Slashdot Mirror
Senate Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
An anonymous reader writes "The Senate and House have now acted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, [a decision] which President Obama will soon sign into law. While this does not permit homosexuals to openly serve, it does return control of the policy to military leaders after nearly two decades."
Now get rid of torture and death sentence and you'll upgrade from stone age to bronze age!
A protocol with an ask request without a tell response could be considered an early form of udp.
My brigade is more fabulous than yours.
Here's a thought: How about just removing any sexuality based stuff from the books and then it's not an issue? Win/Win/Win/Win
Burma?
Um... http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-27/politics/obama.gays.military_1_repeal-policy-that-bars-gays-servicemembers-legal-defense-network?_s=PM:POLITICS
I agree that he did not physically vote for this and he could have done far more but to say this is "no thanks to Obama" is just plain wrong.
where have you been? He has been achieving his goals since day one.
Its not much of a thought. DADT was implemented because nothing was in the books, so it became an issue when individuals had (for lack of better terms) issues.
Now that all you do is remove the policy, the same problems will come back, because now there is no policy to say that you cant discriminate.
You can find similiar problems with the US constitution; historically, we have had to specifically state that women or black people also count. Sadly, there are plenty of places in the US where if those ammendments were not made, they wouldn't.
Given the scale of the US political system I am amazed anything gets done at all. I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities. It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Obama and Gates will make sure they have a policy. They will just need to rewrite a few regulations to exclude homosexual behavior from being applied. If they catch two soldiers engaging in Homosexual behavior, then they will just use the fraternization section of the UCMJ.
Let's see. Does the name Alan Turing ring a bell? The same guy who saved more lives in WW2 than anyone else by cracking the german cypher codes was also forced to take female hormones to chemically castrate him to avoid going to jail for being gay (1952).
The military owes a lot to the gays and lesbians, both civilian and military, who put up with the intolerance and ignorance to serve their country. The military is also the single biggest spender on technology. Any change in military hiring and staffing of this nature is relevant.
The summary is a bit inaccurate - the military is in fact required to implement the repeal; the actual timetable is set out in the bill, based on certain milestones. So DADT is pretty much dead.
I'd rather have the gays in the military than the homophobes. At least then they'd all believe in the freedom they're fighting for.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
If anyone's worried about that, they can continue to choose to hide their own sexuality as long as they please. And I'm pretty sure they're more qualified to make that decision than some random blowhard on the Internet.
Let me start off by saying I often agree with the Republicans, but I have been saying DADT was a bad policy since it first came about and it has nothing to do with gays serving in the military. This policy was a side step, it was like the solution of cutting the kid in half for joint custody, no one liked it. The reality of this policy after all was not "Don't Ask Don't Tell", but was instead "If we don't find out it is ok", just look at the number of gays in the military that were outed through no action of their own, who then had to face the punishment. At least now we can move on to something that is A POLICY.
I think you need to pay closer attention. The Democratic congress has worked almost every work day of each month, with some time off during the traditional times taken off. The Republicans are the ones who are never in session. during the Bush years, they worked 10 days a month... and the new house leadership has already scheduled next years session and they are back to 10 days a month.
Other countries have gays and lesbians serving openly without problems. Maybe you need better leaders?
Its not much of a thought. DADT was implemented because nothing was in the books, so it became an issue when individuals had (for lack of better terms) issues.
No. DADT came about because Clinton wanted to repeal the ban, (Homosexuals were considered security threat because they could be blackmailed into spying. How openly homosexual soldiers could be blackmailed on being gay, was never clear.) and there was push back because of fear that "sodomites" would try to rape straight soldiers while taking refuge from artillery barages in fox holes and whatnot. And really, what red blooded straight American boy with bulging muscles can resist the sailor from the Village People?
It was a compromise because bigots wanted to stay bigots. Clinton should have just pulled a Truman and ordered it.
From personal experience in the military, and from being in a war, I can tell you that you feel close to your buddies and that sexuality is almost non-existent in the sense most people thing about it, when you are in combat. After a few days under fire you just comfort each other however you can, and nobody is self conscious about showing affection to each other, man or women. You just want to do a good job and take care of each other.
Let me change one word in your first sentence (in italics):
This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate blacks.
Which was very true when the army was first integrated, and it's still true today. Many of those people were in the army then, and some of them still are.
The army survived integration, though, and it's fine. It'll survive the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and it'll still be fine
as a soldier. I would file for a discharge at the first possible opportunity and choose not to renew any enlistment. You should not have to cover your ass as well as your ass..
Nice homophobic rant. You might look at the rules about fraternization among soldiers. They will still apply. So your virgin butt hole is safe.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You must never have served. There have always been gays in the service, usually left alone if they do their jobs.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
It really would be good for California to form it's own country. We would be much better off socially, financially, etc. California's economy as a nation would be about 9th in the world.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Out with "An Army of One" and in with "We're Fabulous!"
