• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Studies of Gays in the US military?

FascistLibertarian

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Hello all
In terms of looking at dont ask dont tell and what having gays in the military does to the US I am only aware of left wing research which is pro gays in the military.
http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt
http://www.palmcenter.org
I was wondering if anyone knew of any academic research which supports the current us policy; either online or in journals?
I know where I stand on this issue and doubt I will change my mind but nevertheless would be intrested in reading academic work from the position I disagree with to try and get a better view of the situation.
Thanks
FL
 
You can be gay and serve in the military as long as you don't violate Art 125. No one is supposed to ask if you are gay and you arent supposed to tell anyone you are gay.

http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/SUBCHAPTERX.html#925.125


925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, ll conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
 
Don't ask, don't tell


'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turns 15
By MARK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON 1 hour, 39 minutes ago

It was 15 years ago, Tuesday, that President Clinton rolled out the policy that came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which relaxed the long-standing bar against gay men and women serving in the U.S. military. While the move was initially hailed as progress for the rights of gays in the military, today many see it as a liability.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080129/us_time/dontaskdonttellturns15
 
This topic has been done here at least once. It boils down to those who dont mind gays in the military vs the US Uniform Code of Military Justice which states that sodomy is a crime. Congress would have to change the UCMJ to strike sodomy as an offense. Otherwise its just all opinion. ;)
 
Obama aide: Ending 'don't ask, don't tell' must wait

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In an overlooked YouTube video posted on Friday, a spokesman
for Barack Obama said the president-elect is committed to ending the policy that bars
openly gay men and women from serving in the U.S. armed forces.

In a response to a question on the Web site "Change.gov" asking whether Obama would
get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "You
don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.'"

Gibbs on Wednesday expanded on his answer, saying, "There are many challenges facing
our nation now and the president-elect is focused first and foremost on jump-starting this
economy. "So not everything will get done in the beginning but he's committed to following
through" with ending the policy against being openly gay in the military. The policy bans
military recruiters or authorities from asking someone about his or her sexual preference,
but also prohibits a service member from revealing if he or she is gay.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would work to end the policy, but because
it is dictated by federal law, he can not ended it unilaterally. Congress must pass legislation
overturning the policy, which was put into place at the beginning of the Clinton administration.
Former President Bill Clinton tried to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" policy when he took
office in 1993, but he was strenuously opposed by the military leadership.

In the last Congress, a bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Martin Meehan,
D-Massachusetts, that would have implemented "a policy of nondiscrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation." The bill had 149 co-sponsors, but it never came up for a full
vote in the House. It has yet to be re-introduced in the new Congress, which began last week.

"The key here is to get bills that pass the House and the Senate, that we can get to President-
elect Obama to sign, and I think that we can do that, certainly, the first year of the administration,"
one of the co-sponsors, Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California, told CNN in November.

Public opinion appears to be shifting on the matter. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll
conducted December 19-21 found that 81 percent of respondents believe openly gay people
should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, while 17 percent said they shouldn't. The poll's
margin of error was plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at the time, retired Gen. Colin Powell, also believes it is
time to reevaluate the policy -- although he has not said he favors its reversal. "It's been 15 years
and attitudes have changed," Powell told CNN in December. "And, so, I think it is time for the
Congress, since it is their law, to have a full review of it. And I'm quite sure that's what President-
elect Obama will want to do."
 
Don’t Ask Too Fast, Newsweek
On gays, Obama's Joint Chiefs chair is caught between his boss and a conservative military.

gays-military-NA03-wide-horizontal.jpg

Keeping Quiet: The majority of active-duty service members oppose changing policies for gays

Admiral Mike Mullen likes to talk to the enlisted troops. On a recent tour of Iraq and Afghanistan,
he gathers them around at each stop and tells them to pose any question they want, large or small.
Mullen is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest-ranking officer in the armed forces.
Though he orders the troops to stand at ease and flashes the smile of an amiable uncle, grunts
don't easily relax around such senior brass and no hand goes up. "I've got all day," he says and
waits till someone breaks the silence. In Afghanistan, a Marine asks about a salary issue. A soldier
in Iraq wants to know if his tour will be extended. The exchanges are awkward, but they serve to
extricate Mullen from the cycle of PowerPoint briefings. "I come out to see where they're living,"
he tells NEWSWEEK. "I come out to see what we're asking them to do."

