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.




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.

  • Abe

    Just because you hold certain intolerant religious views gives you no right to push them on others in the public sphere, of which the military is a part.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Well, Abe, the converse is also true, at least it used to be.

  • ThePast

    Mullen and others in the top Navy brass can hang portraits of Nimitz, Halsey, and the like up in there offices. I’m sure if things were reversed, Mullen’s likeness would not be hanging on any of their walls.

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    URR,

    I suppose it would be possible to fly into a rage about this, but really, the whole bit is just silly; the idea of a terrifying gay agenda, the idea that the King James Bible somehow makes up a founding document of the United States, etc. You ask for “serious debate”, but nothing that you’ve written here is worthy of engagement by a serious person. This could have been scribbled by a seventh grader.

  • Charley Armstrong

    Not all religions teach intolerance towards homosexuals.

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    1. As Charley says, not all religions teach that gays are evil. Thus, DADT inscribes a particular religious preference into state policy.
    2. I know plenty of gay Christians, and I know several non-Christian members of the armed forces. If we are to take URR seriously (and I suggest that we don’t), then I’d like to know whether Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others who don’t abide by the strictures of the King James Bible should also be banned from any public discussion of their religious preferences.
    3. I don’t see why transexuals shouldn’t be allowed to serve. This is rather a different question than “should there be gay quotas for promotion,” although URR tries to conflate the two.

    This is like shooting fish in a barrel; I can hardly imagine a more vapid, vacuous set of anti-DADT talking points being put forward. URR doesn’t care for TEH GAY, and believes that the US government should inscribe his preferences into law. I like jelly doughnuts, and would prefer that the US government inscribed my preferences into law (the doughnut should be delivered each morning by 7am by government courier). The difference is that URR seems to believe that people will take his preferences seriously.

  • Jack Osborne

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

    How about asking the troops what they think!

    I guess the next uniform change will be unisex uniforms!

    Have we come to this in the US Navy

    Jack

  • http://www.warisboring.com David Axe

    I find this post in extremely poor taste. By allowing gays to serve openly, the military is not forcing moral beliefs on anyone. You are still free to hate; that hate simply won’t be translated into policy any longer. This country, and the right to serve it, belongs to all Americans, not just the straight, white, Christian majority.

  • Grandpa Bluewater

    Saw this one coming.

    I guess Billy Budd is off the recommended reading list.

  • russiannavyblog

    Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
    9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
    10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
    11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
    12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

    Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
    9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
    10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

    I guess if we are going to let the King James Bible determine what is or isn’t DoD policy, we should be concentrating on getting rid of Surf ‘n Turf night ASAP.

  • Seaman Beaumont

    If gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, it’s only fair that straights be permitted to serve openly in the Navy.

  • YNSN

    In terms of diversity there is a single resounding truth:

    ‘Diversity’ does not make anything stronger. Having people of various skill levels with differing strengths and weaknesses does make a team stronger. However, to say that we can measure those differing strengths and weaknesses based upon race, creed or sexual orientation is inherently racists, sexist and so on.
    In short, if a there is a team of a black man, a white man and Hispanic man versus a team of all Hispanic men; in say, a Navigation contest. Just based on that, how can you say who will win? The conclusion you come to can not be made with out a racial assumption, and thus bias and some (depending on the answer) might say bigotry. However, you need not look any further than the commercials on AFN which state “Diversity is our Strength”. To see the same sentiment. That one statement leaves everything at the assumption of race and everything else in diversity. It is a inherently shallow concept, which does not take people for what they are, it takes them for only what they seem.

    The world diversity needs to be stricken from the records in the United States Navy, to be replaced with meritocracy. We need to tell disadvantaged youths and advantaged youths that we do not care where you came from, we do not care what color you are, we do not care where you put what behind closed doors. We care for what you can do while on watch for your country. That’s it. That should be standard and that should be the message. Why are we nuking this? It’s not that hard.

  • Steve Kawakami

    It grieves me to continue to see this degree of homophobic, intolerant, and wrong-headed thought expressed on a USNI blog.

    I have great respect for those who choose to serve, irrespective of their sexual orientation. It’s too bad that there are far too many people, both inside and outside the Service, who choose to overlook these sacrifices and accomplishments and to focus on their own ugly and divisive reactions.

    At this point, which group is the greater threat to unit cohesion–gay personnel in the Armed Forces or those who refuse to follow orders and and let their own personal/religious prejudices interfere with the performance of their Duty? The country wonders…

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Good, solid, meaningful discussion of the issues, Steve. Thanks for coming by.

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    “At this point, which group is the greater threat to unit cohesion–gay personnel in the Armed Forces or those who refuse to follow orders and and let their own personal/religious prejudices interfere with the performance of their Duty?”

    It’s interesting that this seemed to be a key point of discussion in the Midrats ep on this topic; Elaine Donnelly argued, pretty much explicitly, that the US military couldn’t integrate along the same lines as Canada/Australia/UK because Americans just aren’t as likely to tolerate gays. This theme was also pretty evident in the discussions with the other guests; gays don’t cause problems, but people who hate/loathe/fear gays might be discomfitted, so have to be super careful…

    I suspect that the notion that American servicemen are insufficiently disciplined would invoke howls of protest if it was in reference to any other issue. But gays? Well, the American Marine just can’t be trusted not to freak out if he’s faced with the possibility of rooming with a gay.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    russian,

    There is a difference between surf and turf and having Cloven Hoof and Shellfish Month, where Jewish service members can only get ham salad or crabmeat salad with their meal cards….

    Rob Farley,

    I do hope you know that argument is a red herring. The real one(s), of yet another self-defining politically protected minority group with its entourage of activists and advocates, and the very real morale and unit cohesion issues similar to gender mixing, particularly at sea, and that of people whose legitimate beliefs do not abide homosexual conduct being steamrolled, have gotten next to no real discussion.

  • russiannavyblog

    I’m just saying that a) not all service members subscribe to whatever flavor of religion you do, and b) if you are going to quote the bible, you can’t pick and choose which abominations you agree with. Who are you to question your god’s choice of abominations?

    Therefore, I will go along with keeping gays out of the military as long as you expend as much time and energy getting that equally abominable seafood out of military chowhalls.

    See how silly that is?

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    URR,

    “I do hope you know that argument is a red herring. The real one(s), of yet another self-defining politically protected minority group with its entourage of activists and advocates, and the very real morale and unit cohesion issues similar to gender mixing, particularly at sea, and that of people whose legitimate beliefs do not abide homosexual conduct being steamrolled, have gotten next to no real discussion.”

    You’re serious? Really? I refer you again to the Midrats ep, where even the advocates of maintaining DADT focused on the purportedly intolerant beliefs of Americans. Your beliefs have gotten plenty of discussion. The question is whether your political, moral, and social preferences should be inscribed into US law and policy. When we put the argument into those terms, your entire case becomes almost too silly to engage.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    russian,

    Nobody said that was my religion. But it is somebody’s. And they are free to believe as much or as little of what they believe their God’s words are, whether CJCS likes it or not.