Conservative, mod down for violating
The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" is a disaster from a military standpoint. Just when we finally developed the ability to make our planes invisible to radar, our enemies will be able to track them using gaydar.
Why is Guantanamo a priority and DADT isn't?
Unlike the Iraq war, practically speaking, Guantanamo doesn't make a big difference. There are only 174 people there. The biggest benefit to closing it is a "we care about people's rights" angle. Which is an excellent idea, but doesn't DADT fall into the exactly same category? It probably even affects many more people in the practical sense.
From a more realistic standpoint, relationships between enlisted personnel is not frowned upon for the most part, provided they are the same rank or at least both NCO's or non-NCO's (non-commissioned officer). Yes, there are different enlistment dates and more responsibilities are given to the soldier with the earliest enlistment date when they have the same rank, but that doesn't really apply to relationships from what I've seen. The big no-no amongst enlisted is if one is an NCO and one is not. If a Private and a Staff Sergeant hook up then the SSG can get in quite a bit of trouble for abusing the rank and higher authority. This is all assuming they are in the same Unit; soldiers with different MOS's and not in the same unit or company should be able to date whomever they want. It happens all the time and I know several NCO's married to non-NCO's and even officers.
People meet and fall in love in the military on a daily basis, regardless of rank or status.
Loading...
Are you kidding? What we need is better citizens.
You must admit that this is not about equal rights, but about about getting more bodies to help blow shit up.
America is headed toward a state of perpetual war, but still has an all-volunteer force. Nobody would support or comply with another draft.
No, a Confederate victory would have continued slavery for what, another decade or two, lead to more intervention the western hemisphere, and following slavery, how long would segregation have lasted?
Remember, southern states wanted Cuba and Haiti annexed, intervention and take over of Central America.
So you are arguing that because South Carolina wanted to keep blacks, and any whites who were even 1/32 black, as slaves or for a few third class citizens, and Maine and California thought those people should be free, that the country would have been better off with that "state's right" approach?
"States-rights" when talking about the United States from 1789 to 1865 means you support slavery of blacks.
This same bullshit happened twice already. Negroes in the Army..Oh Noes..its the end!! Women in the Army..our forces are doomed. Openly gay Gays in the Army. There will be a bit of friction and then the Army will adjust OK. Anyhow it's nice to see the bigots are now out and the gays are in.
Seriously, if somebody wants to pick up a rifle and go defend my cowardly ass, why on earth would I care who they sleep with when they're on leave.
Why not? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to.
I'd prefer to have neither really.
I think both DADT repeal and Guantanamo closing should have happened long ago. I just don't think that social progress should be stopped until all terrible injustices get resolved first. Otherwise we can get into a loop of:
Let's repeal DADT? No, there's Guantanamo first
How about now? No, there's the Iraq war first
How about now? No, now we started another war somewhere else
How about now? No, there's...
And progress for millions gets stopped by something horrible happening to a few people somewhere. I'm not saying to reverse the order either, we could just do both things. There are millions of people in a country, it's possible to fix several issues at once.
The largest percentage of illegal immigrants (most of whom don't pay taxes)
That's bogus. They pay sales tax, they pay property tax via rents and the ones who work with fake papers pay income tax via withholding and fica and they don't get refunds or social security. The ones who work under the table make so little that they would probably qualify for the tax credits and other services given to the working poor if they were legit.
The stupid is strong with you.
Alan Turing wasn't some random gay person "working with technology." He fucking invented it.
Douchebag.
--
BMO
Canadian Military Changes Transgender Policy
"Under the new policy, Canadian soldiers are instructed to wear the uniform of their “target” gender, regardless of their biological sex. Military personnel are also instructed to give transgender soldier privacy and respect for their decision — for example, not asking reasons when a soldier changes his or her name on military records. "
Where's it going to go? It's going to go and price itself right out of the market. Thanks to the global market and technology shenanigans that have been played with food, food production for export/shipment just can't function without near-slavery wages on the fields. If you really want to end illegal immigration, you should be focusing on ending food export/shipment, dismantling NAFTA, and ending the War on Drugs.
When Congress works hardest, the nation hurts most. Can I hear 8 days a month?
Dark Reflection
While it's granted that people who admit to doing something that sounds unusual or strange can be distracting, where, exactly, do they get the idea that people who openly admit to being homosexual is going to be any more distracting than anyone else who openly admits to doing anything that other people around them might not necessarily understand?
For example...
"I really enjoy vampire larping"
"I often wake up in the middle of the night to find I've been sleep-masturbating."
"Twilight was a good movie"
I mean, the list is endless. Who would not find any of the above remarks so alien to their own experience that they might find simply being around a person who admitted to any of the above too distracting to usefully concentrate?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Sooooo... openly gay soldiers were a security risk and prone to blackmailing, but closed gay soldiers who risk being kicked out of the military should it become known are not...
