US army to ease rules against gays

Klingon Hamlet

IRISH TIMES

US army to ease rules against gays Defence secretary Robert Gates today said the Pentagon will ease enforcement of its rules that ban gays from serving openly (1) in the US military.

The military will require senior officers to review all cases of enlisted personnel who are accused of violating the ban, will tighten standards for "credible evidence" to open a case and will no longer investigate anonymous complaints(2), Mr Gates said at a Pentagon press briefing together with Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"These changes will allow us to execute the law in a fair and more appropriate manner," Mr Gates said.

They "provide a greater measure of common sense and common decency to a process for handling what are difficult and complex issues for all involved."

Mr Gates said the measures are supported by all of the Joint Chiefs as well as the Pentagon's general counsel.

They will take effect immediately and are temporary until Congress decides whether to repeal the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy that lets gays serve in the military as long as they don't reveal their sexual orientation.

President Barack Obama pledged to lift the ban on gays in the military in his January 27th State of the Union address. (3)

The military discharged 259 men and 169 women last year under the law, which allows homosexuals to serve as long as they don't tell or aren't called out by other soldiers.

As many as 66,000 gay men and women may be serving in the US military, about 2.2 per cent of all personnel, including 13,000 on active duty, according to a study by the Williams Institute of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell.” A round-about way of saying you may serve as an equal member of the military unless we have cause for concern regarding your sexual orientation. I would like to understand, how is it that the military, in this day and age, can somehow propose that someone may be removed from their post based on their sexual orientation? Surely this discrimination is the same as discriminating against someone for their gender or religion?

I imagine it has origins in fears that homosexual troops would do more than merely fraternise. But then cast minds back further: Spartan troops were infamous for their open-minded approach to relationships between troops. They almost saw it as bonding.

Now before anyone thinks I’m proposing a love-free-for-all, I’m not. But the Spartans were well-renowned warriors, absolutely legendary in their commitment to their goals, and responsible for some of the greatest and longest-standing military tactics on earth to this day.

Who are the military of today to enforce such a backward, barbaric and frankly evil rule upon troop-members, discharging them like liabilities? It is sick and strange to think it continues to this day.

Interesting contradictions:

1:

...Pentagon will ease enforcement of its rules that ban gays from serving openly...

So the rules still apply to “open” gays. Just “enforcement” of these rules will “ease”.

2:

...review all cases of enlisted personnel who are accused of violating the ban, will tighten standards for "credible evidence" to open a case and will no longer investigate anonymous complaints...

So there is still a ban.

So there needs to be evidence: EVIDENCE???

“Anonymous complaints” will be ignored; so that still leaves proper complaints.

3:

...President Barack Obama pledged to lift the ban on gays in the military in his January 27th State of the Union address....

Pretty clear there. Obama pledged to “lift the ban.”

NOT ease its consequences.

NOT narrow the field of inquiry.

NOT make it more difficult to BAN gayness.

He said, Goodbye homophobia, hello 21st Century.

And Pentagon clapped, and smiled, and said, I don’t think so Mr President.

PS I’m not gay but I hate BS politicking and I despise any discrimination of any kind.

narwog81

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

. I would like to understand, how is it that the military, in this day and age, can somehow propose that someone may be removed from their post based on their sexual orientation? Surely this discrimination is the same as discriminating against someone for their gender or religion?
.

well they also discriminate based on gender grounds, as do the british army, in that women are not allowed serve in frontline combat units.

i suppose at the end of day they can bend the rules as they are fighting wars.

anything the pentagon feels reduces the effectiveness of their troops or potentially increases risk to the troops should rightly be prevented.

if that means homosexuality then so be it. now im not aware if there is any proof that having gay soldiers in combat units reduces combat effectiveness (sparta isnt relevant tbh) but the US military obviously thinks there is.

Manic Moran

I would like to understand, how is it that the military, in this day and age, can somehow propose that someone may be removed from their post based on their sexual orientation? Surely this discrimination is the same as discriminating against someone for their gender or religion?