    DADT doesn’t keep gays out of the military. But, thus far, at least, it has kept out the stridently activist gay advocates who would champion their cause over all others.

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    URR,

    And to follow up russiannavyblog, you do understand that, if DADT is eliminate, you don’t actually have to become gay, right? You can continue disapproving of a gay lifestyle all you want; you just can’t judge the professional merit of others based on your particular set of prejudices. I appreciate that it might be really, really hard to go through life not being able to end the careers of those whose morals you disagree with, but I am absolutely confident you’ll find a way. My professional duty, for example, requires that I ignore the political beliefs of students while I grade; it’s not even really all that hard once you get used to it…

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    URR,

    “Nobody said that was my religion. But it is somebody’s. And they are free to believe as much or as little of what they believe their God’s words are, whether CJCS likes it or not.”

    Sure; they just aren’t free to inscribe their beliefs into US law and policy. I can’t understand why this isn’t obvious.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “I refer you again to the Midrats ep, where even the advocates of maintaining DADT focused on the purportedly intolerant beliefs of Americans.”

    Since when am I mandated to be in agreement with a guest on Midrats?

    As far as argument of political, moral, and social preferences goes, the advocacy/activism aspect of any of the “diversity industry” disease becomes just that. The politics, morals, and social preferences of their specific politically protected group du jour will be championed above all others, to the exclusion of others, and to the denigration of those whose might differ.

    Hence, this particular one-sided coin.

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    “The politics, morals, and social preferences of their specific politically protected group du jour will be championed above all others, to the exclusion of others, and to the denigration of those whose might differ.”

    Hey, we’re in perfect agreement! The politics, morals, and social preferences of a particular flavor of evangelical Christian are currently being championed above all others, to the exclusion of others, and to the denigration of those who might differ. Specifically, those who you find icky are subject to personal and professional sanction if they aspire to the same level of personal dignity that you enjoy.

    Hopefully, the elimination of DADT will change this situation for the better….

  • russiannavyblog

    Nobody said that was my religion. But it is somebody’s. And they are free to believe as much or as little of what they believe their God’s words are, whether CJCS likes it or not.

    Now I understand: I’ll pay attention to this abomination over here because it happens to reinforce my belief the teh ghey is icky, but I’ll ignore this abomination over there because I really, really like shrimp and ham sandwichs.

    I mean Islam is someone’s religion, too. How about we replace the UCMJ with Sharia? It would really cut down on theft underway, what with the amputations and all. Imagine what it would do for discipline!

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “I appreciate that it might be really, really hard to go through life not being able to end the careers of those whose morals you disagree with”

    Er, Mr Farley, there are times a commander does just that. It is at times his job to do so. But, you might not know that there are morals that must be upheld in the Armed Services.

    As for the rest of your assertion and lecture, perhaps you should rise above the sophomoric and begin to address some specific concerns of those who advocate keeping current policy in place.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Rob and russian,

    Got it. No defensible alternative viewpoint. No valid discussion of potential morale or cohesion issues, or unintended consequences.

    A particularly effective invoking of intellectual fascism. Well done.

  • russiannavyblog

    Got it. No defensible alternative viewpoint. No valid discussion of potential morale or cohesion issues, or unintended consequences.

    Seeing how homosexuals have served in the United States Military since its founding and seeing how homosexuals serve openly in other Anglophone democracies, I have no idea what morale or cohesion issues there are to discuss that haven’t already been discussed.

    Way to Godwin up the thread though. Good job.

  • milprof

    As someone who encourages my PME students to read the USNI blog, I must say I’m disappointed in this post. If you want to have a serious discussion of DADT repeal, including arguments against it, that would be a valuable contribution. If you just want to insult gays, Rep. Frank, and everyone who remembers the oath is to defend the _Constitution_ and not the King James Bible, send it out as a email to your buddies.

    I am curious how you respond to Farley’s point: since when was the KJB an official and authoritative source for either US law or US military regulations? Are the provisions of the KJB binding on Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu servicemembers?

    Along those lines, you missed “russiannavy”‘s point. What he meant was this: if you cite Leviticus to justify prohibitions on homosexual conduct, why do you, as a Christian, not also follow Leviticus’ dietary prohibitions, or rules against mixed-fiber clothing?

    On a practical note, my own experience in conversations with officers is that few are very worked up about DADT. Maybe not happy, but it’s certainly not in their top 10 list of things to worry about in the next two years. Even in 2008 (i.e, before it was semi-official policy) those who openly thought it should go outnumbered those who felt it would cause major harm if repealed.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    russian,

    GREAT! Since they have all been discussed, would you be so kind as to provide answers? Terrific. Thanks.

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    URR,

    I’d submit that we’re taking your ideas seriously, but that they collapse under serious scrutiny. For example, we’re taking seriously the idea that people who violate certain passages of the King James translation of Leviticus should be banned from serving in the military; in taking it seriously, we pointed out that you’ve taken an utterly unserious approach to Biblical literalis.

    Similarly, we’re taking seriously the threat that United States military policy might become dominated by a minority group bent on inscribing its moral and aesthetic preferences in law and policy. In taking it seriously, we’ve pointed out that you’re arguing that a certain flavor of Evangelical Christian moral and aesthetic preferences should dominate law and military policy.

    And for all that, you call us fascists. It seems to me that you’re the unserious one.

  • chris

    I hate to say it, but gays shouldn’t be allowed in the military. They’re too good of people to be mixing with the low-life, redneck, hateful cretins that make up the majority of the services. Christians fit right in, however.

  • REM

    I was all ready to rebut this foolishness thoroughly but was debating whether that would be an effective use of my time. Mr. Farley’s response has just about hit the nail on the head, and I’m going to save myself the trouble.

    I do have something for the editors/managers of this blog, however: there is a serious risk of this forum becoming a laughing stock if we see too many more posts like this.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    milprof and Rob,

    The post is meant to spur discussion on a number of points. , Among those is the steamrolling of the long-held set of beliefs and values of a significant portion of our service members by the very government they serve as a means of making political capital.

    Nobody is seriously suggesting that the King James Bible is a replacement for the UCMJ, but by the same token, the lifestyles advocated and eventually promoted by DoD should not abrogate Judeo-Christian beliefs.

    The mentioning of “gay friendly” curriculum being inserted into DoD schools is also a matter of serious concern. Again, there seem to be no answers except “live with it”. Hardly the thing of discussion.

    I will ask you, milprof, with minority congressional watchdogs regarding all manner of racial and gender diversity, do you seriously believe that an organization such as DACOGITS will not be forthcoming? Patsy Schroeder chaired DACOWITS for many years. Was saying so insulting to women? Perhaps serious discussion starts with leaving PC sensitivities at the door.

    So, here are some questions:

    If repeal of DADT allows gays and lesbians to serve openly, what do we do about transgender military members?

    Would we allow service members with gender identity issues to choose between male and female uniforms?

    Could biologically male service members wear female uniforms?

    Will same sex marriages be recognized, to include dependent ID cards, spousal allowances, base housing, and medical coverage?

