Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on December 18, 2010, 09:11:12 AM
-
WASHINGTON — The Senate has voted to move ahead on legislation that would overturn the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops — a policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." The 63-33 vote all but guarantees the legislation will pass the Senate and reach President Barack Obama by year's end. Republicans had blocked previous votes on the bill on procedural grounds. But with a major tax bill finished and a Pentagon study released in favor of repealing the ban, several Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the bill. Final passage could come as early as Saturday afternoon.
"We simply cannot let the clock run out and lose this historic opportunity," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, whose supporters vowed to sit in the Senate gallery until the law was repealed.
Story: House passes repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'
Repeal would mean that for the first time in U.S. history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out. More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law requiring uniformed gays to hide their sexual identity.
Under the bill, the president and his top military advisers — the defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — are required to certify to Congress that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' ability to fight. After that, 60 days must pass before any changes go into effect.
The House approved the bill earlier this week by a 250-174 vote.
-
Nice to see that gaylording will be openly allowed in a country in the Western civilization.
In Islamic countries, they still have a "few" obstacles to work out before gays get same rights. 8)
-
Wonder how many twinks are going to sign up now?
-
Wonder how many twinks are going to sign up now?
My guess is that the Navy already is crowded. 8)
Next few days I'm guessing we're gonna see a parade of Outters. 8)
Gay Navy Seal Troopers could be the next secret weapon against Al Qaida. They're pretty motivated to get Islamic extremists to say the least.
-
Senate Ends Military Ban on Gays Serving Openly--McCain has Heart Attack ;D
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Saturday struck down the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, bringing to a close a 17-year struggle over a policy that forced thousands of Americans from the ranks and caused others to keep secret their sexual orientation.
By a vote of 65 to 31, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate approved and sent to President Obama a repeal of the Clinton-era law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy critics said amounted to government-sanctioned discrimination that treated gay and lesbian troops as second-class citizens.
Mr. Obama hailed the action, which fulfills his pledge to reverse the ban. “As commander in chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known,” Mr. Obama said in a statement after the Senate, on a 63-33 vote, beat back Republican efforts to block a final vote on the repeal bill.
The vote marked a historic moment that some equated with the end of racial segregation in the military.
It followed a comprehensive review by the Pentagon that found a low risk to military effectiveness despite greater concerns among some combat units and the Marine Corps. The review also found that Pentagon officials supported Congressional repeal as a better alternative than an court-ordered end.
Supporters of the repeal said it was long past time to end what they saw as an ill-advised practice that cost valuable personnel and forced troops to lie to serve their country.
“We righted a wrong,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who led the effort to end the ban. “Today we’ve done justice.”
Before voting on the repeal, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants who came to the United States at a young age, completed two years of college or military service and met other requirements including passing a criminal background check.
The 55-41 vote in favor of the citizenship bill was five votes short of the number needed to clear the way for final passage of what is known as the Dream Act. The outcome effectively kills it for this year, and its fate beyond that is uncertain since Republicans who will assume control of the House in January oppose the measure and are unlikely to bring it to a vote.
The Senate then moved on to the military legislation, engaging in an emotional back and forth over the merits of the measure as advocates for repeal watched from galleries crowded with people interested in the fate of both the military and immigration measures. “I don’t care who you love,” Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said as the debate opened. “If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you shouldn’t have to hide who you are.”
Mr. Wyden showed up for the Senate vote despite saying earlier that he would be unable to do so because he would be undergoing final tests before his scheduled surgery for prostate cancer on Monday.
The vote came in the final days of the 111th Congress as Democrats sought to force through a final few priorities before they turn over control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans in January and see their clout in the Senate diminished.
It represented a significant victory for the White House, Congressional advocates of lifting the ban and activists who have pushed for years to end the Pentagon policy created in 1993 under the Clinton administration as a compromise effort to end the practice of banning gay men and lesbians entirely from military service. Saying it represented an emotional moment for members of the gay community nationwide, activists who supported repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” exchanged hugs outside the Senate chamber after the vote.
