Great comment,
best,
Tom

Never been a fan of DADT, but what did the officer expect when she chose the military as a profession? No, being gay may not be a "choice" -- but joining the military certainly is. The Army is stressful, and I'm sure it is even harder when you are gay.

People who suggest that there is no study required have no concept of the issues involved -- most particularly in the realm of dependent benefits and privacy litigation.

Is the Fed government going start recognizing gay marriage to the exclusion of state law so gay "dependents" can receive benefits? Even if you think so, that doesn't simplify the legal questions.

If you are straight, should you be allowed to request to not have a gay room mate?

There are a lot of policy questions that should be resolved prior to an executive order, no matter which way you fall on the issue.

This article is a farce and timed to coincide with the push by the Administration to end DADT. I am in the 10th MTN and can tell from some of the comments in the article it is BS.

It was written in February. So re-posting it here in FP is the coincidence.

Another point on this article. I find it amazing that all these articles are coming out now. This site and others running anonymous articles from supposed soldiers who 'would never glare or look at a fellow soldier". I'm guessing they've never deployed. The general level of male/female tension is magnified a millions times while sharing even closer quarters overseas. Also, what other regs does this "captain' choose to violate. How could she ever hope to command troops once DADT amnesty is declared, knowing she violated regs on a daily basis for over 3 years. As a junior soldier reprimanded by her, I'd laugh my ass off. This is bs. We've become a social experiment for the Left. I have yet to meet anybody who wants this repealed.

I allowed a possible gay soldier to complete his enlistment after a admission of gay feelings. The resulting investigation would have cost the government and US Army more time and energy then allowing him to finish. Plus he would have stayed in the Army much longer. We were deployed and he was monitored. Not for "gay' activities but for his own safety. His inability to do his job forced others to take more risks outside the wire because I was not about to allow another Barry Winchell. My own NCO's had major heartburn over allowing this kid to finish his tour. I only sold it because any investigation would have ment further movement between FOBs and caused our soldiers added risk on top of daily missions. U people who have never served, have no idea the crap this will cause. It will all be transparent to you until another kid gets his head kicked in. I had the backing of our JAG and we were legally allowed to let this kid finish his time.

I dearly hope the Marines fight this crap to the end. The repeal is a foregone conclusion, the erosion of the last true bastion of whats left of real American values, is not.

So HH6, you violated the UCMJ in allowing the gay soldier to remain on duty under the current rules? To whit a soldier upon revealing that he was a homosexual ("Don't tell) and you just decided not to pursue an investigation? How on Earth will your soldiers ever respect you? Certainly you are exactly like that female officer in the 10th Mountain?

Oh, but you had good reasons, right? You didn't want to travel FOB to FOB. The investigation would have been too difficult right? Well that seems expedient, but certainly not at the expense of the good order and discipline of your unit. Right? Wasn't your soldier at risk of getting his head kicked in? So you were endangering a soldier who admitted he was gay, and yet the other soldiers in your unit didn't choose to implement some sort of street justice? Shocking.

I could go on and on using failed logic to illustrate your own failed logic here, with more of my pithy sarcasm. Commanders implement the UCMJ, it is the highest among a number of regulations but all are open to interpretation. You and your JAG worked through that dichotomy and came through with a necessary solution at the time and look everything turned out ok. Every one of these decisions is measured on the case-by-case merit of the situation at hand. (e.g. I had plenty of second time drug offenders come up shortly before deployment, what a surprise, they should have been kicked out of the Army, we took them instead.)

I see today that the House approved the repeal of DADT by a wide margin. HH6 you best get used to the idea real quick. As an officer it will remain your duty to ensure that all of your soldiers (or Marines) are cared for, regardless of their gender, race, nationality, creed or sexual preference.

Signed, yours truly, LTC, 2008 Iraq Vet and Battalion CDR. (Since you questioned our bonafides, many of the writers here are serving or have served).