    What about privacy issues? Is there a difference between providing privacy for service members from the opposite gender, or privacy from those that might be sexually interested in them? Is it really any different with homosexuals?

    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? (h/t Hayball)

    Will Evangelical Presbyterians and Baptists be excluded from military recruiting in favor of more liberal religious denominations?

    Will serving officers and enlisted from more conservative churches be forced out or retired?

    If DoD policy makers declare that homosexual behavior is authorized and approved, is it likely to put in place a policy that punishes someone who disagrees?

    Will DoD officially define any other opinion as hate speech or bigotry? Punishable, perhaps, under the UCMJ?

    Will those denominations who sincerely believe that homosexuality is a choice of behavior, not be subjected to what looks very much like religious persecution?

    I will be interested in the answers.

  • Claude Berube

    If this issue is to be appropriately and fully evaluated during the year-long DoD study, then a lot of the questions URR raises in the preceding comment need to be considered as legitimate as any other.

  • James Orr

    Ultimarationreg: Every issue you raise above applied equally to the decision to overturn the institutionalized racism in the military and society.

    There, as here, “Christian” pastors taught that mixture of the races was an abomination. Indeed, it was not uncommon to hear even that slavery was “ordained of God” and actions to prohibit it went against the clear teachings of the Old Testament.

    It is only the very narrowest, most bigoted of “Christian” sects which continue to push discrimination against any of God’s children as a good thing. In this, those sects share more with the politics of the Taliban than of the American values they say they support.

    It’s past time for this anachronistic and despicable remnant of prejudice to leave our military.

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    Now you see, if you asked these kinds of questions straight out, rather than blathering nonsensically about the King James Bible, about how the evil gays are stealing our institutions, and about how your critics are fascists, then people might take you more seriously.

    If repeal of DADT allows gays and lesbians to serve openly, what do we do about transgender military members?

    >>Sure.

    Would we allow service members with gender identity issues to choose between male and female uniforms? Could biologically male service members wear female uniforms?

    >>Depends on the situation, but 1)cases are likely to be so rare >>that delaying action on account of the question would be >>absurd, and 2) there are civilian institutions (athletic >>leagues) which have histories that can provide guidance.

    Will same sex marriages be recognized, to include dependent ID cards, spousal allowances, base housing, and medical coverage?

    >>I believe DOMA prohibits this. Sadly. But if I had my >>druthers, absolutely.

    What about privacy issues? Is there a difference between providing privacy for service members from the opposite gender, or privacy from those that might be sexually interested in them? Is it really any different with homosexuals?

    >>Again, civilian institutions have a long history with these >>kind of issues; gender specific dorms are present on every >>college campus, yet orientation specific dorms are exceedingly >>rare. Moreover, the question is poorly thought out; everyone >>who has showered in a public gym (or in a military gym) is >>subject to unwanted sexual advances. Mature adults can deal >>with it, and military personnel have a duty to behave as mature >>adults.

    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? (h/t Hayball)

    >>Yes. No doubt in my mind.

    Will Evangelical Presbyterians and Baptists be excluded from military recruiting in favor of more liberal religious denominations?

    >>No. Like everyone else, they will be expected to conduct >>themselves professionally with respect to their comrades.

    Will serving officers and enlisted from more conservative churches be forced out or retired?

    >>No. Like everyone else, they will be expected to conduct >>themselves professionally with respect to their comrades.

    If DoD policy makers declare that homosexual behavior is authorized and approved, is it likely to put in place a policy that punishes someone who disagrees?

    >>It shouldn’t. Belief shouldn’t be criminalized; behavior >>should. Like everyone else, those who disagree with >>homosexual behavior should be expected to conduct themselves >>professionally with respect to their comrades. That said, >>freedom of speech is more restricted in the military on any >>number of issues that don’t touch on race, gender, or sexual >>orientation.

    Will DoD officially define any other opinion as hate speech or bigotry? Punishable, perhaps, under the UCMJ?

    >>Any other opinion about what?

    Will those denominations who sincerely believe that homosexuality is a choice of behavior, not be subjected to what looks very much like religious persecution?

    >>No. The right to volunteer to join an institution that >>respects the rights of gay Americans is not, under any >>definition, religious persecution.

    That didn’t seem so hard. Got any others?

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    Claude,

    Right; URR’s comment was helpful and well thought-out. The post not so much.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Rob,

    Go back and read the post, re: rantings about the KJB and evil gays.

    Regardless, let’s examine your answers.

    1. Transgender service members present myriad problems of their own. We are ready to deal with those too?

    2. Regarding male/female uniform choices, the “cross that bridge when we come to it” approach is seldom successful when setting policy. You are at the bridge already, without answers.

    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.

    4. A ship is not a dorm. Nor is a bunker or a fighting hole. So the college model doesn’t fit so well. Also, mature adults “dealing with” unwanted sexual advances doesn’t hold much water in today’s Armed Forces. 18 and 19 year olds are not necessarily completely mature adults.

    5. Services ready for two males kissing in uniform in front of the cadre? There is doubt in a lot of minds. Ask around.

    6. If you don’t exclude Evangelicals and Baptists from being recruited, you ARE then telling them they don’t have the right to express who they are and what they believe. Huh. Their beliefs and actions are prejudicial to good order and discipline?

    7. See above regarding retention.

    8. What if differing opinion means a desire to have a “straight pride” event on a military installation? Will that be allowed? If not, is that not de facto punishment by denying the rights afforded to others?

    9. The “other opinion” would be that which differs from DoD policy, and expressed as such. Would that now be “hate speech”, punishable as a federal crime?

    10. The courts might well see the argument of religious persecution markedly differently from how you do. Precedent on similar grievances is well established. It may not seem like it, but Evangelicals have lawyers, too.

    The answers are not so easy. And they better be watertight. I don’t think they are. And I doubt the charade of “studying the problem of implementation” will be very meaningful with the conclusion foregone. Much as discussion, what there was of it, on women on warships and dual-track admissions turned out.

    As I said. A one-sided coin. And though the issues I presented were done provocatively, intentionally, they cannot be dismissed out of hand, and will require much more than blanket statements and policy directives.

    Oh, and let’s not forget that the role of the Armed Forces is to fight and win our nation’s wars.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    James,

    The comparison between racial identity and sexual identity has been made over and over again, but is not one that is terribly popular with many African-American Sailors and Marines I served with.

    Behaviors are not the same as skin color. That statement reflects a considerable weight of opinion. We would do well to acknowledge that fact.

  • Total

    Behaviors are not the same as skin color

    And yet bigotry is the same as bigotry.

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    1. Transgender service members present myriad problems of their own. We are ready to deal with those too?

    >>Yep.

    2. Regarding male/female uniform choices, the “cross that bridge when we come to it” approach is seldom successful when setting policy. You are at the bridge already, without answers.

    >>No; I’m confident in our ability to deal with small problems.

    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.

    >>Chaplains already have to minister to faiths, creeds, and sects that they find alien, abhorrent and evil. The presence of same sex marriage is rather minor compared to the theological differences already present in the United States military.

