Troop study: 70 percent say ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell&

[UConn James]

WP: Troops buck historical trend by saying gays OK

The survey, due out Tuesday, is expected to find pockets of resistance among combat troops to ending the ban on gays. But some 70 percent of respondents were expected to say that lifting the ban would have a positive or mixed effect, or none at all, according to officials familiar with the findings.

 

The study is expected to set the stage for a showdown in the Senate between advocates of repealing the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" law and a small but powerful group of foes in the final days of the lame-duck Congress.

 

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.

 

I don't think there's any reason to continue discriminating against young people who actually want to serve and fight for their country (tho I'm sure someone will come up with one).

 

Sad that in the purported Land of the Free, gay/lesbian soldiers have had to sweep under the rug, part of their lives that has nothing to do with their service. I don't support a lot of the Obama agenda, but it's time for DADT to end. As a registered Republican, it shames me that such vitriol is spewed by some people under this same tent --- they are on the wrong side of freedom, not to mention that the rising tide of opinion (read: votes) is against them.

 

There would also be a savings for the military courts to not have to adjudicate these cases anymore.

[RkFast]

You cant cange the brand of peas served in the mess without it taking major planning, let alone something like this which will have an effect on more or less every element of military life.

 

All ANYONE of any sense is asking for is for such a move to be done slowly, carefully and deliberately.

 

DADT WILL be done away with in due time. Let the people who know how to make such changes (ie NOT the courts) do their job to make the change as efficiently and smoothly as posible.

Edited November 29, 2010 by RkFast

[Adam]

Rescinding don't ask, don't tell, which was one of the most ludicrous things to come out of the Clinton Administration won't hurt our troops. First off, there shouldn't be any sexual relations in the military anyways, but to think people that are put in life or death situations can't handle working with people who are gay is stupid and unamerican. And I say unamerican based on what the country was actually built on, not the entertainmenbt-industry built mess we have now

[/dev/null]

First off, there shouldn't be any sexual relations in the military anyways

 

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Here are a few "logistical" items to consider....

 

The military is very gender specific. seperate male and female living quarters. It's consuming now to have multiple living facilites for both sexes. Now if you were to add in gay men and gay women now you need to create 4 seperate and equal living areas for each class.

 

Males and females are seperated for obvious reasons, but how would gay men and women be seperated? would all gay men barrack/dorm up together (same as straight men and women) ? Would that cause distractions for that many homosexual people to be living together in such close quarters? (which is why straight men and women are seperated)

 

This whole concept doesn't sound all that much of a big deal to civilians, but when you realize and think what the military actually is and does, it's not easy to carry out on a budget or in some far away austere location. logistically how would this work?

 

A whole "nother" can of worms, would be the concept of "domestic" partners being covered under government benefits (ie. GI Bill, death benefits, health and medical benefits, etc..) that straight married spouses are entitled to. what would be the criteria for establishing that? Not for nothing, but that's also a HUGE chunk of money out of their operating budgets to make another group eligible for those benefits.

 

Thats just my .02 cents on the logistical aspect of this policy, if i post back later or tommorow i will elaborate on my thoughts of if it will work, will it work, good idea/bad idea.

[UConn James]

Here are a few "logistical" items to consider....

 

The military is very gender specific. seperate male and female living quarters. It's consuming now to have multiple living facilites for both sexes. Now if you were to add in gay men and gay women now you need to create 4 seperate and equal living areas for each class.

 

Males and females are seperated for obvious reasons, but how would gay men and women be seperated? would all gay men barrack/dorm up together (same as straight men and women) ? Would that cause distractions for that many homosexual people to be living together in such close quarters? (which is why straight men and women are seperated)

 

This whole concept doesn't sound all that much of a big deal to civilians, but when you realize and think what the military actually is and does, it's not easy to carry out on a budget or in some far away austere location. logistically how would this work?

 

A whole "nother" can of worms, would be the concept of "domestic" partners being covered under government benefits (ie. GI Bill, death benefits, health and medical benefits, etc..) that straight married spouses are entitled to. what would be the criteria for establishing that? Not for nothing, but that's also a HUGE chunk of money out of their operating budgets to make another group eligible for those benefits.