“Today’s vote means gay and lesbian service members posted all around the world can stand taller knowing that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ will soon be coming to an end,” said Aubrey Sarvis, an Army veteran and executive director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
The executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay group that challenged the policy in federal court, thanked Republicans senators for participating in a historic vote. The director, R. Clarke Cooper, who is a member of the Army Reserve, said repeal will "finally end a policy which has burdened our armed services for far too long, depriving our nation of the talent, training and hard won battle experience of thousands of patriotic Americans. "
A federal judge had ruled the policy unconstitutionial in response to the Log Cabin suit, but that decision had been stayed pending appeal.
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center in California, a research institute at the University of California in Santa Barbara that studies issues surrounding gays and lesbians in the military, said that the vote “ushers in a new era in which the largest employer in the United States treats gays and lesbians like human beings.”
In a statement on the group’s website, Mr. Belkin said: “It has long been clear that there is no evidence that lifting the ban will undermine the military, and no reason to fear the transition to inclusive policy. Research shows that moving quickly is one of the keys to a successful transition. If the President and military leadership quickly certify the end of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ they will ensure an orderly transition with minimal disruption."
Organizations that opposed repeal of the ban assailed the Republican senators who defied their party majority.
The Center for Military Readiness, a group that specializes in social issues in the military and has opposed repeal, said the new legislation “will impose heavy, unnecessary burdens on the backs of military men and women.” It said the Senate majority voted with “needless haste” by not waiting for hearings into a recent Department of Defense study of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Elaine Donnelly, president of the group, said that the Pentagon’s survey indicated that 32 percent of Marines and 21.4 percent of Army combat troops would leave the military sooner than planned if “don’t ask, don’t tell” were repealed.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said senators like Scott Brown, a Republican from Massachusetts, “broke trust with the people” by voting on repeal before the federal budget was resolved and “have put the troops at risk during wartime.”
During the debate, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and his party’s presidential candidate in 2008, led the opposition to the repeal and said the vote was a sad day in history. “I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage,” Mr. McCain said. “And we could possibly and probably, as the commandant of the Marine Corps said, and as I have been told by literally thousands of members of the military, harm the battle effectiveness vital to the survival of our young men and women in the military.”
He and other opponents of lifting the ban said the change could harm the unit cohesion that is essential to effective military operations, particularly in combat, and deter some Americans from enlisting or pursuing a career in the military. They noted that despite support for repealing the ban from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other military commanders have warned that changing the practice would prove disruptive.
“This isn’t broke,” Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said about the policy. “It is working very well.”
Other Republicans said that while the policy might need to be changed at some point, Congress should not do so when American troops are fighting overseas.
“In the middle of a military conflict, is not the time to do it,” said Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia.
Only a week ago, the effort to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy seemed to be dead and in danger of fading for at least two years with Republicans about to take control of the House. The provision eliminating the ban was initially included in a broader Pentagon policy bill, and Republican backers of repeal had refused to join in cutting off a filibuster against the underlying bill because of objections over the ability to debate the measure.
In a last-ditch effort, Mr. Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a key Republican opponent of the ban, encouraged Democratic Congressional leaders to instead pursue a vote on simply repealing it. The House passed the measure earlier in the week.
The repeal will not take effect for at least 60 days while some other procedural steps are taken. In addition, the bill requires the defense secretary to determine that policies are in place to carry out the repeal “consistent with military standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.”
Because of the uncertainty, Mr. Sarvis appealed to Mr. Gates to suspend any investigations into military personnel or discharge proceedings under the policy to be overturned in the coming months.
Mr. Lieberman said the ban undermined the integrity of the military by forcing troops to lie. He said 14,000 members of the armed forces had been forced to leave the ranks under the policy.
“What a waste,” he said.
The fight erupted in the early days of President Bill Clinton’s administration and has been a roiling political issue ever since. Mr. Obama endorsed repeal in his own campaign and advocates saw the current Congress as their best opportunity for ending the ban. Dozens of advocates of ending the ban — including one wounded in combat before being forced from the military — watched from the Senate gallery as the debate took place.
Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, dismissed Republican complaints that Democrats were trying to race through the repeal to satisfy their political supporters.
“I’m not here for partisan reasons,” Mr. Levin said. “I’m here because men and women wearing the uniform of the United States who are gay and lesbian have died for this country, because gay and lesbian men and women wearing the uniform of this country have their lives on the line right now.”
