End of DADT policy in US military

[KeyPilot]

Surprised not to see a thread about this already.

After 18 years, the US has ended it's "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards those openly gay serving in its military.

The end to a discriminatory policy which denied millions of Americans the right to serve their country with pride and honour? Or a politically correct move which will undermine the operational effectiveness of the world's greatest military?

KeyPilot lights the blue touchpaper and runs for cover... Discuss!

(if we get a decent number of replies, I will compile a "for and against" analysis and post it back here)

[incubus]

Meh.
ISTM that as far as uniforms and ceremonial drill is concerned, the US military has always seemed gay-friendly anyway ;)

[thefodfather]

They give out medals for everything else.

[Pontius Navigator]

OK, I'll bite.

What do you need to do to qualify for a medal? Is once enough or do you need 5 to Ace it?

What colour would the ribbon be? Would the colour bands be straight?

[Grabbers]

Perhaps the Americans were forced to watch that dreadful E&D DVD. :suspect:

[P6 Driver]

"Surprised not to see a thread about this already."

It could be that not many people care about it.

[Lockstock]

Discuss!

Ok, I will Discuss!

It's a subject I really couldn't give a tinker's toss about.

How's that? :zzz:

[ORAC]

It's a subject I really couldn't give a tinker's toss about. And, hopefully, apart from the old die-hards, won't need discussing; and more than what are or religion you are.

Move on, nothing to see (in future) here. As with Europe, I think the USA will find this a remarkably non-eventful change. The same people have, after all, been there all the time....

[racedo]

Hmmmm

Reminds me of the story of the guy leaving for Australia when Homosexuality was decriminalised it the UK.........he said he was leaving because of it, when asked why he stated that at some point in the future he was concerned the Govt would make it compulsory.

[westhawk]

he was concerned the Govt would make it compulsory. Larry the cable guy sez: That's funny right thar, don't matter who y'are! :D

Since our troops were deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't think the American media or the public have considered the subject to be worthy of much attention. Nor has the dropping the DADT policy as far as I'm aware.

Whatever problems this creates will be left to the line commanders to deal with.

[GreenKnight121]

Surprised not to see a thread about this already.

After 18 years, the US has ended it's "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards those openly gay serving in its military.

The end to a discriminatory policy which denied millions of Americans the right to serve their country with pride and honour? Or a politically correct move which will undermine the operational effectiveness of the world's greatest military?

Or merely that those of us who have actual knowledge of the US military when DADT was instituted are fed up with the distorted and deceptive way the media is dealing with this issue.

And that we understand that this "repeal" was inevitable, and the expected end-game that DADT started.


All I hear on the media mirrors the OP's incorrect evaluation of DADT as a "a discriminatory policy which denied millions of Americans the right to serve their country with pride and honour".

In reality, DADT ALLOWED thousands of homosexual Americans to serve in the military without fear of the previous enforcement of a section of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice which specifically described same-sex sexual activity as a criminal offense.

This section (and the associated legal policies) had required investigations into even rumors of homosexual activity, required criminal prosecution of those found to have engaged in such acts, and sent those convicted to military prison for at least 2 years before receiving a Dishonorable Discharge.

I saw several cases where exactly this was done during my 8 years in the USMC (1981-1989).


DADT replaced this with no investigations without evidence, and an administrative discharge for those whose sexual orientation or same-sex sexual activities became known to the military.


Once DADT (which was actually a policy [Defense Directive 1304.26] ordered by President Clinton) was issued, it was apparent that this would only be in place for a time, and then homosexuality would inevitably be completely legalized in the US military... the only question remaining was how long until that happened.


To those of us who remember before 1993, this is not unexpected... and the vast majority of ex-US military (and a majority of serving US military) do NOT see this as being bad for the military.

After all, DADT already allowed homosexuals to serve for the last 17+ years, and military discipline didn't collapse... so there is nothing to worry about now... the only real change is that they can "come out of the closet" and not worry about being discharged or prosecuted.

[2Planks]

In current location - a multinational HQ - it is causing a deal of discussion and debate - and a lot of the comments are what Brits might describe as 'belonging to the 70s'. I've seen a number of US colleagues checking the standpoint of their elected representatives - muttering things 'like how dare he - he's never served his country - how would he know?'. Enlightening day!

