Will they end up half in and half out (to coin a phrase) of the armed forces if they declare their sexual orientation?

Do you have to be a practising homosexual (or very good at it)?

Given that homsexuality is something that you are not something that you do would declaring that you had sex with a person of the same gender be enough to get a discharge and what would that constitute? I'd love to see the manual that covered that.

Anyway its' not gay if you don't enjoy it.

Finally I think its' worth quoting Heller's wonderful prose in full;

"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.

Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions.

Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to.

Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle."

Hmm, doesn't that decision fly directly in the face of DADT? Seems like the AF has no legal grounds for refusing to discharge this officer, and in fact is probably violating the law when doing so.

It also provides an interesting way for homosexual soldiers to safely stay in the service while out. Just out themselves, saying they want a discharge. Then they can stay while out. :)

Sort of like 'tails I win, heads you lose'.

'Nuff said.

Haven't seen any official data or reports on this topic, but in the 1990s, public declaration of one's sexual orientation provided an easy out for first-term enlistees and junior officers who wished to leave the service prior to fulfilling their term of enlistment or ADSO. Unfortunately, this was also a quick and easy way for leaders to DX poor soldiers without enduring the administrative burden of a relief for cause or a BCD. Having served with excellent soldiers who hid their orientation, I hope revocation of DADT will remove this shortcut.

The irony of this is just delightful.

Unfortunately for this officer, that's the letter of the law. Simply being a homosexual doesn't violate the UCMJ; actually engaging in a homosexual act is the violation.

But if the officer admitted she wanted out, and was coming out of the closet for that purpose, thereby providing a rationale whereby the AF kept her in, doesn't that prove she wanted to stay in. But on her own terms, talking openly about homosexuality, inviting publicity even.

It's clear to me that since she REALLY wants to stay in, but be openly gay, that ipso facto under the DADT policy she has to be thrown out. Possibly making her eligible for IIR reactivation.

QED.

For one if she is an Officer she can resign and there is no need to provide a justification. The only exception is if she has incurred a service obligation where the military has paid for her college education or provided specialized training at great expense to the American Taxpayer. We need to hear the rest of the story.

I did an investigation of homosexual "mis-conduct" on a Marine about 3 years ago. He said he was bi-sexual. I asked if he had performed any homo-sexual acts since he had joined the service. He said no, and that he currently has a girlfriend. I receommended retention and the BC concurred. There was no violation of the homo-sexual "misconduct" policy. I think he is still in.

A number of military doctors and lawyers have miraculously discovered they are gay immediately after completing their military-funded education.

The entire policy is non-sensical -- this piece is comical, but at least has a rationale purpose -- to deter people from dodging their service obligations after getting funded educations.

I wonder how will they determine if a person is telling the truth or not? I mean, they can create stories for their own benefit all the time. They can even act out like homosexuals in order to prove that they really belong on those group of people. Well, officers must be careful about it.Stewart B

We are at war. If she is a coward and only wanted to stay in when times were "good," then we dont need her service.

We need leaders who will and can do the right thing when they have to.

I think she is just wanting her 15 minutes in the spot light.

Lets talk to those combat vets who are gay and want to serve and want to go back. Those are the members who really sacrifice!

I would love to go back and rewatch MASH with the idea that Klinger is really gay, and is just acting out an elaborate ruse where he pretends to want a discharge, in order to openly live in womens' clothing instead of getting electroshocked or whatever they did to gay people back then. (Not that wearing womens' clothes is the same thing as being gay, but that's what the show was saying.)

From a young age I was told that honesty and standing up for what you believe in was indicative of bravery; however, I see that people equate following the status quo as an act of bravery. Currently the military maintains a prejudicial policy in regards to members of the LGBTQ community, that is not debatable, it is prejudice. Now, Lesbians or Gays serving in the military may not, upon entering the service, feel strongly about the political and personal implications of that policy, in fact some may even finish their service without a thought towards the policy (except perhaps the threat of being caught). Others, upon further reflection, may come to find the policy abhorrent and decide that "outing" themselves, in order to be released from a prejudicial system, is the best course of action. This does not make them cowards nor does it indicate that they were taking advantage of the system. It simply demonstrates that they came to feel that the prejudices of military service were incompatible with their morals and values.

In regards to this story, the officer may have felt compelled to "come out" after hearing that Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates no longer support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Perhaps she felt that if the top leaders of the Armed Forces do not support the prejudicial policy, then she should recuse herself from service until the policy is reformed. I realize some of you might say, "Well, she knew what she was getting into," however, I would remind you that we have all experienced a moral change-of-heart at some point in our lives and should recognize an individual's right to do the same, especially if they are standing up to a prejudicial system.

I have never understood why there cannot be gay units. Obviously in a liberal society gays would not be obliged to join such units any more than those with opposing or ambiguous inclinations be excluded from them; everyone would then know where they were and could get on with protecting the republic.