 

Thats just my .02 cents on the logistical aspect of this policy, if i post back later or tommorow i will elaborate on my thoughts of if it will work, will it work, good idea/bad idea.

 

I don't get the point of separate barracks for gays/lesbians. As it is now, they are serving in secret --- but they are serving. Is there a massive wave of male-male or female-female rape occurring in barracks that mandates --- let me check again to make sure that's the implication...yes, it's what you're suggesting --- segregation?

 

In the general population, even the high estimates are that ~10 percent of the population is G/L. I don't think an end to DADT is going to result in recruiting doors being knocked over with gay/lesbian applicants.... Ending this is a matter of principle that the military must get in line with the rest of the country and not be given carte blanche to discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexuality. The benefit costs are something that needs to be looked at, but what's the difference whether they're being paid to same-sex partners or straight? There'll be a marginal increase, but it's the cost of doing the right thing. And I'm sure there will be some savings from ending the processes required to prop up the administration of DADT.

 

"EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL," it reads on the Supreme Court building. The point of all this is that this creed does not mean "SEMI-EQUAL JUSTICE FOR MOST."

 

I'm reminded of the Dickens quote of Mr. Dorritt, when told he would be in debtors' prison for just a little while longer: "You talk easily of hours, sir. How long do you think an hour is to a man who is choking for want of air?" DADT WAS the baby-step. It's time to get this done and live up to the ideals of freedom.

[Magox]

I'm for whatever the military higher ups say.

[Nanker]

Morality aside, the biggest reason gays were routinely filtered out for security clearance and politically sensitive jobs was that they were at risk for being extorted and exploited for information or spying by the Rooskies who would threaten to expose their sordid lifestyle and ruin them.

 

That was the rationale, or the basis for much of it. Times have changed. People aren't that afraid of wearing their sexuality on their shirtsleeves these days. About all that's left as grounds to object to them serving is a tattered argument based on morals that are continuing to evolve away from their historical foundations.

[RkFast]

I don't get the point of separate barracks for gays/lesbians. As it is now, they are serving in secret --- but they are serving. Is there a massive wave of male-male or female-female rape occurring in barracks that mandates --- let me check again to make sure that's the implication...yes, it's what you're suggesting --- segregation?

 

In the general population, even the high estimates are that ~10 percent of the population is G/L. I don't think an end to DADT is going to result in recruiting doors being knocked over with gay/lesbian applicants.... Ending this is a matter of principle that the military must get in line with the rest of the country and not be given carte blanche to discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexuality. The benefit costs are something that needs to be looked at, but what's the difference whether they're being paid to same-sex partners or straight? There'll be a marginal increase, but it's the cost of doing the right thing. And I'm sure there will be some savings from ending the processes required to prop up the administration of DADT.

 

"EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL," it reads on the Supreme Court building. The point of all this is that this creed does not mean "SEMI-EQUAL JUSTICE FOR MOST."

 

I'm reminded of the Dickens quote of Mr. Dorritt, when told he would be in debtors' prison for just a little while longer: "You talk easily of hours, sir. How long do you think an hour is to a man who is choking for want of air?" DADT WAS the baby-step. It's time to get this done and live up to the ideals of freedom.

 

Stop with the platitudes. As KT and I have pointed out, youre talking about a massive change in how the entire military operates. It can and WILL be done, but there is a lot of logistical work to be done first.

 

Let the military brass do their jobs to ensure it gets done correctly, which is EXACTLY the process that is now underway.

[IDBillzFan]

I think they got it right in Starship Toopers, but that may be because the guys got to shower with Dizzy.

[OCinBuffalo]

That's because: 70% of "the troops"(starting to get PC ) are professionals, and wouldn't let ANYTHING get in the way of them and carrying out their orders. More importantly, the chain of command and discipline that is, in some cases literally beaten, into the average "troop", requires that individual scruples are put aside...in everything, literally everything.

 

However, 70% is not 100%, and that's the problem. This isn't about opinion polls.