I think you need military intelligence to understand that logic.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Freedom trumps discomfort, every single time.
If you are uncomfortable with other's freedom, (again back to the consenting adult litmus) then you are a bigot... you are irrationally opposed to another person's equal rights on the basis of irrelevant or woefully misguided reasons.
It's pretty simple really. It's absolutely enough to call someone a bigot over "one issue". People were once afraid of blacks in the military too. well, fuck those people, I have no problem at all making them "uncomfortable" if it means another human being gets to actually live their own lives, as they choose, with EQUAL rights.
and fuck these people for being afraid of gays serving openly too, just as heartily.
Men don't shower together in the military! This "shower together" meme is stupid, yet rich with homoerotic subtext. Is that what people think of the military? All day, a bunch of guys getting wet and soapy under a stream of hot water? I was in the Marines and the only time there was a group shower was the 3 months of boot camp, where you are so sick and exhausted, EVERY DAY, that you don't even wake up with a morning boner, much less have the energy to perv on guys in the shower. Everywhere else there are individual showers. I was on a tiny FOB in northern Iraq, living in tents and we built a shower stall, rather than some sort of group shower. Why are straight men afraid to shower with gay guys anyway? Women have good reason to be leery of showering with guys. Aren't 99% of rapist men? Combine that statistic with the physical shape a man is required to be in while in the military and women don't stand a huge chance of resisting, do they? I found on Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, that 15% of the women coming back from the current wars and going to the hospital have been doing so because of "sexual trauma." Sounds like women have a good reason to be afraid of straight men. What good reason do straight men have to be afraid of the gays?
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Men and women were pretty heroic in World War II and the Korean War, just to name two. DADT wasn't in effect back then. I bet that GLBT and everything else were serving in the military back then, too. Hard to believe, I know... But I guess we are somehow more professional because we don't allow gay people to serve?
Speaking of professional... You know what would happen if you did this in a business? You'd get your ass sued right off, and rightly so.
Love sees no species.
I indirectly refer to my sexuality at work all the time, like every time I refer to my wife as in, "Yeah, no problem I can stay until 5 today, my wife is getting the kids today."
Being required to keep your sexuality hidden, basically amounts to a ban on talking of, even indirectly, your private life.
Are heterosexual soldiers required to completely refrain from making any statement that tags them as heterosexual ? Are they allowed mentioning the wife ?
It's blatant discrimination to require silence from homosexuals, on topics heterosexuals are free to discuss.
Aristophanes Clouds is a satire / theatre comedy. So some of the views shown by the characters will represent what Athenians thought was funny rather what was true so might not represent true views of the time. Don't take what's said as being the Athenian view of society. After all if you were to do that reading other Aristophanes you'd believe that all Greeks thought that rain was Zeus pissing through a sieve.
Other references from the time to cross references Aristophanes and strengthen your arguments?
Though of course there is always a grain of truth in comedy.
From my classical studies I remember reading that gay relationships were encouraged on the grounds that soldiers would fight harder for their lovers in the line next to them. This paper seems to cover some of that ground: "The Eros of Achilles: Homoerotic Bonding Among Combat Soldiers" by J Laskaris - Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 2000 - vol 10 p139 onwards.
For DADT, there's a very very easy solution - the President is Commander in Chief of the army, he can literally say "this is bullshit guys, you must treat people of all sexual orientations equally"
I might be missing something about the US chain of command, but my understanding was that DADT was passed as a law (wikipedia confirms this: federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654)). No officer, even the CinC, may give an order to violate a law without facing court martial. If he ordered the generals to ignore DADT, he would be telling them to ignore a law, which would be an illegal order and they would have no obligation to follow it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It is kind of silly to worry what will happen as a result of gays being in the military, since they have always been there. They just haven't been allowed to admit it.
You could make the same argument about any number of rights issues: "Whether or not you agree with civil rights, it's hard to argue that allowing blacks to vote and ending segregation is a priority when we have the Vietnam War and Soviet imperialism to worry about. Until we do something about that, civil rights is an utter waste of time" Or how about:"Whether or not you agree with the suffrage movement or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority. After all we have the Great War to worry about. Until we win against Germany, debating about an amendment to give women the vote is an utter waste of time"
How can we say that basic civil rights aren't a priority? How can we say that ending discrimination is a waste of time? That justice is just too inconvenient right now? Because that's exactly what you're arguing. Our society is fundamentally about rights and liberties. The right to speak and assemble, the right to worship as we choose, the right to privacy, the right to a just trial, the right to pursue happiness- to live your life. Those rights aren't an inconvenient afterthought, they're the entire point of the country. It's critical that gays and lesbians are allowed to serve in the military, because it's defending the rights of everybody, including and especially those who are different, that makes the country worth fighting for in the first place. If we aren't doing that, then everything else becomes just a waste of time.