    4. A ship is not a dorm. Nor is a bunker or a fighting hole. So the college model doesn’t fit so well. Also, mature adults “dealing with” unwanted sexual advances doesn’t hold much water in today’s Armed Forces. 18 and 19 year olds are not necessarily completely mature adults.

    >>Indeed, I expect soldiers to be able to deal better with such problems than college students. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have far more training and accept far more responsibility than a typical 18 year old college freshmen. Yet, the freshmen can apparently handle the problem…

    5. Services ready for two males kissing in uniform in front of the cadre? There is doubt in a lot of minds. Ask around.

    >>I have, which is why I have utter confidence in the professionalism of America’s military personnel. While I have encountered soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who aren’t entirely enthusiastic about gay public affection, I have never once encountered one who I wouldn’t trust in such a situation.

    6. If you don’t exclude Evangelicals and Baptists from being recruited, you ARE then telling them they don’t have the right to express who they are and what they believe. Huh. Their beliefs and actions are prejudicial to good order and discipline?

    >>he United States military does not operate according to the preferences of any particular religious sect. American Catholics, for example, were expected to wage war in Iraq even though the Church believed the war unwise. As such, I trust that Evangelicals and Baptists will be capable of doing their professional duty as military personnel while still retaining their private beliefs.

    7. See above regarding retention.

    >>See above. I have far more confidence in the professionalism of our forces, it appears, than do you.

    8. What if differing opinion means a desire to have a “straight pride” event on a military installation? Will that be allowed? If not, is that not de facto punishment by denying the rights afforded to others?

    >>I don’t see a particular problem with a straight pride march, as long as it did not impinge on the professional duties of the personnel involved.

    9. The “other opinion” would be that which differs from DoD policy, and expressed as such. Would that now be “hate speech”, punishable as a federal crime?

    >>Again, I’m not sure I understand. Is any disagreement with DoD policy a hate crime?

    10. The courts might well see the argument of religious persecution markedly differently from how you do. Precedent on similar grievances is well established. It may not seem like it, but Evangelicals have lawyers, too.

    >>Really? You have no idea the odds I would be willing to give against a Baptist winning a lawsuit against the US Army because the latter allowed openly gay soldiers. Seriously, I’ll be happy to make it interesting if it ever comes to that.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    So Total, no valid countervaling viewpoint is permissible? Chalk any dissent up to bigotry, hate, etc.?

    Good, meaningful dialogue. Thanks for playing.

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    “Oh, and let’s not forget that the role of the Armed Forces is to fight and win our nation’s wars.”

    I don’t forget that, and I firmly believe that the Armed Forces would be more capable of fighting and winning our nation’s wars if 13500+ gay soldiers hadn’t been expelled since DADT took effect. Moreover, I have no doubt that America’s armed forces would benefit from the presence of proud, capable, patriotic gay Americans who would serve if they believed they were welcome.

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    URR,

    And could you please dispense with the nonsense that this post was about meaningful dialogue? If you’d wanted meaningful dialogue, you would have posted the ten questions you asked in comments. You posted an incoherent, hate filled screed, then partially redeemed yourself by making actual, interesting policy related comments in the thread. When you start by hurling feces, however, you can hardly expect to get anything but feces in return.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    So, Rob,

    You’ve been shooting into the barrel, but don’t seem to have hit many fish. Some simplistic non-answers to complex and difficult questions is about all you have offered except sophomoric insults.

    Perhaps serious debate is not your thing.

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Rob Farley

    URR,

    Actually, I think I hit one pretty big fish.

    Thanks for playing.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Rob,

    “Hate-filled screed”? You must be kidding. And to dismiss as “feces” the concern that the steamrolling of the religious beliefs and values of a considerable number of service members tells me that there is little regard for any opinion or viewpoint but your own. And many of the ten questions I posted in numbered fashion are contained in the original post. You can go back and read them if you like.

    The religious beliefs I allude to here aren’t mine, by the way. But they are still an important consideration which is being shoved to the curb in the emotional skewing of this issue and the considerations surrounding it.

    Your responses to my questions reflect your opinions, but just might not be quite as prevalent as you think. These questions require answers, not large-sized personal assumptions.

  • Total

    So Total, no valid countervaling viewpoint is permissible? Chalk any dissent up to bigotry, hate, etc.?

    Actually, I chalk up bigotry and hate to bigotry and hate.

    But you do have a point: evangelical Christians who feel that gays should not serve in the military should not have that forced upon them. I would thus suggest that those evangelicals currently in the military be discharged if they make their preferences clear openly and that evangelicals not be allowed to enlist in the armed service. We could call it “Don’t Announce, Don’t Talk” or something like that…

  • Jack Osborne

    Bigotry means being unable to accept the other persons position is valid!
    I accept that your position is valid for you, as it applies to DADT, and I can really understand that position’

    But, can you accept the validity of my position that the Navy has no requirement that homosexuals have a place in the Navy!

    The Navy has held that postion since I was in the Navy 69 years ago, since my father was in the Navy, and that was 105 years ago, yet, all at once, homosexuals become necessary for the operation of the US Navy based upon the need for the concept based upon what is described by the word “DIVERSITY”.

    Just prove to me that “Diversity”has improved the operation of any organization!

  • http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com CDR Salamander

    … because I cannot help myself ….

    The Midrats show that URR and Robert reference can be found here.

    Whichever side of DADT you are on, I think you will enjoy the largely centerline discussion.

  • RickWilmes

    “the lifestyles advocated and eventually promoted by DoD should not abrogate Judeo-Christian beliefs.”

    If those Judeo-Christian beliefs are false than they should and do need to be abrogated.

    It took centuries for the Catholic Church to recognize and agree with Galileo that the Earth revolves around the sun. There are many Christians that still think and believe black colored individuals are inferior. Pat Robertson comes to mind.

  • Chuck Hill

    Clearly all the religious bigotry is not concentrated in the Muslim faith.

    Did Jesus ever say anything about this?

  • Total

    Bigotry means being unable to accept the other persons position is valid!

    Really? So if I announce that certain ethnic groups shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military, you would be bigoted if you found that position invalid?

    I think not. Try again.

  • Jack Osborne

    Bigot:a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
    To you support the validity of another persons position, even though it differs from yours?

    That does not mean that you agree, but , simply, that his position might indeed be valid for him, but not, necessarily, for you!

    I can support your belief that one race should not be in the armed forces, and I can support your belief that all races should be in the Navy.

    I don’t have to agree with them , I just have to agree that, for you, your position is valid!

    Ergo, battleships, and aircraft carriers, either position is valid, but one of them is erroneous at one time or another, depending upon circumstances.

  • CBD

    URR,
    As many points that I would have otherwise stated (selective adherence to (a very heavily edited version of) the bible, the imposition of specific religious values on a national (areligious)institution and the responsibilities of the members of the armed services to uphold the constitution above all other allegiances).

