If you oppose overturn of DADT
This is the way you do it. I still disagree but at least it’s a rational argument. One quibble:
While stationed on the Nimitz, a guy in my department was taken off the ship, not because he was gay, but because he was caught with another guy in a sexual act in the showers during a power outage.
Uhm, I have news for you . . . totally gay.
October 14th, 2010 at 8:55 am
The article makes a great point. I have talked to many who have served in the Navy who think that since they have started putting women on ships that its just become a giant floating high school.
Would it fix the problem to not allow women to serve on ships? Sure. Is it discrimination? Yes, but who cares if it results in a more effective fighting force?
And thats the point I was trying to make yesterday with DADT. The military should not be forced to comply with all the political PC crap out there today. Just let them fight…. however they want to and with what ever fighting force they want to. I dont care about how they do it. I am just concerned with the results. Just turn them loose and let them fight their wars on their own terms.
October 14th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Its not gay if you’re underway! ; ]
October 14th, 2010 at 11:00 am
A notable comment from over there, what would have happened to the guy if he were caught with a girl, instead of another guy?
Both would have received punishment, and I guarantee one of them would have been removed from the ship.
October 14th, 2010 at 11:03 am
As I commented at the linked site:
The military must be subordinate to the civilian leadership in all things, period. While we should always give strong deference to the military’s leadership on military matters, the civilian leadership has not only the right but the duty to intervene when there are indications that the military leadership is not willing to consider actual facts. DADT appears to be one of those situations.
October 14th, 2010 at 11:07 am
A quibble to your quibble. The point he was making was that the guy was removed from the ship not because he was gay (acknowledging that he clearly was), but because he was caught in a sexual act. That it happened to be a gay sexual act is probably immaterial since, as pointed out by Rustmiester, the immediate remedy would have been the same for a heterosexual act.
October 14th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Exactly. Except that since they were both guys, one or both were probably also removed from the Navy, whereas if it had been with a girl I assume neither would have been. It’s the same act, but a disproportionate punishment just for being gay.
October 14th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Libarace gay.
And, how the heck do you have a power outage on a nuke powered ship?
(Yes, I know it’s possible. I’m just being sarcastic. I used to stand generator watch in the Navy a long time ago. )
October 14th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Well, one positive outcome of getting rid of DADT would be making it easier to report the same-sex sexual predators, reportedly more lesbians than gay men. Now, there is a reluctance to report since the victim gets smeared with the homophobe label. One price of repeal of DADT should be an aggressive campaign to remove all sexual harassment regardless of gender or orientation of the harasser. Only way it works. Judge by actions not by preferences.
October 14th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
My cousin Betty was one of the first females to serve on board a Naval vessel during active deployment (if that is the correct term) several decades ago.
Much like the way the Navy integrated blacks into the officer corps, by selecting highly skilled black petty officers for OCS and subsequent assignment aboard ships, the initial female selections for shipboard service were experienced, long-time Navy personnel. Maybe that was why the initial deployments worked out OK.
The problem with DADT, and with mixed gender crews, is that the same rules do NOT apply to all crew members, in fact if not in regulations. The way to stop such problems is to treat everyone equally, with the same (rational) qualifications to meet, the same punishments for the same violations of good order and discipline, and the same expectations of behavior aboard ship and while serving.
Aside: If the blackout sex act in the shower was two guys jerking off in the dark, not caring that the other was there, DADT was not applicable, anyway. It was just two jerks where none should have been found.
October 14th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
kbeil, you’re correct. The point was that it wasn’t his orientation, but his actions that got him and the other man removed from the ship, and presumably discharged.
And to answer another question, getting caught in a sexual act on board ship with another crew member will get you tossed, straight or gay.
Jake, you said “Unfortunately, there is also a question of whether those opposing ending DADT are actually asking that question [benefits vs. impact] or simply following their own prejudices. The situation is similar to when the military ended racial segregation – it had to be forced by presidential order, and even then the military resisted until personnel shortages caused by high casualty rates in Korea made it necessary.
Even when the benefit clearly outweighed the impact, military leaders opposed integration because of their own personal prejudices. There are many strong indications that the same situation exists now with DADT.”
Sorry, but that’s plain old bullshit. I pointed out the very real, significant logistical problems inherent with allowing openly and actively gay sailors to serve by highlighting the difficulties the Navy has managing heterosexual conduct. This is a real problem, and one which you duck by saying “You’re military. You must do what we say.” While true, it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Come up with a plan that efficiently houses sailors, both gay and straight, one that maintains the same separation we currently maintain between male and female sailors. Try it, and you’ll discover quickly that short of giving everyone their own rooms, it can’t be done.
This simple reality is what is driving the Obama Administration to appeal the judge’s stay.
Or do you think our President is a closet homophobe?
October 14th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
I’m pretty sure homosexual sailors are a lot less likely to come up preggers immediately prior to deployment. Looks like they might be a better choice in re absenteeism of that sort. Maybe heterosexuality ought to be a downcheck for Naval service…with a DADT provision for straight folk who wanna serve.
October 14th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
As I said at your site, the first place I would look for an answer is at the militaries that do allow gays to serve openly. How did they address the issue, what are the results and how well does it work, and would it work for the US military? If “it can’t be done,” then how did they make it work?
Of course, if you assume from the start the necessity for every soldier and sailor from top to bottom to have individual private quarters to shield them from the horrifying possibility that someone just might get aroused from seeing them changing clothes or showering, then you’ve successfully constructed a scenario that precludes allowing gays to ever serve openly – but you’ve based it on a premise that is not necessarily true.
I’ve seen no evidence that military leaders are actually looking at the solutions used by other militaries to see if they would work here. If you can point me to some, especially anything showing those solutions would not work, then I would stand corrected. Otherwise, you seem to be basing your conclusions on the premise that everybody would need their own quarters, and I don’t buy that given that other militaries have successfully allowed gays to serve openly. Essentially, I call bullshit on your call of bullshit.
No, but I wouldn’t be surprised, either. Really, I think he just doesn’t give a shit as long as he can keep stringing out the issue to get otherwise conservative gays to keep voting for Democrats.
October 15th, 2010 at 12:35 am
I’ve served with Gays, Lesbians and Straights while in the Navy in the 70’s and 80’s. DADT was the unspoken rule LONG before Clinton Politicized it.
Actually, the worst part was when some of the Women finally realized that after all their schooling they’d actually HAVE to spend MONTHS at sea, and some immediately got Pregnant, so they could be Medically Discharged with FULL Benefits, which was the Policy back then. Used to piss off the Lesbian Supply Officer at one Command I was at. Heard some Fine Cussing from her at the Club about those “Ladies”!
I think the Can of Worms that the Brass and the Politicians are worried about is when DADT goes away, will the next step be Gay Marriage among Service Members, Survivor Benefits, etc.? THEN some Judge will rule in their favor, and THEN someone will sue to make Gay Marriage Legal Nationwide, because “if it’s legal in the Military, how can you discriminate against the Civilian Citizens Constitutional Rights?”
This will be a very interesting issue for a long time to come.
October 17th, 2010 at 9:27 am
>” not because he was gay, but because he was caught with another guy in a sexual act in the showers during a power outage.
>Uhm, I have news for you . . . totally gay.
Many people (well, me) perceive that there is no such thing as “being gay.” There are homosexual acts, which are forbidden and punishable; but as long as what’s in the head stays in the head, there is no problem. No, no, not that ‘head.’
.