 

As a company commander, do I want to go into combat with 30% of my troops...a whole platoon, having a serious morale problem? What exactly am I supposed to do...focus my people on accepting gays, or focusing the ones that aren't quitting in 1 month, on how to do the job as a team, because we are going to get shot at in 2 months?

 

I am just guessing, but from my experience, I bet a significant portion of the 30% are from elite units. Who exactly is to say that 40% of the troops in that 30% aren't elite? Should we toss them out? They will follow orders, but don't expect them to like it, and, don't expect them not to carry out their own "training" missions at night. Regardless of everything, there's only so much an officer can do if people want a problem child out of the unit.

 

Do you think some flag officer is going to preside over the separation of some elite sergeant/chief, that he/she relies on every day, because the NCO won't accept gay people? Keep dreaming. The only way anything really changes, no different than racial integration, is when this entire generation of officers/NCOs retire, and only if the next one truly believes in the change.

 

As has been said, it can be done, but it needs some sort of example to base training on, and ironically, "don't ask don't tell" pretty much removes the chance to get that example.

I'm for whatever the military higher ups say.

I'd lay 1k on the fact that the above in bold is the real answer that the flag officers tell each other...that you will never hear at a pentagon briefing.

 

The gay thing is not like the women thing, because the gay thing can be argued as a character/morale issue, and, gays or no gays isn't about filling the ranks like the women thing is. War will always come down to cost/benefit. Having gays doesn't provide any more benefit, for the cost, than not having them does, on the logistical math. You can character assassinate them all you want, but this is the root cause of the current opposition from the generals and admirals.

[OCinBuffalo]

I think they got it right in Starship Toopers, but that may be because the guys got to shower with Dizzy.

Dude, let me assure you that the average female "service member" is about 5 points down the scale from that at least. I was going to give you an image, but I decided to spare you.

 

And, the hot ones turn biatch real fast once they realize they have 20 guys to pick from.

[X. Benedict]

.... You can character assassinate them all you want, but this is the root cause of the current opposition from the generals and admirals.

 

Looking at at this from an historical perspective,

 

Do you think it would be a bigger morale problem for the Services integrating Gays today, than integrating Blacks in 1948?

[DC Tom]

Looking at at this from an historical perspective,

 

Do you think it would be a bigger morale problem for the Services integrating Gays today, than integrating Blacks in 1948?

 

Looking at it from a historical perspective...there were very valid reasons for segregating the services up to 1948. Namely: the literacy rate in the black population was about an eighth what it was for whites, meaning they couldn't be trained together.

 

There were also excellent reasons for desegrating the Army in 1950: the post-WWII draw-down of forces was so extreme (particularly in Japan, where only about a third of Dugout Doug's army even had rifles), that the Army basically had to say "!@#$ it" and throw together whoever was available regardless of bigotry and send them into Korea.

 

Notably in both cases, the driving consideration wasn't some sort of social justice, but military exigency. So looking at this (gays in the military) from a historical perspective...it's a load of bull ****.

[X. Benedict]

Looking at it from a historical perspective...there were very valid reasons for segregating the services up to 1948. Namely: the literacy rate in the black population was about an eighth what it was for whites, meaning they couldn't be trained together.

 

There were also excellent reasons for desegrating the Army in 1950: the post-WWII draw-down of forces was so extreme (particularly in Japan, where only about a third of Dugout Doug's army even had rifles), that the Army basically had to say "!@#$ it" and throw together whoever was available regardless of bigotry and send them into Korea.

 

Notably in both cases, the driving consideration wasn't some sort of social justice, but military exigency. So looking at this (gays in the military) from a historical perspective...it's a load of bull ****.

 

Interesting Answer. But if the rationale today for not overturning DADT is morale. Wouldn't the morale of the services from 1948 to ??? serve as a precident for gauging such a thing.

 

 

Let's ignore the matter of social justice for a moment - (I believe that when Truman signed the order in 1948 he stated plainly that it wasn't a matter of social justice).

 

If not allowing gays to serve openly is detrimental to esprit de corps , (which in the short term, I don't dispute, I only wonder how valid the argument is given the Army's history) It would seem to me that as gays are already integrated (just not serving openly) as in that 300 movie I saw.

