DADT Temporarily upheld by appeals court

[SarahG]

I mean when they allowed women into the armed forces there was a lot of gripe, hate, and fight against it. Did they still allow it? YES! Because it should be a human right to serve your country proudly no matter sex or sexuality.

That's a bad example because our military highly dislikes placing women in front line combat positions, we currently do not require women to register for the draft, and we would have to redo the laws to allow a gender-blind draft. It's also a big PR and political disaster whenever women are KIA. Remember that woman with the broken ankle who was rescued a few years ago? That would have been a non-story if she had been a guy. But since she's female, our media went nuts over the story. Our society simply does not view men and women the same when it comes to war. We wouldn't even let women serve on submarines until I think it was last year.

Sexuality is unique in that anyone could be bi or gay. You wouldn't be able to segregate them like our military used to do with blacks. You wouldn't be able to choose whether or not you can draft them or place them in certain positions like we do with women. Anyone anywhere at any time could be gay and the only way anyone would know was if they were out about it.

DADT was basically a policy of putting our heads in the sand and yelling "I can't hear you LALALALALALALALALALALA" thinking that if its not seen and not talked about, it doesn't matter. As long as gays went along with the denial they could serve all they want. But really that does nothing to fix the problem since it unfairly abuses gay couples by keeping the spouses of gays from receiving benefits, allows people to continue to perpetuate a hostile environment where homosexuals would be harassed & abused by their peers, and fails to protect those who are outted belligerently by third parties. Simply waiting for tolerance to approve on its own did not help one bit with letting women, blacks, or any other group serve in the military in the past. The issue had to be forced each and every time and each and every time people got over it eventually.

[BellaBellucci]

That's a bad example because our military highly dislikes placing women in front line combat positions, we currently do not require women to register for the draft, and we would have to redo the laws to allow a gender-blind draft. It's also a big PR and political disaster whenever women are KIA. Remember that woman with the broken ankle who was rescued a few years ago? That would have been a non-story if she had been a guy. But since she's female, our media went nuts over the story. Our society simply does not view men and women the same when it comes to war. We wouldn't even let women serve on submarines until I think it was last year.

Sexuality is unique in that anyone could be bi or gay. You wouldn't be able to segregate them like our military used to do with blacks. You wouldn't be able to choose whether or not you can draft them or place them in certain positions like we do with women. Anyone anywhere at any time could be gay and the only way anyone would know was if they were out about it.

DADT was basically a policy of putting our heads in the sand and yelling "I can't hear you LALALALALALALALALALALA" thinking that if its not seen and not talked about, it doesn't matter. As long as gays went along with the denial they could serve all they want. But really that does nothing to fix the problem since it unfairly abuses gay couples by keeping the spouses of gays from receiving benefits, allows people to continue to perpetuate a hostile environment where homosexuals would be harassed & abused by their peers, and fails to protect those who are outted belligerently by third parties. Simply waiting for tolerance to approve on its own did not help one bit with letting women, blacks, or any other group serve in the military in the past. The issue had to be forced each and every time and each and every time people got over it eventually.

Wow! Perfectly worded.



~BB~

[MrsKellyPierce]

Sarah I agree - Especially on the last part. Where I also stated it does more harm, than good. It fuels hate... I have no argument there. However women are still allowed the choice to serve. GLBT aren't given the choice. Their husband and children also get benefits from their serving.

Furthermore, I don't think it's a bad example at all. It's not like the armed forces will go out of their way to put a gays/lesbians in the military. You wont see recruiters at gay events and bars trying to recruit. I think the fight is very similar.

I do empathize that women are still fighting their way in the military, but it's not as bad as it was say ten or twenty years ago. Why, because women have fought their way every step of the way! There will always be discrimination. Women who serve realize this. Especially ones that do their job better than most men. Male chauvinism will always be around. That isn't a question!

Gays/Lesbians will still have to fight too for their place. There will always be that person who doesn't agree. The military protects women though. Allows them to serve. Whether they draft or not is not the issue. The issue is they are allowed the human right to.

I am not sure why you think it's a bad example.....

Not to mention it's not fair if they search into your love life, emails, letters, and other means to find out your sexual orientation. They do that many times, because of rumors and suspicion. DADT being abolished would protect the many men and women who were discharged by this unfair act. What are they supposed to do not have a love life or sexual life at all, due to serving in armed forces. I think it's very sad Obama didn't do more.

[SarahG]

Sarah I agree - Especially on the last part. Where I also stated it does more harm, than good. It fuels hate... I have no argument there. However women are still allowed the choice to serve. GLBT aren't given the choice.

Women are only allowed to serve in LIMITED CAPACITIES. They're not treated the same as men. They are not eligible for draft, they are not allowed into front line combat positions. They are treated as second-rate soldiers in our military. Period. They have never in the history of our military been treated the same as men. Not today, and not tomorrow.

Gays on the other hand... as long as they help perpetuate the denial they can serve and are treated the same as their peers. A gay woman is treated like a straight woman. A gay guy is treated like a straight guy. Until that is, they come out of the closet, demand their spouses be treated the same, or have someone with an axe to grind hostilely out them to their SO's. Or something like that.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Sarah you are arguing treatment of man and woman in the military. I am arguing they are still allowed to serve in the military. They still get benefits. I know many women who out rank men in military as well. Who have fought the front lines.

The injustice is the men and women who get outed by gossip, rumors, and rummaging through their mail and emails. They get discharged unfairly. They followed the orders of DADT, but they were preyed upon. It happens a lot.