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader and a crucial proponent of the repeal, noted that some Republicans had indicated they might try to block Senate approval of a nuclear arms treaty with Russia because of their pique over the Senate action on the ban.
“How’s that’s for statesmanship?” Mr. Reid said.
-
Seems like all pain no gain to me.
The happiest people will be those who will never join the military, while pissing off those already in.
Seems completely idiotic to me. But then again, what else should we expect from the loons on the far left?
-
what bullshit..
-
I just don't see what we gain with this but please teinks who will never join the military while pissing off those in serving now.
But then again, why should anyone be surprised with what the traitorous left advocates?
-
I just don't see what we gain with this but please teinks who will never join the military while pissing off those in serving now.
But then again, why should anyone be surprised with what the traitorous left advocates?
So if an openly homo guy wants to join the army because he feels he needs to stand up for USA the home of the free and fight eg Islamic terrorists who thinks homos should be slayed... What would you tell him?
-
I care about the 99 percent who are not gay and how it effects them far more than the drama twink who thinks his sexuality needs to be paraded around like a badge of courage.
I had no issue with dadt.
-
Neither did any of us in uniform. This is another leftwing snow job. Nobody i know wants this. Nobody I know, who did the survey wants this....more bullshit from the Dems.
-
Blacks, women, and now gays and lesbians will openly serve in the military. The ossified idiots are unhappy . . . and the world moves on to more important things. ::)
I know it hurts to be on the wrong side of history, but why do people choose to be there? I think John McCain and his ilk will be happy when they are dead. They very obviously do not want to live in the future.
John McCain at his fieriest before 'don't ask, don't tell' vote
By Dana Milbank
Saturday, December 18, 2010; 5:48 PM
If John McCain gets any more hostile toward his Senate colleagues, they might consider having him go through the metal detector before he enters the Capitol.
Saturday's debate on the repeal of the "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy was only half an hour old when the Arizona Republican burst onto the floor from the cloakroom, hiked up his pants and stalked over to his friend Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Ignoring Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who had the floor, McCain hectored the men noisily for a few moments, waving his arms for emphasis.
When McCain finally stormed off, Durbin shook his head in exasperation and Lieberman smiled. A minute later, McCain returned - he had apparently remembered another element of his grievance - and resumed his harangue.
It turns out McCain's fury was stirred by a trifle - he had wanted more time for the debate, which the Democrats eventually gave him - but that was typical. It doesn't take much to set off McCain these days...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121802738_pf.html
-
This will happen sooner than late.
-
So sign up Bay. Be a man for once in your twinkish existence and join the military if you are so happy about this.
Fucking fags are a damn joke. They think its all about them all the time. I hope they form a twink batallion and send them into taliban territory first.
-
Whatever I do or don’t do, you will not know about it because you are stuck in the past (with McCain and company). I, and the rest o the world, will be living in the future. Enjoy your sour grapes. ;D
-
No I'm stuck in reality that you fags and bitches are 1 percent of the population and want dictate everything, and will even go so far as try to impose your mentally disordered shit on those dodging bullets for just so you can make a political statement all while you never have or ever had any intention to join the military.
-
No I'm stuck in reality that you fags and bitches are 1 percent of the population and want dictate everything, and will even go so far as try to impose your mentally disordered shit on those dodging bullets for just so you can make a political statement all while you never have or ever had any intention to join the military.
333 - I don't think it's said often enough
you're a fucking moron
-
Why.
-
Why.
maybe you ate too many paint chips when you were a kid
how should I know "why" you are a moron
do you have any friends in real life?
does your family put up with your ranting and raving or do they tell you to stfu and you sulk off to GB.com to spew all your vile shit
-
I call it like it is without the fluff, bs, and pc nonsense. I know its too rough for a deluded lib like yourself, but maybe some day you will get it.
-
I call it like it is without the fluff, bs, and pc nonsense. I know its too rough for a deluded lib like yourself, but maybe some day you will get it.
dude - seriously now, you are just a vile, angry person and well on your way (if not already there) to full blown mental illness. Seek medical help immediately
-
dude - seriously now, you are just a vile, angry person and well on your way (if not already there) to full blown mental illness. Seek medical help immediately
hypocrisy
the real definition, not yours ;)
-
hypocrisy
the real definition, not yours ;)
whatever
clueless as usual or perhaps it's deliberate
I can never tell with you
with 333 I think it's bipolar disorder
-
whatever
clueless as usual or perhaps it's deliberate
I can never tell with you
with 333 I think it's bipolar disorder
Outed.