HHS, it's hard to believe you've ever served. If you had, you'd know that the author wasn't violating any regs at all. Instead, she was living by the letter of the law, incredibly painfully. DADT doesn't prohibit gays from serving in the military. It just requires them never to share that part of their lives with their co-workers.
In fact, you (and your JAG, probably via the blessing of the unit or group commander) violated regs by allowing an admitted homosexual to continue serving because it was the expedient thing to do at the time, a perfect illustration of a moment when following DADT to the letter just wasn't going to work for your unit. And that's the irony of your post -- you say that DADT is the last bastion of traditional values, up until the point that you have a great troop who works well in the unit who, whoopsie, just happens to be gay. And that's why the law has to go.
Full disclosure: I'm currently a JAG in the Air Force, and I've spent a lot of time dreading the day I'd have to review a discharge package for an airman who'd done nothing other than be gay. In my mind, that would have put me in the same category as the police with the hoses in Birmingham in the 60's. Thank God for the repeal.

I fully planned to bouce this guy until the 06 JAG who spent her day job dealing with DADT cases in the Pentagon said the guy could recant and then get discharged. I wasn't about to risk the life of another soldier to drag out some investigation and further degrade my unit. I'm glad you got around to deploying in 2008. I'm on my 3rd tour..welcome to the war. If Congress pases this disaster I'll have no choice. The Left won't force me to stop doing a job I've done in one form or another since 1991.

This article has now gone beyond the fold, so I don't really expect anyone to read it but I'll respond to Headhuntersix again.

So you didn't see any hypocrisy in your handling of your homosexual soldier vice the comments of the lesbian officer? Indeed. And you decided that because I called you on your stupidity in saying "anyone who has deployed would see the folly of this (or words to the effect)" that you would insult me because I (supposedly) deployed once and you are on your 3rd tour. Guess what? I've deployed more than once since 911 thank you but that has no real impact on my argument - nor does it impact yours. I called out my experience because your ad hominem against all of our varied comments was wrong, I also did so since I was a BN CDR (and not a staff officer as I deployed previously) at the time and thus charged for implementing the UCMJ. See that is pertinent.

Having said all that you would do better to address the particulars of an argument instead of trying to bounce everything your way. Your final comment about "the Left" leaves no question in anyone's mind about what your true feelings are in the matter. That also harms any argument you might have to offer. I am about as far from "the Left" as they come; and yet I know what the right thing is to do to care for PEOPLE who are serving now - and guarantee some basic civil liberties. Without that, what exactly are you fighting for anyway?

The question I still wonder about is - homosexuality excluded could this soldier have done his job? Until he outed himself did he do his job at least as well as the average guy? If not then why not get rid of him based on performance. If so then why would youw ant to give up an able bodied soldier who could assist in your mission.

Regardless, any one trip to the FOB would have been enough to hand your problem to desk duty - and you needn't have made a special trip just for him. I'm sure any old LOG run or meeting run would have done. Kinda undermines all your bitching huh?

Hunter,

Sir, you have made some excellent points about this issue. I was deployed in Iraq in 2005-2006 we had homosexuals in our company. One decided to admit it and get it out. Our Commander took excellent care of him and made sure his out processing was smooth. He also made sure that he was not harrassed by anyone. This was actually uneccesary because no one cared or treated him differently. We also had a guy in my platoon that was gay he was not open about it but we all knew. Once again we didn't care. (I'm guessing lots of soldiers know that one or more of the guys or girls in their unit are gay.) There was no problem with being his roommate or conducting operations. However that was our unit. I think that DADT is less about Homosexuals making unwanted advances and Barracks issues and more about the possible violence that may come down. I think they should have the same rights as the rest of us and treated the same. However it should be a choice on their part whether they reveal their sexuality.

As for HH6 i find your leadership methods are unfortunately common through out the Army. My guess is you guys did not care if he was gay or not nor did he have any problem conducting his mission. The Army represents the American ideal and it Values better than any institution. Homosexuals are part of that legacy and have enhanced it just like the rest of us. As a leader it is your duty to take care of your soldiers and ensure they are fully enabled to complete their mission. Not force your values of discrimination upon them.
SGT, 2005-2006 2007-2008 Iraq 2010-Current Afghanistan.

My theory about the Obama administration's seeming lack of action on this has two parts.