Lastly, I said women are still fighting for their place. They will continue to do so. Gays/Lesbians can't begin their fight in the armed forces, because they are discharged and not allowed to serve. Women again at least have the right to serve. Nor do I think women should be drafted. A majority of women do not want to serve. They want to be mothers and are not military ready. I do not really think that's unfair treatment. It's more of an advantage.

[SarahG]

Sarah you are arguing treatment of man and woman in the military. I am arguing they are still allowed to serve in the military. They still get benefits. I know many women who out rank men in military as well. Who have fought the front lines.

The injustice is the men and women who get outed by gossip, rumors, and rummaging through their mail and emails. They get discharged unfairly. They followed the orders of DADT, but they were preyed upon. It happens a lot.

Lastly, I said women are still fighting for their place. They will continue to do so. Gays/Lesbians can't begin their fight in the armed forces, because they are discharged and not allowed to serve. Women again at least have the right to serve. Nor do I think women should be drafted. A majority of women do not want to serve. They want to be mothers and are not military ready. I do not really think that's unfair treatment. It's more of an advantage.

To put it another way... if a woman wants to be treated the same as a straight guy in our military, there is really nothing she can do about it. She can't go in the closet to get treated fairly. She can't deny being a woman to get better treatment.

Gays are unique in that if they play by the rules & norms, they can fly under the radar and be treated the same as anyone else. A gay guy can hide it and deny it and play his cards right and end up being treated no differently from a straight guy.

They can serve, they can be treated the same... but it comes at the cost of not having spouse benefits, not being able to be frank about their personal lives, not being able to live their life without constant fear of being outted.

In theory... a gay porn star could under DADT join the military and serve the same as a straight guy. As long as it never becomes common knowledge and never becomes a "problem" then the denial can be perpetuated and everyone is pretending to be happy.

[CaliBoy951]

Sarah you are arguing treatment of man and woman in the military. I am arguing they are still allowed to serve in the military. They still get benefits. I know many women who out rank men in military as well. Who have fought the front lines.

The injustice is the men and women who get outed by gossip, rumors, and rummaging through their mail and emails. They get discharged unfairly. They followed the orders of DADT, but they were preyed upon. It happens a lot.

Lastly, I said women are still fighting for their place. They will continue to do so. Gays/Lesbians can't begin their fight in the armed forces, because they are discharged and not allowed to serve. Women again at least have the right to serve. Nor do I think women should be drafted. A majority of women do not want to serve. They want to be mothers and are not military ready. I do not really think that's unfair treatment. It's more of an advantage.

I feel as though change always come from above in the military, and until that happens there will be "issues". Do I think the "winds of change" are blowing...yup!

It will take a very high ranking military person to come out, and then make the changes (or something very bad), and punish those that do not follow those changes.

Remember in early 90's about all that sexual harassment with those Air Force women, well I remember mandatory "sexual harassment" classes. Each Marine in my unit HAD to have 3 hours, if not we were subject to NJP...they were NOT f*cking around.....period.

It will take that exact process to make the change.


My 2cents....again!

[MrsKellyPierce]

Sarah, they spy on the guys and girls all the time....whether they out themselves or not..you have a feminist side you are arguing....its cool. The difference? If they are outed they are discharged, exempt, and no rights at all. Women still have rights in the armed services, still get benefits, and still are protected. A gay or lesbian shouldn't have to FLY under the radar Sarah. Just like a woman shouldn't have to. Women have been serving in the military before they were allowed. Many dressed up as men. I understand your points, but not every unit works against women. Many women out rank men, do better jobs, and are serving on the front lines.

I totally agree with you Cali...that's why I said it would take an executive order. Women are protected, gays/lesbians aren't. I would guess if the DADT was abolished they would put protocol into place. Just like they did when they allowed women into the armed services.

[Paladin]

Kelly, you must realize that DADT was put in place to prevent commanders from going and initiating investigations on hunches, suspicions, etc. It DID NOT change the basic regulation that i referenced earlier. The regulation needs changing in essence to strike that paragraph from each service's policy regulation. I do not think an executive order can do that, but it is possible. However the prez is not a fool, and knows that he can't get that done at the present, same way he couldn't close Gitmo.

Also military service entails an abbreviation of certain rights we have as citizens, I kid you not. They mainly center around political actions and public speaking, etc, but there are restrictions placed on us while we are in the service.

Women are barred from combat arms positions by public law. That law can be changed by congress, but i don't see it happenning unless the combined chinese, indian, pakistani & russian nations declare war on us. I've worked for female colonels in the past - believe me they are not treated as 2nd class citizens. Maybe 25 years ago, not any more.

As far as someone coming out, i've read about colonels & even female 1 stars coming out - or getting outed, and poof - they're gone. some with close to 2o yrs active service - and wa-la no retirement benefits - that's plain wrong.

But that calif court decision was the wrong way any way you look at it. And the justice dept had a duty to defend duly passed laws, otherwise we'll have anarchy.

[SarahG]

But that calif court decision was the wrong way any way you look at it. And the justice dept had a duty to defend duly passed laws, otherwise we'll have anarchy.

The justice department isn't totally controlled by the president. Like most agencies the DOJ is full of career bureaucrats. They'll be there long after Obama has done his four years and retired AND they know it. So Obama can say he wants this or he wants that all he wants, that's only going to go so far with some of the pencil pushers.

Which is precisely why the Bush admin went around illegally stacking the DOJ by using things like gay rights as a litmus test in deciding who got hired, who got promotions, and things like that. They knew the people they put in the right places would be there for many years to come.