    One pointed question remains:
    You have objected to the imposition of politically correct perspectives (and mandates) into an organization with the mission not to be politically correct but to serve for the good of the nation via combat.

    Rightly so. Merit and capability are important characteristics for judging and selecting potential military leaders. To do otherwise is to weaken the armed services and, thereby, reduce the security of the nation.

    But, it must be said: is it not also an unfair and unethical imposition to deny a certain group of individuals the right to serve in the armed forces not based on merit or capability, but based on whether or not they’ve ever employed their Constitutional right to free speech in order to state their sexual (or gender) preference? Is it not a violation of the Constitution to have a law that singles out a specific group for persecution?

    Aside from the fallacy that homosexual individuals may serve freely (as long as they hide their true nature), how is DADT any better than a forced PC structure that may promote an individual not because he or she is the best individual for the position, but because he or she is of a certain group that is considered ‘under represented’ at that level of posting?

    If you want to tear down iniquity and inequality, do not look to where it comes from or who speaks of it, look only to the virtue of its elimination.

    That is the true Judeo-christian teaching. My ancestors taught that, however mangled, in your “old testament” almost 3,000 years ago…In the New Testament it was elevated and concentrated on the “golden rule.” While it is often lost in modern Christian thought, the core principle is to be fair and just to all mankind…not to cling to old rules written in a different era. This nation was built on not clinging to old rules, favoring principles above family rule and religious diktat.

    Whether you condemn homosexuality or keep kosher, Leviticus was and is a collection of personal rules…rules for you to keep, not for anyone to impose upon others.

  • RickWilmes

    [redacted by admin]

    In 2010, if a person claims that the Earth is flat or the Sun revolves around the Earth, we can dismiss such a claim as nonsense. There was a time when allowing a colored person to drink from a white water fountain was a threat to the good order and decency of our Country. Such a claim today can be dismissed as nonsense.

    Concerning gays in the military the same thing is going to happen given time. I imagine that seeing two men kiss in uniform on New Years will probably evoke the same reaction a previous generation experienced when blacks began to drink from the same water fountain and moved to the front of the bus.

  • Chuck Hill

    Forcing sex physically, or exploiting a position of authority was wrong before the policy change, and it will continue to be wrong and punishable after the policy change. It has been a problem, the statistics on rape are a disgrace. And how many COs have we seen fired for inappropriate fraternization? We need to do better. It will happen in same sex relationships as well. In fact it has been happening, probably since the Navy was founded. Anyone read “The Deep Six?”

    Bad behavior including fraternization and unprofessional displays of affection will still be bad behavior.

  • Jack Osborne

    To infer that two men kissing is the same as drinking from the same fountain is strange, but you may have that belief.

    But , we go in circles, and go nowhere, as we will have little to do with any decisions made by the civilians leader of the country.

    they are perfectly willing to be swayed by their political beliefs , and take actions which may , or may not, hurt the armed forces.

    If we don’t like it, we might indeed have to accept it!

    But, are we then prepared to accept homosexuals in our boy scouts, girl scouts, grammar schools, and let them teach unsupervised.
    We have trouble letting our children read Mark Twain, but are prepared to let teachers espouse life styles!

    Enjoy life while you can, as it ends too soon for most of us, and not soon enough for others of us.

    Reat in peace, die in good health, and remember who and what you are in your life!

  • andrewdb

    Is it feeding a troll to respond to the main post? I should know better, but I am weak and can’t resist.

    The KJV is my favorite, but I have it on good authority that it is actually a translation and Our Lord and Savior didn’t really speak the English of King James – and He doesn’t speak at all in the Old Testament. In any event, religious positions aren’t legally permitted as a basis for government policy; its that pesky First Amendment.

    Turning to your numbered points –

    1. Transgender service members present myriad problems of their own. We are ready to deal with those too?

    HR 1283, the currently pending bill to repeal DADT, addresses “sexual orientation” which it defines as being “heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.” Notice “transgender” or “gender identity” is NOT included.

    2. Regarding male/female uniform choices, the “cross that bridge when we come to it” approach is seldom successful when setting policy. You are at the bridge already, without answers.

    Not an issue, see #1 above.

    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.

    What of it? DOMA does control and forbids the Federal government from recognizing any same-sex marriage, period. Section 5 of HR 1283 further says “Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage’ and `spouse’ and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act’).”

    As for the chaplains, they can do what they do now (or rather what they are suppose to do now, the well documented problems at Colorado Springs aside) – they can minister to ALL the servicemembers in their care.

    4. A ship is not a dorm. Nor is a bunker or a fighting hole. So the college model doesn’t fit so well. Also, mature adults “dealing with” unwanted sexual advances doesn’t hold much water in today’s Armed Forces. 18 and 19 year olds are not necessarily completely mature adults.

    The prevention of sexual harassment is an ongoing issue in the military, as you well know. There already seem to be lots of programs that attempt to educate and prevent “unwanted sexual advances” without the gays. Adding “don’t hit on other guys [or gals], either” isn’t much of a stretch.

    5. Services ready for two males kissing in uniform in front of the cadre? There is doubt in a lot of minds. Ask around.

    We already have to address unprofessional “public displays of affection.” This isn’t any different.

    6. If you don’t exclude Evangelicals and Baptists from being recruited, you ARE then telling them they don’t have the right to express who they are and what they believe. Huh. Their beliefs and actions are prejudicial to good order and discipline?

    You’re not suppose to use religion when rating people, or much of anyplace else professionally. This isn’t any different. We accepted people from Bob Jones University, even when that school had a theological problem with inter-racial dating (I understand they dropped that rule in 2000).

    7. See above regarding retention.

    See above regarding response. The other English speaking nations that have already implemented this (UK, Oz, NZ, Canada) did not find any problems with doing so, and they didn’t suffer any mass resignations or fall off in retention.

    8. What if differing opinion means a desire to have a “straight pride” event on a military installation? Will that be allowed? If not, is that not de facto punishment by denying the rights afforded to others?

    Isn’t recognition of “special months” usually in the discretion of the local Commander? Why would this be any different? How widely is “European-American Heritage Month” celebrated? (I believe it is October).

    9. The “other opinion” would be that which differs from DoD policy, and expressed as such. Would that now be “hate speech”, punishable as a federal crime?

    There is no Federal crime for “hate speech” That pesky First Amendment, again.

    There is a new Federal “hate crime” statute, passed as part of the Defense Authorization Act of 2010, that added “sexual orientation, gender, sexual identity [yes, the transgendered!], and disability” to the categories of “religion and national origin” in the 1969 Federal hate crime statute (18 USC 249). It did not change the UCMJ.

    10. The courts might well see the argument of religious persecution markedly differently from how you do. Precedent on similar grievances is well established. It may not seem like it, but Evangelicals have lawyers, too.

    You are assuming persecution, and as I have pointed out above, there isn’t any. The court cases generally address “reasonable accommodations” to allow one to practice one’s religion, but in the military that is fairly limited (think uniform regulations, for example).

    Hope this helps.

  • http://springboarder.blogspot.com Defense Springboard

    URR. I have a challenge for you!

