Serve Openly - DADT is done...

[AntiM]

Yes, before DADT, you pretty much had to come forward yourself. I once asked to switch rooms because one of the ladies involved worked for me. I talked to the female CO (room changes were pretty much forbidden), told her I did not want to get anyone in trouble, but also didn't want my newly attained E-6 crow in jeopardy. My roomie's SO worked for me, and they weren't being as discrete as I was comfortable with, and invited far too many junior sailors into our room. People were asking questions. I started sleeping in Larry's room, his roomie didn't care as long as he could walk around naked in front of me. Professional, huh?
That chat with the CO is when I learned that under the old policy, you had to perform the act yourself, or see an explicit sexual act without so much as a shadow of a sheet in the way. She was very understanding. So with permission, I swapped a gay room mate who had rudely timed sex for an OCD woman who ironed her socks and underpants and slept fully dressed. I was the one who moved, swapping with the gay woman who worked for me. We were all so paranoid! It worked out though, no one wanted to pursue anyone's personal life on Diego Garcia. (Club Med, Indian Ocean, lots of hankypanky of all sorts at all levels). It sounds so stupid now, but then it was a huge scary issue.

From what I could tell, DADT required far less "proof" to throw a service member out. A step forward on paper, but surely not on an individual basis?

[Sham]

From what I could tell, DADT required far less "proof" to throw a service member out. A step forward on paper, but surely not on an individual basis?

Having never been in the military, I assumed that this was all a step in the right direction. I am now sure my assumptions were be wrong. Still, I don't think our government could have abolished this discrimination without some sort of step in the middle. It was just apparently horribly carried out--like nearly everything they do.

[cpart]

From what I could tell, DADT required far less "proof" to throw a service member out. A step forward on paper, but surely not on an individual basis?

I came to say this exact thing. Do people REALLY thing that gay people will be treated equally in any military branch? Really...? It is a sad sad reality that they won't be treated equally because the government passed a bill. But, it is a step in the right direction. Change has to start somewhere.

[Eric]

From what I could tell, DADT required far less "proof" to throw a service member out. A step forward on paper, but surely not on an individual basis?

I came to say this exact thing. Do people REALLY thing that gay people will be treated equally in any military branch? Really...? It is a sad sad reality that they won't be treated equally because the government passed a bill. But, it is a step in the right direction. Change has to start somewhere.

Equally- not right away. But after a rough integration of African-Americans we did finally achieve Colin Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (of course he's still the only African-American to ever even be on the joint chiefs...), it's possible someday that we will achieve the same thing with an out gay or lesbian soldier (there are already retired generals who've come out).

What it will do is end the blackmail and give gay and lesbian soldiers a chance to fight back against assholes. Under DADT they could get discharged for trying to fight back because "they" brought up the gay issue- now that it's against regulations to discriminate the bigots are going to be the one targeted, as they should have been all along (instead of tormenting & beating other soldiers- and civilians- to death because they're gay, and often getting away with it)

What makes me still pissed is that the legally married spouses of gay soldiers won't receive the same benefits as everyone else (and that I receive as the husband of a female soldier)

[Ugly Dougly]

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_ ... te_florida

Hill, wearing a gray "ARMY" T-shirt, then appeared on-screen and told the candidates that he is gay and that he had been forced to lie about his identity when he was deployed to Iraq in 2010 because he didn't want to lose his job. He then asked if the candidates would "do anything to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers" now that the "don't ask, don't tell, policy has been officially repealed.

His video then ended and ... a handful of very loud boos erupted in the debate hall. Otherwise there was silence -- not one cheer for an active-duty soldier asking the candidates if they'd let him continue serving his country without lying. No other voter-submitted question all night elicited such a harsh response.

[Elderberry]

Yup, ranks right up their with all the applause at the last Republican debate for letting the person without health care die if he became suddenly ill. What's with those people?!