In the next year, Mullen might have to ask troops to do something many will find even more
uncomfortable: welcome openly gay men and women into their ranks. Such was the promise
made by President-elect Obama in the 2008 campaign—gay-rights groups will hold him to it.
To many civilians, the shift might seem natural. American attitudes toward homosexuality
have evolved since 1993, the year Congress mandated that gays could serve so long as they
hid their sexual orientation. The law, known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, predates "Will & Grace,"
and for most Americans, even the Internet. A 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll put public
support for gays serving openly at 75 percent.

But the military has its own culture, more insular and more conservative than the broader
population's. In a survey of active-duty service members released last week, 58 percent said
they oppose any change in the military's policy toward gays. Up to 23 percent of troops might
not re-enlist if the law is repealed, according to a Military Times poll. Mullen will have to act as
kind of cultural mediator between his new boss and the old institution he has managed for
more than a year. That will mean advising Obama on what changes the military can (and cannot)
withstand and then obliging troops to accept them.

Mullen has a lifetime's experience bridging cultural divides. At 62, he is a churchgoing Catholic;
his aides try to leave time on his schedule for mass every day (though he doesn't usually get to it).
But he's not the product of a strictly conservative upbringing. Mullen grew up in liberal Hollywood
in the 1950s and '60s. His father was a publicist whose list of clients included Ann Margret and
Dennis Weaver. While his predecessor, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, let out more than once his
opinion that homosexuality is immoral, Mullen won't discuss his personal views. Democratic
Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher has held long talks on gays and the military with Mullen and
other members of the joint staff. She says they understand how times have changed. "They
don't want to find themselves crosswise with the new commander in chief."

Before offering his advice, Mullen wants time to study the issue and canvass opinions, not
unlike what he does with other key issues. "I think I owe him [Obama] a very thorough
review of the potential impact [of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell]," he says. From opponents
of change, Mullen will hear that allowing gays to serve openly could harm unit cohesion; that
conservative parents will never send their children to a "gay military"; that straight servicemen
and women won't want to shower with gay recruits.

He will also hear about some hard-to-abide consequences of the policy. While fighting two wars
and struggling to keep enlistment levels up, the military has expelled at least 4,000 gay service
members in recent years and 12,500 since 1993. At a time when Arabic linguists are in huge
demand, around 80 have been discharged since 2003 for violating Don't Ask, Don't Tell, according
to gay-rights groups. Aubrey Sarvis, who heads the Service members Legal Defense Network, says
he's been quietly approached by the State Department for names of the discharged translators.
"If they're good enough for the State Department, why aren't they good enough for the military?

Whatever Mullen's findings, they will be couched only as recommendations to the incoming president,
who will almost certainly have the support he needs in Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
"The military leadership doesn't want to repeat what happened in '93," says Tauscher, when
President Clinton tried to impose gay service on the military and members of the joint chiefs defied
him openly. But Mullen will surely ask Obama to make his changes slowly and include the chiefs at
every stage. Large institutions need time to adjust. Mullen has all day.
 
This came with his State of the Union Address tonight.

CNN link

Obama to call for 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal, adviser says
By Laurie Ure, CNN Pentagon Producer
(CNN) -- President Obama will ask Congress Wednesday night to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod told CNN.

The request will be included in the president's State of the Union address, Axelrod said.

The issue has been a source of contention for heavy hitters on both sides of the issue, who are lining up for a fight.

In a message to Pentagon leadership, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it's time to repeal the law.

"As a nation built on the principal of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger more cohesive military," said Shalikashvili. His letter was sent to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, who supports repealing the policy.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, flatly disagreed with the idea of ending it.