[Whenurhappy]

Hmm, interesting (not). I joined some US colleagues at a presentation by the Executive Director of the Defense Equal Opportunities Management Institute about 2 weeks ago. The Institute was set up at Patrick AFB in the 1970s to fight racial discrimination (appropriately, the HQ is on Tuskegee Airmen Drive) and morphed into gender equality and now is coinsidering how to tackle orientation equality. My fellow US colleagues sighed, knowing that there would be another 2 week course taken from their lives, albeit in Florida, before they could take over a Bde Command. The Director mentioned that they had observed cloely how the UK policies had worked (ie nothing to see!) and noted, as I did, that the arguments agaisnt the change in policy in the US were the same as those raised 10-15 years earlier about the introduction of women aircrew. And similarly shallow, too.

I did chip in and asked what would DEOMI normalise when orientation matters were, err, ironed out. Extraterrestrials?

On a related note, I recently came across the 'Together' poster produced in the 1940s, showing the three services marching together, supported by strapping lads from the Colonies and Dominions. It's a strong, powerful, yet simple message; I hope that it could be resurrected to demonstrate equality now. (see below) Who agrees that it's a powerful message?


ps: There is a much grander painting in the FCO, rendered shortly after the Great War, with a buxom Britannia taking tribute from grateful nations of France and Belgium, whilst having one foot on a Pickelhauber. She is flanked by 6'6" Adonises from Canada, NZ and Aussie, naked apart from, err, appropriate fig leaves - maple leaf, NZ fern and a bunch of Wattle flowers for the Aussie, IIRC. There are also little black fellas carrying baskets and trays of fruit on their heads. Suffice to say, the FCO have retained the grand location for this painting and use it to illustrate to Johnny Foreigner the diversity of the Commonwealth and enduring Imperial ties, whilst mildly appologising for it's slightly (!) patronising tone. Someone might need to do an E&D course, I think.

http://www.paulfrasercollectibles.com/upload/public/docimages/Image/u/w/d/TogetherPoster.jpg

[Occasional Aviator]

I agree this is a non-story. However....

A couple of years ago (and only a couple) I had occasion to do a shortened equal opportunities advisor course along with a number of my colleagues in the joint establishment I was then serving at. By morning coffee break I was genuinely shocked about how backward some of the attitudes were among some of my colleagues - particularly infantry officers and submariners who, on the whole, were about 20 years behind.

I think we sometimes forget how those of us who fly (in all 3 services) operate in a meritocracy that by no means exists throughout the military.

[Fortissimo]

Thanks for the explanation, GreenKnight121.

I assume that an administrative discharge is one where you either have an administrator to assist, or the have paperwork completed in advance? A dishonourable discharge would be one that outrages public decency or catches one's partner by surprise... :E

[Kreuger flap]

Come on then keypilot what is your analysis?

[Pontius Navigator]

OA, I did an intelligence course over 30 years ago. We had a smart suit from the Provost Marshall's office to brief us on security and, en passant, vetting. Once he mentioned vetting the lecture stopped and it became a bun fight.

The argument raged over the difference between an admission to the confessors where it would be recorded and no further action would arise, although your clearance might have been restricted, and a confession to your flt cdr where discharge would follow.

To a man (no women on the course) we were appalled at the suit's position where he fully supported immediate discharge. Less than a quarter of the course were aircrew, so it is not just amongst aircrew that meritocracy ruled.

[Whenurhappy]

OA - I attended senior staff course relatively recently and there were some dinosaurs on this as well. One Naval officer spent the course in an alcoholic haze and sniffed - and more - anything in a skirt: fellow students, staff, visiting lecturers, wives, cleaners...you name it. He also stated on more than one occasion that there was only one reason for having women aboard Naval vessels...and admitted availing himself of them on a regular basis. Meanwhile his wife and young kids were safely tucked up in Helensborough...

Two cavalry officers, when not deconflicting their orders of dress, referred to 'Wogs' and worse on a loud and regular basis; surprising, because both of them had served 'East of Suez' on several occasions. Difference was they had the personality to get away with it and there was no maliceaforethought.

[Tourist]

Only one Naval officer sniffing!

Standards are slipping.....

[Whenurhappy]

There were only 2 on the course; the other seemed to have little interest in women...

[Tourist]

So you are a sanctimonious prude and a closet homophobe, unless I have misconstrued your last sly reference.

Nice work!

[Whenurhappy]

Err, no, he had been happily married. By hedging my bets, am I batting for both sides?

[Red Line Entry]

Tourist,

How does that statement make him a homophobe?????? Besides being light-hearted, why would it be homophobic to observe that someone (unnamed) appeared to be homosexual?

Ergo, you are a troll, unless I have misconstrued your last sly reference...