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_ ... te_florida

Hill, wearing a gray "ARMY" T-shirt, then appeared on-screen and told the candidates that he is gay and that he had been forced to lie about his identity when he was deployed to Iraq in 2010 because he didn't want to lose his job. He then asked if the candidates would "do anything to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers" now that the "don't ask, don't tell, policy has been officially repealed.

His video then ended and ... a handful of very loud boos erupted in the debate hall. Otherwise there was silence -- not one cheer for an active-duty soldier asking the candidates if they'd let him continue serving his country without lying. No other voter-submitted question all night elicited such a harsh response.

[Sham]

What makes me still pissed is that the legally married spouses of gay soldiers won't receive the same benefits as everyone else (and that I receive as the husband of a female soldier)

All in due time Eric, all in due time!

(remember that baby step thing?)

[theCryptofishist]

What makes me still pissed is that the legally married spouses of gay soldiers won't receive the same benefits as everyone else (and that I receive as the husband of a female soldier)

All in due time Eric, all in due time!

(remember that baby step thing?)

As someone who's well into early middle-age, I hope to see this before I die. We've already dicked around for the two decades. That's pretty much an entire generation of people getting into the army and earning towards retirement. And how much time and energy wasted?

[Eric]

(remember that baby step thing?)

There are gay couples being torn apart because only one is a US citizen. There are couples not admitted into hospitals when their partner of decades is dying. There are couples who've been together 20, 30, 40 years who are denied basic government acknowledgement.

Would you accept "baby steps" if it was your "partner" in the hospital? When it was the person you'd spent decades with being deported? When it's the person you've made a commitment to spend the rest of your life with unable to get medical treatment because you can't put them on your insurance? When your partner is thrown out of the house you've lived your life in together because their name isn't on the lease? Or not getting your Social Security benefits when you die & getting thrown into the street because they can no longer afford the rent (and are too old to work).

These are real things happening to real American's now, this the reality of gay & lesbian (and transgendered) peoples lives. Baby steps doesn't cut it. Asking us to wait for them is like asking an African-American to just stay at the back of the bus until the nice white people decide to let them sit where they would like, or like asking women to accept less pay for equal work until the nice male boss decides to pay them better. Inequality is unacceptable, period, and I refuse to politely wait for bigots to become less bigoted so I can have the same rights as them.

[dr.placebo]

Have to agree with Eric. Anything less than full equality is an insult and unacceptable.

I feel good about the incremental progress, and I think that full equality will happen. The pace is maddening, though.

[Box Burner]

DADT was an outstanding policy that the military adopted, as it was a stepping stone to abolish the discrimination. Our country simply could not have made the jump without it. We only understand baby steps.

Don't look at DADT through rose-colored glasses: more people were thrown out under DADT than before it. Supposedly you would only be thrown out if you "told", but most cases involved anonymous tips, military snooping and innuendo, not gay soldiers coming forward. Every gay/lesbian soldier I know (with a couple of well known exceptions) kept their orientation hidden because they wanted to serve their country. The ones who were booted got thrown out because of someone else, not themselves.

The "Don't Ask" part was completely broken.

It was a failed policy to try to make it easier for the conservatives to take (which of course was a complete failure itself). It kept gays & lesbians as second class citizens in the military and in danger of losing their careers for 20 years, engendered witch hunts and threw out badly needed personnel (remember the gay Arabic specialists thrown out right as we went to war?). Now we're only second class citizens in the non-military world.

Our country made "the jump" to admitting African-Americans & women without baby steps, the military is strong, it could have made this jump as well. It was a complete failure of politics that made DADT possible, it was not a necessary step.