 

Perhaps I just have the sense that a morale argument is a short term impediment.

Edited November 30, 2010 by X. Benedict

[UConn James]

Stop with the platitudes. As KT and I have pointed out, youre talking about a massive change in how the entire military operates. It can and WILL be done, but there is a lot of logistical work to be done first.

 

Let the military brass do their jobs to ensure it gets done correctly, which is EXACTLY the process that is now underway.

 

Stop with the platitudes? How about you stop promoting segregation. It smacks of the "I'm afraid he's going to pull the stiff one-eye on me" homophobia, as if gays / lesbians can't keep it in their pants.

 

It's a slow process to give citizens their rights? I hate that argument. It's akin to the South's argument that slavery was needed so blacks wouldn't go hungry / homeless / start raping white women / etc. off the plantations.

 

When in doubt, Freedom First. And like taking off a Band-Aid, faster is better. Plinking it one hair at a time does nothing but prolong the pain. And if anyone has a problem with other people they work with finally receiving their freedom, they can get a job outside the military (Oh, wait. There aren't any!) or move to friggin' Kuwait.

[RkFast]

Stop with the platitudes? How about you stop promoting segregation. It smacks of the "I'm afraid he's going to pull the stiff one-eye on me" homophobia, as if gays / lesbians can't keep it in their pants.

 

It's a slow process to give citizens their rights? I hate that argument. It's akin to the South's argument that slavery was needed so blacks wouldn't go hungry / homeless / start raping white women / etc. off the plantations.

 

When in doubt, Freedom First. And like taking off a Band-Aid, faster is better. Plinking it one hair at a time does nothing but prolong the pain. And if anyone has a problem with other people they work with finally receiving their freedom, they can get a job outside the military (Oh, wait. There aren't any!) or move to friggin' Kuwait.

 

 

Excuse me for injecting that pesky little thing called "REALITY" into the discussion.

 

Seriously, you think that the actual logistics of the DADT repeal and its impact should just be ignored? Seriously?

 

Thats ignorant, shortsighted and downright stupid, especially when you consider the review and implementation process Im discussing is already underway and the timeframe for its completion is a mere few months! Really...how quick do you need it?

 

If you "need it you way now", go to friggin Burger King.

Edited November 30, 2010 by RkFast

[X. Benedict]

Excuse me for injecting that pesky little thing called "REALITY" into the discussion.

 

Seriously, you think that the actual logistics of the DADT repeal and its impact should just be ignored? Seriously?

 

Thats ignorant, shortsighted and downright stupid, especially when you consider the review and implementation process Im discussing is already underway and the timeframe for its completion is a mere few months! Really...how quick do you need it?

 

If you "need it you way now", go to friggin Burger King.

 

I am ignorant about the logistics of a repeal.

 

What would be the biggest logistical problem?

 

This was in Joint Forces Quarterly a year ago.

an air Force Col.

 

BTW - 12,500 service members dismissed under DADT since it was made law.

 

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/EfficacyofDADT.pdf

Edited November 30, 2010 by X. Benedict

[RkFast]

I am ignorant about the logistics of a repeal.

 

What would be the biggest logistical problem?

 

This was in Joint Forces Quarterly a year ago.

an air Force Col.

 

BTW - 12,500 service members dismissed under DADT since it was made law.

 

http://www.palmcente...icacyofDADT.pdf

 

No expert here, but I would think that any code or procedure that has to do with housing of troops would have to be reviewed and changes possibly made. Then issues dealing with health and retirement benefits of those gay members who are in a domestic partnership would need to be looked at and changed. Im sure there is losts of stuff like that I would assume needs to be reviewed and changed.

Edited November 30, 2010 by RkFast

[X. Benedict]

No expert here, but I would think that any code or procedure that has to do with housing of troops would have to be reviewed and changes possibly made. Then issues dealing with health and retirement benefits of those gay members who are in a domestic partnership would need to be looked at and changed. Stuff like that I would gather.

Good answers.

 

If it is parallel housing, that would be significant.

I hadn't thought much about partner benefits.