-
whatever
clueless as usual or perhaps it's deliberate
strawman "the post office is doing just fine...I would buy stock in the post office if I could"
LOL yeaaaaaa im clueless ;)
-
strawman "the post office is doing just fine...I would buy stock in the post office if I could"
LOL yeaaaaaa im clueless ;)
no doubt about that
-
I think this was a mistake and DADT was a good compromise, and they shouldn't be doing this in the middle of war.
But . . . given the fact open homosexuals make up such a tiny percentage of the population, and an even smaller percentage of the military, I don't think it will create too much of a problem. Also, this appears to apply to homosexuals and not "bisexuals," transgendered, and "gender identity" categories, which should make things much simpler.
-
Some early fallout. I hope this doesn't become a trend.
Officer won't sign order for troop indoctrination
Asks to be relieved of command over repeal of 'gay' ban in military
Posted: December 24, 2010
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
President Obama's repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is already damaging the U.S. military.
An Army lieutenant colonel has asked to be relieved of command rather than order his troops to go through pro-homosexual indoctrination following the repeal of the policy, which required homosexuals to keep silent about their sexual preference.
Currently the commander of a battalion-sized unit in the Army National Guard, the officer also has threatened to resign his commission rather than undergo "behavior modification" training intended to counter his religious convictions about homosexuality.
Discover what's causing modern America to disintegrate. Read "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"
The soldier sent the following letter to his commanding officer:
Subject: Request for Relief from Command due to Personal Moral Conflict with New Homosexual Policy
1. I respectfully request to be relieved of Command of XXX Squadron, XXX Cavalry prior to new policy implementation subsequent to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." My personal religious beliefs and moral convictions do not permit me to treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, compatible with military service, any more than adultery, illicit drug use, or criminal activity. I believe this lifestyle runs counter to good order and discipline in military units, and I refuse to sacrifice my belief system, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to fall in line with the command policy that will logically follow. This new policy will undoubtedly include mandatory sensitivity training as well as same-sex partner inclusion in Family Readiness Group activities and integration into the full spectrum of other military benefits, as well as a whole new category of discrimination standards and investigative procedures. I will not, as a commander, put my signature on a training schedule or other document recognizing or legitimizing any of these things that contradict my personal beliefs.
2. I would like to remain in the XXX Army National Guard until I am eligible for retirement (at 20 years and 0 days), which would be in the late summer of 2012, but on grounds of my religious beliefs, I will not attend sensitivity or behavior modification training consequential to this policy change, even if it means disciplinary action. I regret that I cannot continue to serve in the military further, but feel that my efforts would be insincere because my heart will no longer be in it."
"I will not be the person who forces this training on my soldiers," the officer, whose identity was being protected, told WND. He plans to go on the record as soon as he discusses his request with his chain of command.
The officer said he's aware of other officers who intend to resign their commissions.
"These people want to serve. I want to serve. I love my job, but I can't do this job once they begin to implement this policy," he told WND.
Under the terms of the DADT repeal, the armed forces will not be permitted to allow open homosexuality in the service until the president, secretary of defense and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that terminating DADT will not impair military readiness. During the transition period that will precede certification, the military plans to require servicemen to attend mandatory training sessions intended to change their attitudes toward homosexuality.
"Very few soldiers are fine with open homosexuals in the service," said the officer. "I cannot believe the numbers jibe with what was published in the previous survey," referring to a study commissioned by the Pentagon to assess whether the military could safely repeal DADT.
"I did not give up my constitutional rights and freedom of religion when I joined the military. I don't believe in subjecting myself to all of the behavior modification and sensitivity training. They're going to try to push the position that this is an acceptable lifestyle."
Beyond concerns about violating his own conscience and the beliefs of his soldiers, the officer predicts several additional adverse consequences to repealing the military's ban on open homosexuality.