"When it comes to 'don't ask don't tell,' frankly, I think it's worked very well. And we just ought to leave it alone," he said to reporters Wednesday morning.

Weigh in on the President's address

The policy prohibits openly gay men and women from serving in the U.S. armed forces.

The policy bans military recruiters or authorities from asking about an individual's sexual orientation, but also prohibits a service member from revealing that he or she is gay.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, who told reporters on Monday that the president would discuss the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in his speech, supports ending the practice, but wants to go about it carefully.

Levin said he did not have any details about what the president would say.

"If we do this in a way which isn't sensitive ... we could have exactly the opposite effect of what I hope will be the case -- which is to change the policy," he said Monday.

Levin said the committee plans to hold hearings on the issue in early February, although the hearing may be with outside experts -- delaying a hearing with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, that had originally been promised, CNN was told by a congressional source.

Obama campaigned on the promise that he would repeal the law in his first year of office.

Speaking to the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, in October, Obama admitted that "our progress may be taking longer than we like," but he insisted his administration was still on track to overturn the policy.

"Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach," he said.

Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell deflected repeated questions about the policy at Wednesday's Pentagon briefing, directing reporters to take their questions to the White House.

"We continue to work on this problem," said Morrell. "But I'm not going to get into it with more specificity than that."

CNN's Ed Hornick contributed to this report.
 
Another major update:

Associated Press link

Defense Secretary Robert Gates Thursday approved new rules that will make it harder to discharge gays from the military, calling the changes a matter of “common sense and common decency.”
Gates announced new guidelines for how the Pentagon carries out the 1993 law banning gays from serving openly in the military — rules which essentially put higher-ranking officers in charge of discharge proceedings and impose tougher requirements for evidence used against gays.

The new guidelines go into effect immediately and will apply to cases already open. They are considered a stopgap measure until Congress decides whether to go along with President Barak Obama’s call for a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law.

“I believe these changes represent an important improvement in the way the current law is put into practice, above all by providing a greater measure of common sense and common decency for handling what are complex and difficult issues for all involved,” Gates told a Pentagon news conference.
   
 
Same subject :

A Military Downgrading of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

WASHINGTON — Two distinct messages could be heard after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates
announced new measures on Thursday to make it more difficult for the military to discharge
openly gay men and lesbians.

Political activists who support President Obama’s call for Congress to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t
tell” policy heard of the interim steps and offered full support — even though they criticized the
administration as having taken too long. Military personnel, in particular members of the officer
corps, heard that they face reprimand or worse if they go outside the official Pentagon review of
“don’t ask, don’t tell” to publicly advocate maintaining the policy.

Both Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, criticized a three-star
general in command of Army forces in the Pacific for urging those who support the ban to write
their elected officials and lobby their unit’s leaders. “If those of us who are in favor of retaining
the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy,” the commander,
Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, wrote in a letter published March 8 in Stars and Stripes. Mr. Gates
made his frustration clear. “I think that for an active-duty officer to comment on an issue like this
is inappropriate,” he said at a news conference.

Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen have said that all service members who wished to express an opinion
on the ban would have an opportunity through channels during the Pentagon review. Admiral Mullen
said he had spoken with the Army chief of staff about General Mixon’s letter.

The developments that played out at the Pentagon, across the military and among gay rights groups
served as more evidence of the deep disagreements over the current policy, adopted in 1993, which
allows gay men and lesbians to serve in the military if they keep their sexual orientation a secret. Only
Congress can repeal the law, a step Mr. Obama is urging.

The Pentagon study, expected by the end of the year, will assess the views of service members,
families and other relevant groups on how lifting the ban should be carried out. Mr. Gates said the
study was not to determine whether to repeal the law, only how best to institute any repeal voted
by Congress. “Doing it hastily is very risky,” Mr. Gates said.