    The Brits have integrated. Might you, in the future, compose a post looking at that case? Did they have some gay-integration related problems? Are there problems now? Seriously, if they’re having problems over there, then point ‘em out–it’d be a post I’d read. Why? Because I’m convinced that the UK Armed Forces are sinking due to their fiscal choices…not ’cause of their social mores.

    But, hey, what do I know? I mean, after all, I only live a block or two from San Francisco’s Castro District…maybe I just don’t care about what a few of my neighbors are doing in their beds.

  • Chuck Hill

    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”

    If you really did believe in this one, would you be surprised that you are not permitted to act on it?

    We don’t outlaw belief, but we do outlaw acting on beliefs to the detriment of others. That is what is happening here.

  • RickWilmes

    “To infer that two men kissing is the same as drinking from the same fountain is strange, but you may have that belief.

    But , we go in circles, and go nowhere, as we will have little to do with any decisions made by the civilians leader of the country.”

    Actually, progress is being made and DADT will go away just like separate water fountains. When my parents talked about the water fountains, I thought how strange and irrational it was. My children, when they are old enough to understand, will think how strange and irrational DADT was.

    Moving on, I would like to answer the question URR posed about same sex families and base housing. Although this will be a small percentage of the military, same sex families should be entitled to housing. One of the problems concerning the “Didn’t know. Don’t care” policy.

    Any same sex family in base housing is going to be known and people are going to care.

  • Dan

    What started as a hateful screed that assumes the US Navy should by definition be as intolerant as the Taliban actually had some sensible comments following it.

    In terms of the views expressed here and the views expressed by the majority of servicemen and women this study may be interesting,

    http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/11/05/support-for-same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state/

    i.e. as expected the tolerance of Gay Marriage is higher in Massachusetts than Alabama but also it varies with age, i.e. those most intolerant are those from the South and over 60 well sorry but while those who joined the Navy 69 years ago can still post on a blog they are probably not on board ship any more and we should not plan good order and discipline around their views.

    In terms of the KJB start well there is the answer below from the West Wing and the answer that discrimination based on religious intolerance is against the vision of the secular US Constitution. It is ironic that the US constitution was founded on keeping religion out of politics as the many of the original settlers had left Europe to escape religious discrimination but while the UK is still formally a Protestant nation managed integration a decade ago, while Israel is formally a Jewish nation did it earlier. The US accepts the views of all religions in theory but seems to have been captured by a small subset of evangelical Christians.

    “”Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

    President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. … What would a good price for her be?

    …My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

    …[T]ouching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

    Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

    Think about those questions, would you?””

    The integration in the UK came quickly and surprisingly smoothly and looking at the details of the change there in the past decade would be useful discussion.

    The issues around “the diversity industry” seem particular to the US however:

    Should Black or Female service members be promoted if they are incompetent for the post: No.

    Will someone argue they should be to balance out decades of discrimination: Yes.

    Should they all be banned from the service to avoid the question: Of course not.

  • Byron

    No offense to all the folks expressing outrage here, but knowing URR like I do, he deliberately provoked you into addressing all the subtle nuances of a repeal of DADT. As far as I can see it, he did a pretty good job.

    And since I have never served, I will not offer my opinion on whether this is right or wrong. I do understand URRs POV, though; the Navy is in for heavy weather on this one.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    To all who commented calling my post a “hateful screed”. I suggest you read through it again. The post raises issues, and serious ones, that require answers.

    The questions of biblical interpretation are not an indicator of my personal belief. But they are a significant part of the legitimate belief of others. Those issues need to be addressed in a serious manner and not swept aside.

    Some of the comments here are well-reasoned and thoughtful. Others, unfortunately, reflect a knee-jerk emotion that any contrary viewpoint must be one of hatred and bigotry.

    Religious belief in this issue is a serious matter, and should be addressed as such. Simply directing that those whose beliefs are at question “live with it” is a non-answer. Don’t underestimate the power of legal argument of religious persecution, either. Witness the difficulty of putting up a manger on public property.

    The issue of what will be taught in DoD schools is also an important one. There you will find the difference between tolerance of a chosen lifestyle by adults and acceptance as an acceptable value system for children. The backlash in Massachusetts and other places where such curriculum has been forced into the system is instructive.

    Finally, don’t underestimate the ability of special interest groups, advocates, and activists, the “diversity industry” who always stands to profit by leveraging differences, to make absolute hash of even the most well-thought out policy suggestions here. They have the ability to turn something approaching reasonable into an “in your face” militant demonstration that will offend even moderate supporters.

    Once again, I did not make arguments as to how certain issues and questions will have to be dealt with. I merely raised the issues and asked the questions. The outpouring of indignant vitriol is quite typical of such debate in today’s current climate.

    The questions I raise deserve civil discussion and debate. If that cannot be done when religion of the person asking is not central to the debate, how can it be done with a person whose religion IS?

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Oh, and Dan,

    “Hateful screed” nonsense aside, I do have some answers for you.

    Yes, your Chief of Staff must be put to death.

    Yes the Redskins can still play football. Notre Dame, too. But not Navy.

    As for stoning your brother and burning your mother, it’s your family reunion.

  • RickWilmes

    Perhaps, URR can put aside his deliberate provocation and propose a solution on how to deal with same sex families living in base housing.

  • Total

    I don’t have to agree with them , I just have to agree that, for you, your position is valid!

    Oh, I have no problem agreeing that you’re a bigot. The question that follows is whether I should pay any attention to it. The answer to that is, of course, no.

    To all who commented calling my post a “hateful screed”. I suggest you read through it again. The post raises issues, and serious ones, that require answers.

    *You* think it raises serious issues. I’m not required to share in that opinion.

  • Robbo

    I don’t understand how the opinions of some religious people are being steamrolled, ignored, or persecuted. No one’s asking them to BE gay — just treat a gay service member like any other.

    Are Evangelical Presbyterians and Baptists required to hate, discriminate, or assault gays? Of course not. So what’s the problem?

    This is not a religious issue, or about “values” or “morals”. Of course there are issues of privacy to be worked out, among other things, so we can’t make a change overnight. But the first things we should do are: (1) delete Article 125 Sodomy from the UCMJ, not because of gays, but because it is stupid, and (2) immediately stop processing any current discharge proceedings for gay service members.

    Repealing DADT does NOT stop some service members from following their Bronze Age dictums. So yes, they should “get over it.”

  • Byron

    Can’t until Congress repeals DADT. Until then it is the law of the land, one the Navy has sworn to follow.

    Those with religious concerns will be impacted. Don’t diminish their faith by saying it doesn’t count, or shouldn’t matter.

  • russiannavyblog

    (1) delete Article 125 Sodomy from the UCMJ, not because of gays, but because it is stupid

    Good thing that Article 125 isn’t normally enforced or else you’d have thousands of cases of mast after CVBG port calls in Thailand and the Philippines.

    Oh wait, that’s heterosexual sodomy. You know – the good kind.