"I don't believe the steps they're taking allow a commander to maintain good order and discipline in a military unit," the officer told WND. "DADT was a compromise to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they kept it to themselves. Now they'll be able to throw their lifestyle in everybody's face and commanders won't be able to do anything about it."
The officer also predicted problems with retention and recruitment:
"I think it might not have an immediate, huge impact, but as enlistments expire you'll get people who vote with their feet and leave the service, and I don't believe the recruiting effort is going to offset the amount of people that leave. The military historically attracts a more conservative group of people who have certain principles and beliefs and swear an oath to the Constitution."
As previously reported by WND, some experts predict as many as a quarter of Americans in military service will resign or leave earlier than planned because of the advent of open homosexuality. Nearly half of the Marine Corps respondents to the Pentagon survey said they would consider leaving the service earlier than planned.
The officer also predicted growing security problems as homosexuals become more prevalent in the service.
"One of the Army values is selfless service. Placing the good of the nation above personal desires is an essential trait of a good soldier, who may be called upon to give his or her life in the nation's defense. When you start trying to attract people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above the needs of their country and national defense, then you have a really dangerous combination. That's when you get instances like PFC Bradley Manning, who is a homosexual. Because of his personal beliefs and bitterness toward the military he decided to leak 150,000 sensitive wires that have done irreparable damage to our nation."
Manning, an openly gay soldier, reportedly sent many thousands of sensitive documents to the Wikileaks website out of anger over the military's ban on open homosexuality.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=243213
-
penny wise - dollar foolish to have done this. DADT was not a problem and now all we are doing is pissing off many others.
-
penny wise - dollar foolish to have done this. DADT was not a problem and now all we are doing is pissing off many others.
better than pissing on them.
-
What was the end of DADT going to change???
-
Brilliant - piss off the majority to placate a tiny amount of vocal gay mental patients.
Yeah - fucking briiliant.
-
it's all part of the AGENDA.....
oooops, I shouldn't have said that; it's a secret.
-
Its not secret at all.
-
Its not secret at all.
then what's next on 'the list' {not referring to the A List-New York} currently on LOGO.
-
then what's next on 'the list' {not referring to the A List-New York} currently on LOGO.
come on
anyone who has been reading 333's post knows that next is the deliberate "collapse" of the government followed but Obama declaring himself dictator on the new Communist States of America
-
come on
anyone who has been reading 333's post knows that next is the deliberate "collapse" of the government followed but Obama declaring himself dictator on the new Communist States of America
that's the Marxist/Commie/LibLeft agenda.
the above secret list is the .....drum roll, please.................. ......................th e GAY AGENDA ! they are not exactly the same.
-
Special Forces Wary of 'Don't Ask' Repeal
Tuesday, 28 Dec 2010
By Rowan Scarborough
Special-operations troops think the elite force is facing difficulties by accepting open gays into one of the military's more politically conservative communities.
Interviews with current and former commandos reveal that to maintain unit cohesion of Army Green Berets, Navy SEALs or other elite covert warriors, the military services and U.S. Special Operations Command need to make a special effort to ensure both homosexuals and heterosexuals know the rules of conduct.
"I'm unsure how the Defense Department will define 'openly gay,' " said one Green Beret officer. "I can envision all sorts of new regulations or changes to existing ones, class after class, accusations flying, and more strains on our soldiers. We will spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, to establish the new rules of the road and to implement them."
Of particular interest is how Navy SEALs, the macho sea, air and land commandos who put great emphasis on physical prowess, will accept gays.
"If an open gay does his job, I think he'll be accepted," said retired Rear Adm. George R. Worthington, a former Navy SEAL. At retirement in 1992, Adm. Worthington commanded the Naval Special Warfare Command, the unit that mints new SEALs in a demanding qualification process.
"I don't think there is going to be that many of them that want to sign up for SEALs anyway because of the closeness and the tightness of the training," Adm. Worthington said.
"My opinion is that they're probably more clerical oriented. Medical profession. Corpsmen. Stuff like that."
Gay-advocacy groups said they know of no research that estimates the percentage of gays in support or desk jobs, compared with close-knit combat occupations, such as special operations and infantry.
Integration in what are called special-operations forces (SOF) is particularly important in the war on terrorism. Covert units are active in Afghanistan hunting down insurgents. Troops are expected to bond closely in small units and survive in harsh forward camps.
