other), in the military, if you want. There are better ways to show your ‘moral strength’ is not to put down others or exclude them.
  3. Keep eyes on the objective and don’t stand in the way of the full functioning of the team. Whether you like them or not, the enemy is NOT he competent, dedicated, sworn, and true gay sailor/soldier next to you.

  Since there are two-sides to any push-shove, you can probably imagine the talky-talk to gay servicemembers as easily as I can.

• Pingback: Ask or Don’t Ask. Tell or Don’t Tell. Just Do Your J-O-B. « Foggy Bottom Line

• Pingback: The Moral and Intellectual Emptiness of DADT : Lawyers, Guns & Money

← Older Comments