[Tourist]

Well, whilst we may have some disagreements over the "homophobe" bit, at least we seem to be in agreement over the "sanctimonious prude" section.

[Whenurhappy]

If you imply that I am prudish because of comment, albeit disapprovingly, of the frankly outrageous and unconscionable behaviour of a Royal Navy Officer at a foreign staff college, so be it.

Twenty years ago I would have thought, 'yeah, what a dude'; Two decades later, older, more sober, more senior, married with kids, I simply think 'what a sad individual'. His comments on homosexuals serving in the forces are frankly unprintable.

So call me a prude.

[Tourist]

Ok
:).............

[tarantonight]

I really should have paid more attention at skool - this all a bit too highbrow for me.

You is what you is. Whenurhappy has a point, Anybody who uses the word 'wog' in general conversation is living in the past.

I am not keen on gay men who mince around in lycra waiting for a reaction to prop up the complaint, but if you do not play the system and get on with it - good luck. We are all human beings.

The military is the same as any walk of life - made up of the community. Get used to it.

TN.

[Pontius Navigator]

I am not keen on gay men who mince around in lycra

Hey, what's this? You got something against lycra?

[monkeymanagement]

I remember the day (well only last year) that I had to advise our transatlantic cousins that it probably wasn't too PC to have the abbreviation for 'Whole Of Government' plastered through a document bound for the UK!

On the DADT piece - I've found that Monty Python's 'DADT repeal marching squad' goes down an absolute storm with my colleagues.....well, I laughed.

I believe it was a Matt cartoon published when the British Military came out of the closet: 2x Army types in a trench, under fire, "You know something sgt, somewhere, out there - there's a Laura Ashley floral print dress with my name on it!".

On a more sombre note, the Republicans have stated that they'll repeal the DADT repeal if they get in power.

[Pontius Navigator]

the Republicans have stated that they'll repeal the DADT repeal if they get in power.

So we shall get DAD TIT

"Tell I told"

[tarantonight]

'Hey, what's this? You got something against lycra?'........................

Only on fat blokes.

[Pontius Navigator]

TT guilty as charged. Sadly the lycra I have does not cover the fat bits :(

[The Old Fat One]

Frankly this whole thread is beyond the pale...

First a blatant attack on lycra...

Then fat blokes in lycra...

I suppose somebody is going to hit out at fat blokes in leather thongs next...

[Pontius Navigator]

I suppose somebody is going to hit out at fat blokes in leather thongs next...

Only fat French or German blokes in purple leather . . .

[LowObservable]

http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080205132101/fco.gov.uk/files/kfile/righteouspeace.jpg

The FCO mural referenced by Whenurhappy, anticipating DADT by many decades. Britannia? BriTRANNYa more like! Geddit?

[cazatou]

TOFO

What have the Russians got to do with this?:confused:

[Pontius Navigator]

LO, quite a gayful scene really, especially the two Aussies on the right.

[VinRouge]

We all know the Navy is dangerously gay.

Brass Eye Gay Navy - YouTube

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Seamen.....semen, no accident they are so similar :E

[Pontius Navigator]

Good to see a thread where the discussion remains firmly on the OP and no deviation or trolling.

[Scuttled]

For the record and for what it is worth.

I have many Americans working for me and they haven't noticed. They just don't care, which was pretty much the reaction of UK Mil PLC in the 90s when we decriminalised homosexuality for servicemen.

The press and politicians have tried to score points on both sides. But I say again, my lot just do not care. Absolute non-story.

:zzz:

[GreenKnight121]

Exactly... in the 1980s in the USMC & USN, despite the then-criminality of it all, most of us didn't want to know and didn't report people if we became aware... it just wasn't important.

Whether the persons did ther job well was the main thing.

[DutchRoll]

I was still serving when it was officially "decriminalised" in the Australian Defence Forces.

According to the vocal warnings from the "old guard" at the time, we were supposed to have been suddenly overrun in the various living quarters by hordes of men in g-strings wearing tiaras and singing loudly along to "Macho Man" by the Village People.

It never happened. The rule change came and went with a bit of a fizzle really, and people just went about their jobs.

Though I do remember having an argument with a particular admin Sergeant once. He said "Are you annoyed because I'm openly gay?". I replied "no, I'm annoyed because you're openly incompetent."

[Pontius Navigator]

"Are you annoyed because I'm openly ***?". I replied "no, I'm annoyed because you're openly incompetent."

Insert here whatever phobic minority group you care to mention.

One female officer was accused of bias against another female and the gist of her response was as above.

Mind you the Doc Martin maffia was something else again.