Probably. But that's allowed in the military too. Big front-page news in Stars and Stripes two or three days ago about the first Sikh in 24 years to be allowed to retain his beard and turban in the US Army. It may be a religious requirement for him, but the Army's uniform standards take precedence. As it is, the waiver he is operating under is valid for his current posting only. And, of course, there's the gender discrimination: Women have easier standards for service, and are barred from certain roles. Such discrimination would not stand on the civilian side of things. As the phrase goes, the military exists to preserve democracy. Not to practice it.

So the rules still apply to “open” gays. Just “enforcement” of these rules will “ease”.

Correct. A common misconception over recent years is that a declaration of homosexuality is a guaranteed ticket out of the military. In actuality, it is at the commander's discretion to recommend discharge or retention depending on his opinion on the effects of the individual on the performance of his unit. I'll be curious to find out what defines 'easing' of the enforcement.

So there needs to be evidence: EVIDENCE???

Seems fair. Would you rather that people were discharged without evidence?

“Anonymous complaints” will be ignored; so that still leaves proper complaints

Correct. You can complain about almost anything in the Army these days. Doesn't guarantee that anything will be done about it, mind.

He said, Goodbye homophobia, hello 21st Century.

And Pentagon clapped, and smiled, and said, I don’t think so Mr President.

PS I’m not gay but I hate BS politicking and I despise any discrimination of any kind.

Ultimately the military will carry out the instructions of its civilian control. If the government decides to lift the ban, it'll happen and the Pentagon chiefs will salute and say 'yes Sir.' Whether or not the government will receive advice and decide one way or the other remains to be seen.

Please recall that the US is, frankly, a somewhat prudish and conservative society, and that the military is a more conservative slice of it than the average. Though that may not excuse the situation, it does explain it. The effect on the military of the change is a valid concern. The benefits/costs of the change is what will likely determine the decision.

NTM

kev9100

This a good start but its still not enough. Someone's sexual orientation does'nt affect their ability on the battlefield and there needs to be a complete repeal of DADT.

Moriarty

It doesn't appear to have affected performance in the UK armed forces where gays have been allowed to serve openly for the past ten years. A pretty decent demonstration that there would be no good reason for this to continue in the US military, I'd imagine?

I can't imagine anyone is seriously suggesting that US forces in afghanistan have qualms about requesting UK assistance if they're under fire because there may be gays in the force coming to assist them?

It can't hurt to have a wider pool of the population to recruit from in this day and age either.


Off on a slight tangent, anyone know if there is any movement on letting women serve in front line units? What reasons are given at present for them not being allowed to serve in front line units?

Memnoch

Moriarty wrote: »

It doesn't appear to have affected performance in the UK armed forces where gays have been allowed to serve openly for the past ten years. A pretty decent demonstration that there would be no good reason for this to continue in the US military, I'd imagine?

I can't imagine anyone is seriously suggesting that US forces in afghanistan have qualms about requesting UK assistance if they're under fire because there may be gays in the force coming to assist them?

It can't hurt to have a wider pool of the population to recruit from in this day and age either.


Off on a slight tangent, anyone know if there is any movement on letting women serve in front line units? What reasons are given at present for them not being allowed to serve in front line units?

Because female casualties will look a lot worse on TV and make continuing and escalating warfare harder to justify for incumbent propaganda machines.

Black Swan

Moriarty wrote: »

Off on a slight tangent, anyone know if there is any movement on letting women serve in front line units? What reasons are given at present for them not being allowed to serve in front line units?

"... in Iraq and Afghanistan, Army commanders have resorted to bureaucratic trickery when they needed more soldiers for crucial jobs, like bomb disposal and intelligence. On paper, for instance, women have been “attached” to a combat unit rather than “assigned.”
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16women.html

Mark200

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

IRISH TIMES

“Don’t ask, don’t tell.” A round-about way of saying you may serve as an equal member of the military unless we have cause for concern regarding your sexual orientation. I would like to understand, how is it that the military, in this day and age, can somehow propose that someone may be removed from their post based on their sexual orientation? Surely this discrimination is the same as discriminating against someone for their gender or religion?

