End of DADT policy in US military
End of DADT policy in US military
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)
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)
Last edited by KeyPilot; 20th Sep 2011 at 15:07. Reason: typo
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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?
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?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It's a subject I really couldn't give a tinker's toss about.
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....
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.
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.
he was concerned the Govt would make it compulsory.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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?
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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...
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...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
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.
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.