The four armed services chiefs — representing the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force — have
testified that they remain concerned about moving too swiftly to lift the ban, saying it could make it
harder for their forces to do their jobs while fighting two wars. The interim measures take effect
immediately, Mr. Gates said, and will ensure that the current policy is carried out in “a fairer and more
appropriate manner,” and in a way based on “common sense and common decency.”

The new rules require that only an officer with the rank of at least a one-star general or admiral can
initiate a fact-finding inquiry or other proceeding, or order any discharge under “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
The guidelines raise the standard for evidence, an effort to prevent “malicious outing” by a third party
or a jilted partner. Information provided by a third party must be given under oath. Also prohibited would
be information provided to lawyers, clergy members or psychotherapists, as well as to doctors involved in
the person’s medical treatment or gathered in a security clearance investigation, in accordance with
current policies.

“This looks like a good step forward on the administration’s promise to end discrimination against gays in
the military,” said Richard Socarides, a lawyer who served as the Clinton administration’s special assistant
for gay rights issues.  “My only question is, What took them so long?”

Any open cases now must be reviewed under the new guidelines. Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department
general counsel, told reporters that 428 service members were separated from duty last year under the law.
He declined to predict how many cases under review might be thrown out under the new guidelines.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy organization,
said, “The regulatory changes announced today are another major step forward in making the 1993 ban
less draconian.” The repeal of the ban, he said, appears “inevitable.”
 
I think one of the interesting comments above (from the article) is that the majority of acting service members are against changing the rules that would allow more openly gay service.

What concerns me is any emphasis at all given to what the soldiers believe in that it might shape policy.  It's one thing to conduct a survey just to get a vibe for the military culture, but to suggest that it may shape the outcome is very sad.

The military can have its own bizarre customs that make it somewhat distinct from civilians, but even though the military doesn't have to exactly parallel the morals of the country, it does have to generally reflect them.

If 90% of the country wants gays in the military but 90% of soldiers don't want them, it doesn't matter because the government gets to say what we do, not us.  If tomorrow we wake up and the NDP have 100% support and take all of our guns away, as much as we may say "But we need guns to protect your sovereignty" it wouldn't matter, either.

I'm not stating this toward any of you above but the tone of the article.
 
Petamocto said:
What concerns me is any emphasis at all given to what the soldiers believe in that it might shape policy.  It's one thing to conduct a survey just to get a vibe for the military culture, but to suggest that it may shape the outcome is very sad.
Yet you spent this entire thread arguing that the government should change its' policy on how many medals are awarded for Afghanistan because "some soldiers" supposedly believe there's potential misinterpretation or diminished value in what others' are wearing.

I guess soldiers' beliefs trumping government policy is dumb...unless, of course, it supports the only soldier who thinks a policy is remotely an issue.

:brickwall:
 
Petamocto said:
What concerns me is any emphasis at all given to what the soldiers believe in that it might shape policy.  It's one thing to conduct a survey just to get a vibe for the military culture, but to suggest that it may shape the outcome is very sad.

This sounds remarkably like the former attitude of most civilians, politicians, and yes even senior military leaders prior to 1990 - soldiers should be seen but not heard.  Thanks for your support.  Hope that gives you my 'vibe' on your opinion, dude...



Petamocto said:
The military can have its own bizarre customs that make it somewhat distinct from civilians, but even though the military doesn't have to exactly parallel the morals of the country, it does have to generally reflect them.

If you want to talk about bizarre customs, try looking at the church, student fraternities, sports teams, or any other insular civilian organizations.  Many of them have 'bizarre customs', tolerances and hazing rituals that no soldier would tolerate...

 
Journeyman,

It's great that no matter what I say you will dispute it; in fact you're almost parrot-like that way.

The two issues are completely different.

Greymatters,

Soldiers' opinions are incredibly important for a lot of things, but not when it comes to direct violations of the charter of rights and freedoms.
 
I suspect that, until the US Government allows women to serve in all roles (full combat), the consideration of openly allowing homosexuals to serve is moot.