I imagine it has origins in fears that homosexual troops would do more than merely fraternise. But then cast minds back further: Spartan troops were infamous for their open-minded approach to relationships between troops. They almost saw it as bonding.

Now before anyone thinks I’m proposing a love-free-for-all, I’m not. But the Spartans were well-renowned warriors, absolutely legendary in their commitment to their goals, and responsible for some of the greatest and longest-standing military tactics on earth to this day.

Who are the military of today to enforce such a backward, barbaric and frankly evil rule upon troop-members, discharging them like liabilities? It is sick and strange to think it continues to this day.

Interesting contradictions:

1: So the rules still apply to “open” gays. Just “enforcement” of these rules will “ease”.

2: So there is still a ban.

So there needs to be evidence: EVIDENCE???

“Anonymous complaints” will be ignored; so that still leaves proper complaints.

3: Pretty clear there. Obama pledged to “lift the ban.”

NOT ease its consequences.

NOT narrow the field of inquiry.

NOT make it more difficult to BAN gayness.

He said, Goodbye homophobia, hello 21st Century.

And Pentagon clapped, and smiled, and said, I don’t think so Mr President.

PS I’m not gay but I hate BS politicking and I despise any discrimination of any kind.

I think you're completely over-reacting. The Pentagon have not moved to stop the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In fact, many heads of the army have recently come out and said that they would support the repeal. However , DADT is law. They army can not change the law. So judging by this article, they're just doing what they can to give gays the best chance possible under the current law. With Obama's biggest domestic priority (besides the economy) now out of the way, he has already started to move onto other priorities - financial regulation, immigration reform, the foreclosure crisis. I'm confident that DADT will be up there too.

Moriarty

Memnoch wrote: »

Because female casualties will look a lot worse on TV and make continuing and escalating warfare harder to justify for incumbent propaganda machines.

I figured it could be something along those lines, but what are the official reasons, does anyone know?

Manic Moran

Moriarty wrote: »

It doesn't appear to have affected performance in the UK armed forces where gays have been allowed to serve openly for the past ten years. A pretty decent demonstration that there would be no good reason for this to continue in the US military, I'd imagine?

The UK military is not the US military. There is little claim (Barring shills) that homosexuals are incapable of performing their duties to the fullest equivalency as a heterosexual, with the possible exception that it may affect their security clearance: Blackmail is always a possibility. The issue is how they would be received by others in the unit, and the resulting effects on unit cohesion. That this isn't the fault of the homosexual doesn't change the fact that the US military is made up in a large part of particularly conservative people who have their own perceptions of homosexuals. Not homophobia, just homo-dislike.

I can't imagine anyone is seriously suggesting that US forces in afghanistan have qualms about requesting UK assistance if they're under fire because there may be gays in the force coming to assist them?

It is unlikely that the responding UK force would be asked to share a shower under fire or check genitalia for insects whilst repelling an assault. There is in the US such a prohibition on males and females doing so, based on the general presumption that males and females can find each other sexually attractive. Presumably as long as soldiers can enforce segregation on the basis that another soldier may have a sexual attraction to them because that's the way they lean, then there's a good equality argument for such a segregation for homosexuals just as heterosexuals. Instead of having another two genders to have to accomodate, it's easier just to bar them.

Personally, I think the simplest answer is to go entirely co-ed, and if people have shyness issues regardless of gender or orientation, they'd best get over it. However, it won't happen in the US any time soon. Country's too prudish.

Off on a slight tangent, anyone know if there is any movement on letting women serve in front line units? What reasons are given at present for them not being allowed to serve in front line units?

Physical strength is the main one. As it stands, the standards for physical fitness for women in the Army are 'easier' than for men. They have to do fewer push-ups to pass, have longer to complete their 2-mile run. But the standards for being an infantry(')man are not gender-biased. The vast majority of women simply can't lift/drag/carry/run as much as men can. For whatever reason, the Army refuses to enforce equal testing, so the prohibition limits the liability.