Special Operations Command oversees about 60,000 troops, including active and reserves. Of those, about 19,000 are combatants, what the command calls operators.
"It would be premature for me to speculate on how USSOCOM will implement the new policy," spokesman Kenneth McGraw said.
In March, Adm. Eric Olson, who heads Special Operations Command, was asked about the ban during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
"I believe the time has come to consider a change to 'don't ask, don't tell,' " Adm. Olson said. "But I think it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberative manner that should include the conduct of the review that [Defense] Secretary [Robert M.] Gates has directed that would consider the views in the force on a change in the policy. It would include an assessment of the likely effects on recruiting, retention, morale and cohesion and would include an identification of what policies might be needed in the event of a change and recommend those policies as well."
The Pentagon has begun a process expected to last several months to usher in open gays, with the first step the writing of regulations and education program to ensure both homosexuals and heterosexuals know what is expected of them.
"Put the word out," said Adm. Worthington. "If you hit on somebody, you're going to get in a fistfight. You may not like it. I just think if they maintain their composure, they don't bother anybody." The Washington Times interviewed three Army Green Berets who deployed to Afghanistan. They asked not to be named because they are not authorized to speak to the press.
"Our folks tend to be more mature, so that may make it easier," said one officer, who supported repeal. "But, many parts of the SOF community are very white and conservative. That already hurts minority recruitment and will inevitably have an adverse affect on outwardly gay male soldiers." A 1999 Rand study found that "blacks are particularly underrepresented [in SOF] when compared with their presence in the source populations."
The Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for personnel is leading the creation of new open-gay regulations.
Another Green Beret officer said he fears Pentagon bureaucrats are so removed from barracks life they will not take privacy into account.
"It is such a complicated issue, and the military itself doesn't seem to realize what it may be in for in the coming years," the officer said.
"Take the issue of showers. Is a soldier wrong for not wanting to shower with a gay soldier?" he asked "The definition of 'coed' needs to be defined, and it is not adequately covered by existing regulations. I think there will be very interesting lawsuits in the future raised by conservative soldiers as a backlash."
The first Green Beret commando said the military does not even know how many gays are in the active force, making it difficult to target education programs. "So is it worth the strains, is it worth the cost, especially at a period in time when combat soldiers are indeed stressed and the economy is in bad shape?" the officer said.
"My rhetorical question is, 'Why couldn't we have waited until a period of relative peace to implement these changes? That's what we did with racial integration; that's what we did to go to an all-volunteer force."
A former ground intelligence officer who worked with some of the most secret special-operations warriors told The Times: "I believe it will be less of an issue in SOF units where operators are typically more intelligent out-of-the-box thinkers who have gone through an extremely challenging bonding process together."
The Pentagon working group set up to recommend how - not whether - to integrate open gays found the most resistance among Marine Corps and Army combat personnel - the ones who deploy in small units and intimate surroundings.
More than 60 percent of Marines, for example, said avowed gays will hurt their unit's effectiveness. The survey did not specifically query special operators.
The working group's report contained this observation: "These survey results reveal to us a misperception that a gay man does not 'fit' the image of a good warfighter - a misperception that is almost completely erased when a gay service member is allowed to prove himself alongside fellow warfighters.
"Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special-operations force warfighter told us, 'We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.' "
Said Adm. Worthington: "It just depends on how they comport themselves. If they start breaking out the bows and the earrings in the barracks, that might cause a little trouble. That becomes a good order and discipline sort of thing. The services are going to have to tighten up on regulations."
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Special-Forces-DontAsk-Repeal/2010/12/28/id/381198
-
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Special-Forces-DontAsk-Repeal/2010/12/28/id/381198
I wonder why Newsmax didn't mention this from the recent survey of the military:
According to the results of a survey sent to troops this summer and cited in the report, 69 percent of respondents said they had served with someone in their unit who they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of those who did, 92 percent stated that their unit's ability to work together was very good, good, or neither good nor poor, according to the report.Combat units reported similar responses, with 89 percent of Army combat units and 84 percent of Marine combat units saying they had good or neutral experiences working with gays and lesbians.
At the same time, the survey found that 30 percent of those surveyed overall -- and between 40 and 60 percent of the Marine Corps -- either expressed concern or predicted a negative reaction if Congress were to repeal the law.