It was never a question of the Military being strong. The problem is that our government is staffed by people with Judeo-Christian beliefs. (Islamic-Muslim beliefs are no better. And not really much different.) In spite of "separation of church and state" Judeo-Christian beliefs are forced on the populace. 2000 years ago the Romans didn't have this problem. They did not care what you believed as long as you payed homage to Rome. In fact they made it it a point to allow local beliefs and practices to exist. The Jews were one of the weirdest groups they tried to accommodate. How you lived or what you believed was your own business. You could fuck your neighbors wife as long as he either did not know, invited you to or did not care, (or was not powerful enough to have you killed for it). Worshipers of the sacred gerbil were tolerated right along side of those who followed Apollo or Athena. One god or many, it did not matter. So if you saluted Rome, did not promote rebellion and paid your taxes, it did not matter who you worshiped or which way you chose to swing. Once Christianity was declared the official religion of Rome in the 4th century everything went to shit. We have had no peace since then. Nor has there been any tolerance.

[Eric]

Once Christianity was declared the official religion of Rome in the 4th century everything went to shit. We have had no peace since then. Nor has there been any tolerance.

Ehh... no. Rome was at war for almost it's entire existence, the famous "Peace of Rome" only applied within it's borders, and historically only during the reign of the "Five Good Emperors" (Nerva- Marcus Aurelius, 98AD- 180AD), and even then there was rarely peace. There were constant civil wars through the Republic & the Empire long before Christianity became the majority religion, and after 235AD the Empire was basically in a protracted civil war for 160 years, with areas being overrun by one side and then by the other. This is well before Christianity became "the" official religion. I've got some great fairly recent books on the Roman Empire I can refer you to if you'd like that deal with it less from a top-down history & more of an overall history based on current archeology & more recent studies.

However, Roman sexual politics & their military honestly have nothing to do with the current discussion any more than the current Russian military & it's politics have to do with how the US manages it's armed forces & it's civil policy. There are Jewish & Christian leaders at the forefront of the movement towards gay rights, you can't use a broad brush to paint them as anti-gay anymore than you can use that brush to paint non-monotheists as pro-gay (or neutral). Not all of them are (see India, China, most of Africa...).

[Elderberry]

But painting is always more fun when using a broad brush!

[Box Burner]

I suppose that my brush is a little too broad. And certainly a broad brush does not present any detail. Sorry about that. I do know that Rome was at war for most of it's existence. Rome was, after all an expansionist state and had many enemies. Inside as well as outside of it's borders. And I do also realize that there are Jewish & Christian leaders working at the front of the issue. The one God only belief of the Christians is at the heart of the intolerance we see today. We are not that far from the inquisition to not feel it's effects. And even as in the days of Rome, you still have to at least pay lip service to the beliefs of those in power to gain any favor. Politics and politicians have not changed much over the centuries.

And yes, I would like to see some of the books you mentioned. Some recommendations would be much appreciated. As you noted, top-down history is not all it's cracked up to be.

[Box Burner]

But painting is always more fun when using a broad brush!

No it isn't. But you do use a broad brush to paint the background before you put in the foreground and the details.

[Elderberry]

You mean there are details to have to worry about?!

But painting is always more fun when using a broad brush!

No it isn't. But you do use a broad brush to paint the background before you put in the foreground and the details.

[Foxfur]

I'm a non-monotheistic christian. Whatever god you do or don't believe in, whatever. Do well by others and love everyone to the best of your ability and that's yer ticket to heaven, valhalla, nirvana, etc.
Ain't been in a church in 20yrs. Don't have any need to.
Last one insisted I had demons in me. Told the preacher we all do.
My 2 cents.

[graidawg]

I'm a non-monotheistic christian. Whatever god you do or don't believe in, whatever. Do well by others and love everyone to the best of your ability and that's yer ticket to heaven, valhalla, nirvana, etc.
Ain't been in a church in 20yrs. Don't have any need to.
Last one insisted I had demons in me. Told the preacher we all do.
My 2 cents.

foxy you are one of the people i admire most. However i must bring you up on this. You cannot be a non-monotheistic christian. BY defininition. Read the first 3 commandments. christianity is a one god religion

actually i take that back. I just read the first commandment again. sorry, you have educated me