The other major problem, which was picked up upon by the Israelis, is simple human nature. Men protect women. You can call it sexist or mysogenistic if you want, but it's a general behavioural pattern which exists. They found that men would often take un-necessary risks in response to situations that female soldiers found themselves which they would not take if it were men. As a result, though the Israelis don't bar women from the combat arms (there are female tankers, for example), they are barred from line positions in those combat arms. (So are retained solely in functions such as training or R&D).

NTM

aDeener

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

IRISH TIMES

“Don’t ask, don’t tell.” A round-about way of saying you may serve as an equal member of the military unless we have cause for concern regarding your sexual orientation. I would like to understand, how is it that the military, in this day and age, can somehow propose that someone may be removed from their post based on their sexual orientation? Surely this discrimination is the same as discriminating against someone for their gender or religion?

I imagine it has origins in fears that homosexual troops would do more than merely fraternise. But then cast minds back further: Spartan troops were infamous for their open-minded approach to relationships between troops. They almost saw it as bonding.

Now before anyone thinks I’m proposing a love-free-for-all, I’m not. But the Spartans were well-renowned warriors, absolutely legendary in their commitment to their goals, and responsible for some of the greatest and longest-standing military tactics on earth to this day.

Who are the military of today to enforce such a backward, barbaric and frankly evil rule upon troop-members, discharging them like liabilities? It is sick and strange to think it continues to this day.

Interesting contradictions:

1: So the rules still apply to “open” gays. Just “enforcement” of these rules will “ease”.

2: So there is still a ban.

So there needs to be evidence: EVIDENCE???

“Anonymous complaints” will be ignored; so that still leaves proper complaints.

3: Pretty clear there. Obama pledged to “lift the ban.”

NOT ease its consequences.

NOT narrow the field of inquiry.

NOT make it more difficult to BAN gayness.

He said, Goodbye homophobia, hello 21st Century.

And Pentagon clapped, and smiled, and said, I don’t think so Mr President.

PS I’m not gay but I hate BS politicking and I despise any discrimination of any kind.

didnt you just answer your question there, they are the military

Otacon

Manic Moran wrote: »

The UK military is not the US military. There is little claim (Barring shills) that homosexuals are incapable of performing their duties to the fullest equivalency as a heterosexual, with the possible exception that it may affect their security clearance: Blackmail is always a possibility.

Wouldn't the ability of being openly gay actually prevent a lot of blackmail cases?

Manic Moran wrote: »

The issue is how they would be received by others in the unit, and the resulting effects on unit cohesion. That this isn't the fault of the homosexual doesn't change the fact that the US military is made up in a large part of particularly conservative people who have their own perceptions of homosexuals. Not homophobia, just homo-dislike.

But that is homophobia really? In any case, the same excuse regarding unit cohesion occured when black people entered the military. While I agree with your previous point about the military not being an instrument of social change [protect democracy, not practice it, as you put it], allowing gay people to serve is not the issue, it is allowing them to say who they are that is getting people's backs up, it seems.

Nodin

Otacon wrote: »

Wouldn't the ability of being openly gay actually prevent a lot of blackmail cases?

Indeed. Sort of takes the sting out. Once thats gone they're no more open to it than heterosexuals.

Manic Moran

Otacon wrote: »

Wouldn't the ability of being openly gay actually prevent a lot of blackmail cases?

Some.

But as long as there is social stigma attached to it, there's a threat. Even if it's just a case of "I'm telling your dad...": Just because it is 'acceptable' to be publicly gay doesn't mean that everyone on the civilian side chooses to come out.

NTM

Denerick

kev9100 wrote: »

This a good start but its still not enough. Someone's sexual orientation does'nt affect their ability on the battlefield and there needs to be a complete repeal of DADT.

Gays can't swim and they attract enemy radar. Can you imagine going to sleep in a barracks where there could be a gay man sleeping next to you? The constant fear of being buggered and murdered in your sleep?

Here's an interesting documentary which explores these key dangers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3icDB3kRKPg