Those concerns are "driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay service members were allowed to be 'open' about their sexual orientation," the report's authors concluded. "Repeatedly, we heard service members express the view that 'open' homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome advances within units, invasions of personal privacy, and a small overall erosion of standards of conduct, unit cohesion and morality."
Such concerns are "exaggerated, and not consistent with the reported experiences of many service members," the report said.
-
did the 20+ other countries , who allow gays/lesbians, have these same questions and issues?
how did they work them out?
the usa bois and girls cant really be that much different than any other 18-20 year olds around the world.
-
Hang on! 'Don't Ask' repeal faces fresh fire
Congress wary after generals admit they 'don't know' how 'gays' impact readiness
Posted: April 22, 2011
By Drew Zahn
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Republican leaders in Congress are talking about new ways of putting the brakes on repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" after top military brass repeatedly told a House committee hearing they "don't know" how welcoming open homosexuality in the ranks will affect combat readiness.
Though Congress last year repealed the 1993 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military, open homosexuality in the ranks won't officially be permitted until after the president, secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that implementation of the change "is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention of the armed forces."
At a full House Armed Services Committee hearing earlier this month, however, those "standards" came into question, as U.S. military leaders wilted under demands from congressional members to justify repeal of the policy.
According to a report from the Center for Military Readiness, Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif., challenged the military leaders, "I want to know how repeal increases combat effectiveness."
"[It is] too soon for me to tell," answered Marine Commandant General and Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Amos. "Some of this will become evolutionary, revealed over time."
When questioned by Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., Gen. Amos reportedly replied, "Ma'am, I can't tell you at this point. … Will it improve recruiting, retention and combat effectiveness? I can't address that because I don't know."
Army Vice Chief General Peter W. Chiarelli similarly told Hunter, "We don't know yet how it's going to affect combat readiness. … But as we work this out over time, inclusive organizations are usually the best kinds of organizations."
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead dodged the question altogether.
When asked by Hunter if Navy SEAL combat effectiveness would improve after DADT repeal, Roughead deflected, answering, "I believe that we will see great young sailors, who perhaps otherwise would not serve, able to serve."
When questioned how recruiting would be affected, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton A. Schwartz answered, "[DADT repeal] potentially increases the recruiting pool – we will have to see."
In a letter to Committee Chair Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., Army Chief of Staff General George Casey – who was unable to attend the meeting – wrote, "I believe it is too early to say what the impact on implementation of the repeal of DADT will have on our morale, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, recruiting and retention in the Army."
Hunter eventually concluded in the meeting, "I think we heard [all of you] don't know whether repeal will increase combat effectiveness yet."
Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., reached a similar conclusion and challenged the military leaders: "You are the last force that could stop this onerous policy. And I have to believe … you know this is not the right thing. I appreciate the chain of command … but there is an opportunity to not certify this, and it's fallen upon you at this time in history, to be able to give the final say to the Secretary of Defense and to [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Admiral [Michael] Mullen, whether you … believe this is going to improve our forces from this time on out and help us win wars. I ask you to consider this … and that you would not certify this."
Hunter proposes repeal roadblock
Prior to the committee hearing, Rep. Hunter had already proposed House Resolution 337, which would expand the certification requirement to repeal DADT to also include the service chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.
Following the hearing, House Armed Services Committee Chair McKeon added his support to the additional requirements, telling C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program that he felt the Democrats pushed the DADT repeal through during the post-election "lame duck" session without giving Congress the opportunity to "ask proper questions."
"I think [Hunter's bill] makes [certification] a better process," McKeon said. "I think the way this process was rammed through, it was done politically."
"I'm not in the military," McKeon added, "but my job is to help protect the military and to see that they have what they need to carry out their missions and to return home safely. If there is something that is going to be a distraction to that, that might put them in a difficult situation, I don't think we should be doing that. "
When asked if he would be upset if certification happened and DADT were effectively repealed, McKeon replied, "It's not going to bother me at all. What I'm concerned about is the troops that it may bother. I don't have a problem with it, other than what it does to our readiness, what it does to our recruitment, what it does to our retention. I don't think we have really fully answered those questions."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=290329