  • Robbo

    “Oh wait, that’s heterosexual sodomy. You know – the good kind.”
    -awesome

    “Those with religious concerns will be impacted”
    How?

  • andrewdb

    A recent study of the intermediate military courts of appeal found 86 cases of consensual sodomy over a 3 year period. 83 of those cases involved man-on-woman action, and 1 involved woman-on-man action. Only 2 involved man-on-man stuff. This isn’t surprising, given that gays aren’t suppose to be serving if they are found out – what is surprising was there was that many cases brought against the straights.

    See the text at footnote 46 in this: http://tinyurl.com/yaebzg3

  • Total

    Don’t diminish their faith by saying it doesn’t count, or shouldn’t matter

    It’s not diminishing their faith to ask why their horror at homosexuality does not extend to other things that the Bible bans, like seafood and certain types of textiles. The sense becomes that they’re picking and choosing what they like from the Bible in order to confirm their existing biases.

  • YNSN

    You know, I am IA right now with an Army unit. No one is talking about this. I really think DKDC says it best. We’re fighting a war, other less employed people are making it a big deal.

    One last thing, was this post to serve as devils advocate? Was the point to get others in a uproar? In reality, I think this post is a little lowbrow for USNI.

  • YNSN

    One other things. The Chairmen was pretty vague in what he meant in terms of integrity. The way I took his words, was that it was the integrity of the military as an institution that was in question. Not any single individual’s integrity. Why is this? Not 4 years ago I had to sign a piece of paper basicly saying I wasn’t gay. It didn’t require me to loose any integrity to say that I wasn’t, because I am not. But, to bring a person in and make them recite at RTC: “I will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tollerate those among us that do.”. There were gay guys in my division at bootcamp, I know this. And everyone of them was not telling the truth based on the form they had to sign at MEPS. Yet, I tolerated them. Should I have not?

    DADT is as good an arrangment as the Treat of Versailles was. It settled nothing and was awkward at best. What you see now devloping is the natural outcome.

    Secure the overt religious overtones, and uppity ultra-pularistic rhetorich. None of either extreme has a place in the Navy.

  • Robbo

    It is my long- and deeply-held belief not only that baseball is more important than religion, but also that it is an abomination to support the Red Sox. I am not alone, either. In fact I think that is the majority view in the armed forces.

    And yet, I still am required to serve with those openly supporting the Red Sox. I have to write their FitReps with a completely blind eye to what I see as a glaring lack of judgment and morals. I am forced to share living quarters and shower facilities with them, even though I find “Red Sox Nation” tattoos to be patently offensive. I don’t want the government to tell my children it’s OK to be a Red Sox fan.

    This is a real morale and unit cohesion issue. My beliefs are constantly being steamrolled and ignored to accommodate a slim minority of service members. But I still show the tolerance that I am required to by law.

    Don’t try to sweep aside or marginalize my views, or diminish my legitimate faith by saying it doesn’t count or shouldn’t matter. The sea services were founded on the principles of baseball. Just look at PETCO Park on a Sunday, when the DIs take recruits from MCRD San Diego to watch the Padres. The world would be a better place if we all let baseball into our hearts.

  • Robbo

    Well said, YNSN.

  • Al L.

    URR said:
    “DADT doesn’t keep gays out of the military. But, thus far, at least, it has kept out the stridently activist gay advocates who would champion their cause over all others.”

    Why is it the military would have a discipline problem with strident advocacy of being gay, does it have a problem with strident advocacy of being Christian?

  • UltimaRatioReg

    YNSN,

    The post was indeed to play a little bit of Devil’s Advocate. For some of the reasons that are obvious as the comments pile up. Considerations in contravention of the desired outcome are brushed aside as not being worth of legitimate discussion, and that is too bad.

    Repeal of the policy of DADT will, I posit, have impact, not all of it good, beyond the battlefield. And perhaps there as well. To refuse to acknowledge that possibility, including the impact on a fairly widely held set of religious beliefs, is patently absurd.

    In areas such as this one, unintended consequences abound. Discussion of all points, including these, SHOULD be a part of any decision-making process. So far, it hasn’t been.

    If bringing those questions and issues to the fore is low-brow, so be it. They are hard questions that will not be answered with the simplistic knee-jerk rantings here.

    Also, the problem that many people had with the Chairman’s opinion is that it was personal and not professional. And as such had no place in the discussion. Personal opinion doesn’t have rank, professional opinion does. Personal opinion has no place in statements made in an official capacity, no matter how much one might sympathize with the sentiment. Which is why wearing a uniform while attending a political event is forbidden.

    Get home safe.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Al L.

    “Why is it the military would have a discipline problem with strident advocacy of being gay, does it have a problem with strident advocacy of being Christian?”

    Excellent question. And the answer, in my opinion, is YES. Or at least it used to. Haven’t seen nearly as much lately. There were many occasions over the years, darned uncomfortable ones, where overzealous Chaplains were allowed to run amok by COs whose religious beliefs were very fervent and public. I once intervened for a Muslim Marine who got very tired of the Chaplain literally pestering him about finding a Christian God.

    I would submit, however, that such could be solved by a reprimand of the commander by requisite authority. The professional “diversity industry” as Salamander aptly calls it, will be much harder to deal with.

  • YNSN

    UltimaRatioReg,

    I apologize for seeming to call the consideration of all the ramifications of a repeal of DADT lowbrow. That was not my intent, and I apologize.

    Sentiment is important however. On Facebook I was one of the first to call into question the Chairman’s use of his personal opinion in a public forum. In fact, I called the tactic uncouth. What’s more is that I had to defend that statement against a barrage of emails sent to me via facebook basically calling me a monster and homophobic. None of which is true.
    I still feel that the tactic was uncouth of the Chairman. However, to make the caca-storm as light in the halls of congress as he could, it was the best tactic. Today even in the NYT there is another OPED singing the praises of the Chairman. I however, in observing him over the years –and while by no means an expert — think he didn’t use the tactic of personal opinion as he did, because of a deep inner conviction that we must end this grave injustice done unto the GLBT community. More so than to make the inevitable as easy and quick of an adjustment as possible. Can you imagine the military being in the middle of a debate in congress the likes of which spawned Roe vs. Wade?

    Our bosses have spoken and are record, they can now get back to other business. No Conservatives mass of conservatives will call into question the judgment of the CJCS and the SECDEF appointed by a Republican. We can now focus on our real jobs.

    To my considerations of what ‘diversity’ ramifications will come from this, look at the first post I made way above.

  • RickWilmes

    Most of the focus has been on the Christian view of homosexuality. I am curious about what the Stoic view might be. I found this article interesting and may add to the discourse.

    http://www.prometheus-journal.com/2009/05/epictetus-the-analyst-a-stoical-response-to-a-patient-of-sigmund-freud’s/

  • Jay

    I guess URR will beat this drum for the rest of 2010 — and perhaps later.

    While this topic seems to get traction (# of comments, or repeat comments…) — generally they are no different than his similar post of some months ago.

    Short answer remains: DADT is, rightfully, going away (as will the law barring gays from serving). We will be better for it.