1) I think Obama wants to allow Gates to do whatever he needs to prep the Pentagon in whatever way he sees fit for the change. This can be evidenced by the compromise made this week where Congress can repeal DADT, but the implementation won't be until Gates has completed his implementation strategy (BS?).

2) Executive orders can be given and then taken away. Let's say Obama issued his executive order nullifying DADT. And then let's say Rush Limbaugh became president (Ahhhhh! God forbid!). He could issue an executive order saying that DADT would be reestablished. I think Obama is using Congress to do this because repealing the repeal would be much less likely to happen in the future, if Congress were to vote on it and make it law.

But then again...it's just my theory.

Ahh JP; once again we find ourselves looking back to the Athenians...in a democracy, change in the military wheather it is a strategy, or a policy like DADT is a political decesion. A change in law from congress will not be based on what is right, or how it affects our warfighting, rather on the amount of votes one might gain or lose in the next election.

SOLDIERSDIARY, I hear you loud and clear and understand the cynical and craven nature of our political process. I also understand that the armed forces have a right to discriminate for practical reasons in their selection process. Obese non-swimmers are denied the right to be Navy SEAL’s, colorblind illiterates are denied the right to fly F-18’s, lacking the ability to do basic arithmetic means you are unlikely to be a specialist in nuclear propulsion, or more controversially being a female means you don’t do Marine Force Recon. But being gay and willing to conform to the armed services standards of discipline means you should have a right to compete without discrimination for any of the above examples.

you raise a good point...when the founding fathers wrote the Bible to guide our country's laws, they probably never imagined it would come to this

Good. Then by all means don't raise a child in this world. Then your views may die the ignominious death they so richly deserve.

I like the bible too! And I can quote from it:

Deuteronomy 22
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

-----

So if you are male posting your message and you are married, I demand PROOF your wife was a virgin when you married her. And if she wasn't a virgin, I DEMAND we stone her in front of her father's house as per Deuteronomy.

And if you are a lady posting the above message and you are married-- I demand proof that you were a virgin before you got married, and if NOT, I DEMAND we stone you in front of your father's house!!! This is all according to the bible, so it's OKAY!

So if you are going to quite from the bible, you better live up to ALL the rules and not just pick and choose whatever you feel like.

My first job after college (mid 90s) was at the HR department of a major corporation, just when they decided to begin offering domestic partner health and pension benefits to same-sex couples. We had to deal with all the issues you describe (except gay marriage, which actually would have made things easier because we wouldn't have had to come up with our own definition of the difference between shacking up and a committed relationship). Oh, how mightily we struggled with these weighty issues! It took us, eh, maybe a couple of months (though a lot of that was wasted fiddling with the fonts on the memoranda, because we were also switching from WordPerfect to Word for Windows . . . but I digress).

I know that the military and VA systems are not exactly like corporations, but they're not completely different either. Plenty of people have already done the heavy lifting--and it is not that heavy.

the timing is just flat wrong, stupid, and arguably borderline criminal...just think of those NCOs and officers in charge of units in theatre who perhaps might be slightly busy and have full rucks....this is just one more thing to add that might....just might...have a itsy bitsy effect on morale....they currently don't need anything else to deal with....

..and for those who say it has NOTHING to do with morale in a unit....that may be true in SOME units....but not in others.....I will leave it open for debate where and which units those are...

and 2 simple data points....I had 2 separate experiences as a commander with a gay Soldier in the unit....it absolutely had an affect on morale....that is simply a fact.....anyone who has served a day in a unit knows that personnel issues (whatever they are) have affect on a unit's morale....

I understand SecDef Gates would also have preferred waiting for a review to have been completed by the services prior to implementation, but he is also open to compromise for a shorter time frame. It is possible the letter in question was solicited with the knowledge of Gates in light of that?

That said, at this point in time with this issue having been well in view on the horizon for some time, I would have thought the service chiefs would have mind-whipped it and the JAG corps figured the whole thing out already, and had a policy directive for implementation in the top drawer ready to go?

One wonders if there is in fact some push-back using the review time frame agenda as a stalling tactic? We all know at least one member of the JCS that isn't keen on the idea. I gather there's a survey going out shortly to the rank and file - why so late?