I know that one focuses mainly on perceived ability and strength, but both of them also include preceived morale issues.  Women in combat roles would have to live in close quarters with men!  Now, change "Women" for "Homosexuals" and you see the similarities of many of the arguments.  (My $0.02 anyway.)

The current war-fighting does not run along well-defined lines that allow women in roles such as drivers, mechanics, MPs and such to stay in safe zones.  They regularly find themselves in the thick of things and have been commended for their action and valour during these times.

The arguments against gays serving openly have been the same ones used againts women serving in combat.  Since the door to the sexes has already been opened with GW1 and GW2, it's really only a short step to accept them fully.  Once they pave the way maybe the chance of gays serving openly would be easier to take.
 
Petamocto said:
It's great that no matter what I say you will dispute it; in fact you're almost parrot-like that way.

The two issues are completely different.

In this case, the two issues are different.....but the simple logic of your responses fail.

Should troops' opinions influence policy decisions? For medals, you say "yes"; for gays in another country's military, you say "no."

Intellectually, you can't have it both ways.


ps - if you want me to stop pointing out the flaws in your postings......you could simply stop posting flawed arguments. The majority of stuff you post though, I simply ignore, so please don't flatter yourself.
 
Petamocto said:
Soldiers' opinions are incredibly important for a lot of things, but not when it comes to direct violations of the charter of rights and freedoms.

Having worked in both the military and civilian worlds, I can tell you Ive seen a lot more violations of human rights in the business sector than I ever saw in the military. 

Youre starting to sound like one of those anti-military parrots - I dont mean to be rude but how old are you? Do you have any experience in either the workplace or the military in which to make a comparison?

 
What do you guys want me to say, that soldiers should be able to vote on how they conduct missions and who is allowed to serve in the military?  Because that's what you're telling me I am wrong about.

Soldiers should not have any say in either of those things, which is why the military is subordinate to civilian oversight in the first place and we're not a militarily-ran country.

Go move to North Korea if that's what you want.

This thread is about gays in the military, and on the first page I commented that I found it interesting that a newspaper put it to a vote if gays should be allowed to serve.

I think that is wrong, and the law is on my side.

If you think I have a flawed argument, then get out of the Canadian Forces and get out of the country.
 
Petamocto said:
What do you guys want me to say, that soldiers should be able to vote on how they conduct missions and who is allowed to serve in the military?  Because that's what you're telling me I am wrong about.

Soldiers should not have any say in either of those things, which is why the military is subordinate to civilian oversight in the first place and we're not a militarily-ran country.

Go move to North Korea if that's what you want.

This thread is about gays in the military, and on the first page I commented that I found it interesting that a newspaper put it to a vote if gays should be allowed to serve.

I think that is wrong, and the law is on my side.

If you think I have a flawed argument, then get out of the Canadian Forces and get out of the country.

They too believe that soldiers should have no say in policy matters.

Perhaps you should get out and go to Korea where narcissism allows a certain leader to use the exact same arguments to implement opposite 'applications of the law and policy;' They simply said that YOU don't get to pick your cake and eat it too and that your argument about soldiers having a say in policy matters is flawed - either they should have a say or they shouldn't. You don't get to pick and choose when (which is what you are doing).

I know where they stand. Where do you stand? because as JM pointed out: In this thread you arguing that soldiers should never have a say in policy matters ...

Yet in the thread about about changes to the tour medal, you are arguing that it should be the soldiers who have the say in that matter of policy as "some of them may believe that a medal is lesser" and that the CF (ie the govnt and DHH policy) has resulted in this.

In other words: You want soldiers to have a say (or not) only when that viewpoint is required to back you up if your own viewpoint is counter-policy to the matter at hand. Kind of like Korea, the rules only apply when you want/need them to. 
 
ArmyVern said:
In other words: You want soldiers to have a say (or not) only when that viewpoint is required to back you up if your own viewpoint is counter-policy to the matter at hand. Kind of like Korea, the rules only apply when you want/need them to.

You are honestly retarded if you can not tell the difference between how we are awarded with medals and charter of rights and freedoms issues.
 
Back
Top