    If anyone seriously is weighing their personal sense of patriotism (desire to serve/desire to stay in) against their personal religious beliefs — on this issue — well, I would take patriotism every time.

    To do otherwise — to insist that your personal religious views need not just to be reasonably accomodated — but followed — by others that do not subscribe to your particular religion — strikes me as a sorrowfully narrow and dubious religious view — at best — and perhaps even unamerican, at worst.

    While there may be some implementation challenges (change is hard, especially for some…) — this will be a non-issue soon thereafter.

  • http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Galrahn

    At first, I thought URRs way over the top contribution was a bad idea, but after reading through the comments I think the approach is effective (if it was an intentional approach).

    I have no strong feelings on the topic, but what is revealed in this discussion are the different layers – broad from political left to political right and back – and a middle ground of important questions that if addressed – can produce a new policy the military can build on.

    I note change in the military is hard, and is resisted, on any level and on almost any issue. DADT won’t be different. I also note that the application of broad generalities and stereotypes reveals the weakness of the debate along political lines. I strongly believe this debate will ultimately reveal how so many political stereotypes of both the military and homosexuals (both right and left) don’t really fit.

  • Al L.

    URR Said:
    “Excellent question…….
    I would submit, however, that such could be solved by a reprimand of the commander by requisite authority. The professional “diversity industry” as Salamander aptly calls it, will be much harder to deal with.”

    That by the way was a loaded question, any competent answer results in logical support for repeal of DADT.

    Your answer is basically: similar problems have arisen in the past and have been dealt with. I highly doubt that the “diversity industry” will be harder to deal with than 2210 years of religious culture.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Galrahn,

    It was precisely the intended approach.

    A little colder in NY than in SD, ain’t it?

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “I highly doubt that the “diversity industry” will be harder to deal with than 2210 years of religious culture.”

    I know it sounds specious to say, but in today’s world I am not so sure. Religion had torture and excommunication, but they didn’t have lawyers.

  • Al L.

    URR said:

    “I know it sounds specious to say, but in today’s world I am not so sure. Religion had torture and excommunication, but they didn’t have lawyers.”

    This is not a serious comment, its a gut level joke. You seem to only want to discuss this seriously until it leads to an uncomfortable spot.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Al, the comment is more serious than it might seem. Those who have a stake in exploiting the divisions among us have become very powerful both legally and monetarily.

    As I stated in the original post, they also have done much disservice to the parties they purport to “advocate” for. To think anything different is going to happen here is being blind to the realities of a litigious and “victim group” oriented society.

  • Al L.

    URR Said:
    “To think anything different is going to happen here is being blind to the realities of a litigious and “victim group” oriented society.”

    No, to think this is an historical change except in appearance is blindness.

    Our society has long been subject to such victimisation advocacy pitfalls: union vs. union vs. “scabs” vs. managers etc., various religions vs. others, poor white share croppers v. blacks v. landholders, Boing vs. Lockheed. etc, etc. I’m sure the same thing will happen: some groups will try to advocate, to drive wedges, to get an edge. If you think the institution can’t handle it, then the solution is never change a thing until it’s easy. Problem is then you concede the high groud to those who advocate the status quo who only have to make a little fuss to get their way, on any change to any policy.

  • UltimaRatioReg

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

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

  • PSP

    My mother was an antique dealer. When this came up in the 90’s, she observed that the generation of dealers in front of her was heavily populated by flaming homosexuals, and that “Every damned one of them served in the Navy in World War Two.”

    I suspect that if the navy could handle it then, it can handle it now.

  • Al L.

    URR said:

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

    Statements like this don’t contribute to thorough consideration:

    “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.”

    This is fear mongering. The thought process that follows is: If you allow minority 1 (gays) openess in the military, then that opens the door to political operators who will exploit gays to supress minority 2. Protect minority 2 by supressing minority 1
    because minority 1 can’t possibly control what happens to themselves, the institution has to do it for them. Never mind that you are already trusting minority 2 with controlling its own advocacy.

    That is old think. Similar to a period we should have long ago passed.

  • CAPT Kidd

    Just when you think the USNI has reached its nadir, URR continues to scrape the seabed.

  • Mike Schilling

    >> It is my long- and deeply-held belief not only that
    >> baseball is more important than religion, but also
    >> that it is an abomination to support the Red Sox.

    People like who, who continue to turn a blind eye to the fount of all evil on earth known as the Los Angeles Dodgers, are as much a part of the problem as the Blue Menace itself. I could never serve in the same unit as one of you; it’s all I can stand to inhabit the same comments thread.

  • Jack Osborne

    Back into the fray!

    there is no right or wrong here,there is POLITICs!

    Why would a heterosexual advocate for homosexual freedom?
    Why would a homosexual not advocate for homosexual freedom?

    spare me the fight for your country stuff, will you?

    Damn few people enlist, join, or serve for the opportunity to fight for their country!

    Any sane man, woman, or beast never joins anything with the intent to fight , and , perhaps, die for their country, unless their country has been attacked by another country!

    Just look at the drafting required in 1940s to get enough people into the service.

    They join to defend their country from enemies , foreign and domestic, and hope to hell they don’t have to go kill someone.

    How many Navy advertisements have to seen that suggest that the people enlist to fight for their country, die for their country, or get crippled for their country?

    All of your opinions are correct in your mind, and nothing anyone posts here will change your mind about it. Admit it!

    My mind is set , based upon my life experiences as a sailor in the Bars of the world. And that tell me something about the actual lives that sailors, and, yes, they commit sodomy and adultry, and all of that stuff, but they, perhaps , sad to state, do not like homosexuals to make advances toward them. they use homosexuals as targets on the beach, rolling them like drunks!

    But, believe as you wish about the ability of humans to control their sexual urges, I , although an old man, can remember them very well.

  • RickWilmes

    Jack,

    maybe you can explain to me why a homosexual can not fight for and defend this country.

  • Charley Armstrong

    Perhaps when a homosexual makes a pass at you, you should take it as a compliment, rather than a threat. “Thanks, but no thanks.” Just a thought.

    The “Diversity Industry” is mentioned several times in this thread. Personally I believe that diversity is a good thing. However, by no means should diversity take precedence over merit in appointments or promotions – or any personnel matter. 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?

  • Jack Osborne

    Diversity is a good thing, IF it accomplishs anything that is better than the alternative!
    All you have to do is listen to consumer service representatives in the complaint departments of companys.
    If you need English speakers, German speakers, Farsi speakers, it make little sense to integrate Germans in the Farsi, or Farsis into the English , or English into the German, just because you need “diversity” in the work force.
    You should not discriminate because a person is white, black , brown, or red, or yellow, but, you should not include because of that either.
    I support the non-discrimination, but not the diversity processes.

    If you can not get enough people to join the Navy, diversify as necessary to get the population!

    In fact, enlist criminals if you need them, but don’t enlist them to just say you have criminals in the organization.

    Satisfy the need, not need to satisfy!

  • 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.

  • 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.

2014 Information Domination Essay Contest