Remember Mad Mike Hoare? I talked with him briefly years ago, and he mentioned he was at first surprised at how many homosexuals were attracted to the trade. He also mentioned he never had a problem with it and found more important issues to be concerned with - like fighting (there must be a point here?).

You bring up a good point. Let's remember DADT has been around for quite awhile - since the Clinton administration. Indeed it was a kind of El Camino solution (half car half truck, doesn't do either job worth a damn) to a big problem.

Certainly there must have been huge studies back then that laid out all the pros and cons and issues and concerns. How bout we blow the dust off of those?

I am usually a lets see the data kind of guy, but in the end you have to go with the gut and what is right. Concerns about partner rights, housing etc. They may be legitimate but honestly they aren't that big a deal. I am sure there was a time when Joe Snuffy didn't want to bunk with Joe Smitty because Smitty wasn't the same skin color. They get over it. And when bad guys are shooting at you they get over it real quick.

...if benefits were monetized and there was no pay differential between singles and married. There are some non-monetary partner-rights issues, but the pocketbook problems stem from unequal pay based on marital status.

Want to keep all this welfare stuff? Fine. But bump up the pay of all single servicemembers $20K to make their compensation equal to that of married members. (Or come up with a rationale for the difference. Betcha can't...)

ducky, they're just taking your advice to figure out the solutions. That's what the executive and legislative branches tasked the defense department to do--figure out the price tag, implications , second and third order effects and alternatives. As the ranking members on the armed services committee, McCain and McKeon are the guys DoD reports to on this matter. Gates has already voiced the same concern; this is not some "back channel" mutiny. The only "back dooring" around here is the attempt to force the military to recognize homosexual unions with federal benefits, then to use that as a precedent for full federal recognition. If you're desperate for federally sanctioned gay marriages, then address that issue with your reps in Congress. In the meantime, I have to spend 20 years getting shot at in every shithole on the planet while separated from my family to earn a federal pension. I don't exactly relish the notion of adding homosexual civilians to the current population of leeches that steal lifetime federal benefits by divorcing some poor service member after only 10 years of marriage. Again, this is not just about allowing homosexuals or blacks or non-citizens or any other group to serve. Everybody knows they already serve and they do great things, even if they do lie to get in.

Sure don't want those elected political civilians controlling the military. Why that would be downright ... proper. We'd be doing it the way the Constitution says and the Founding Fathers wanted. Where could that lead...

I completely agree. But the Constitution charges elected politicians to provide for the common defense, not use the military as a pawn to gladhand to right wing Christian groups or left wing gay rights groups. Most people come at this issue with an agenda besides national security. I just would like to see this handled in a level-headed way. To his credit, the President IS exercising some restraint here, even to the point of being heckled at fund raisers by activists in his own party.

RD brings up a good point about civilian control of the military instructed by the Constitution. There are many officers that dislike elected civilians encroaching upon their uniformed neighborhood. They see the military as some cloistered priesthood of infallibles who should be ‘trusted’ to do the right thing. Fortunately, that attitude is at variance with both the law and the traditional instincts of the American people. It is because the military is such a unique and powerful institution that active civilian oversight is a must and no more so than in insuring that gay people are treated with respect and their rights to serve the nation are protected. It is time for Obama to short circuit the ‘studies’ and other Pentagon roadblocks and order the immediate emancipation of gay people in the service of their country.

People who suggest that there is no study required have no concept of the issues involved -- most particularly in the realm of dependent benefits and privacy litigation.

Is the Fed government replica IWC going start recognizing gay marriage to the exclusion of state law so gay "dependents" can receive benefits? Even if you think so, that doesn't simplify the legal questions.

This is silly. DADT is as much a military issue as it is a political one. Look, if she were writing about the hardships of working in Afghanistan because Army pay was too low, would you still be willing to condemn her? Soldiers have the right to discuss their working conditions.

I would say it is a military issue too when overstretch is a threat and good soldiers can be forced to leave just because they are gay. It takes a lot of time and money to fill that spot once a good gay soldier is forced to go. At some point this is counterproductive.