Obama to end Dont ask Dont tell...

[screamer581]

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama will allow gays to serve openly in the military by overturning the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy that marred President Clinton's first days in office, according to incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

The startling pronouncement, which could re-open a dormant battle in the culture wars and distract from other elements of Obama's agenda, came during a Gibbs exchange with members of the public who sent in questions that were answered on YouTube.

"Thadeus of Lansing, Mich., asks, 'Is the new administration going to get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell policy?'" said Gibbs, looking into the camera. "Thadeus, you don't hear a politician give a one-word answer much. But it's, 'Yes.'"

The Obama transition team declined to elaborate on that one-word answer when asked by FOX News on Wednesday about a timetable for repealing the policy, which was enacted by Clinton after a protracted public debate. Obama officials also would not explain which lawmakers or Pentagon officials would attempt to repeal "don't ask, don't tell."

Clinton, who initially sought to overturn the longstanding ban on gays in the military, ended up enacting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a compromise that made it illegal for commanders to ask about the sexual orientation of service members, who were also barred from announcing they were homosexual. If a service member's homosexuality becomes known anyway, he or she is expelled.

Clinton is widely viewed as having stumbled during his first days in office by getting caught up in the raging controversy, which detracted from the rest of his agenda. It is not yet clear whether Obama would face a similar debacle.

For years, Obama has said he generally opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Last summer, he told a gay magazine he can "reasonbably" see it being repealed. But that was a far cry from Gibbs' unequivocal promise that the policy will indeed be ended.

The gay community is eager for a quick repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," but fears it could be months before the new administration reaches a consensus with lawmakers and the military. Others think Obama could do it quickly, but is leery of the kind of fallout Bill Clinton faced when he tackled the divisive issue.


About damn time.

[Homyrrh]

We had a sizable debate on this last winter, and I (still) stand VERY firm that Obama's intent is a manifestation of a monumentally tragic mistake.

[The Postmaster General]

The gay community is eager for a quick repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," but fears it could be months before the new administration reaches a consensus with lawmakers and the military.


Months? Damn Homyrrh, there goes our honeymoon to Iraq!!

[Homyrrh]

Months? Damn Homyrrh, there goes our honeymoon to Iraq!!
Hey man, I was hoping for Afghanistan, all huddled in a tent on a cold mountainside with ambient small arms fire.

[Criminal Rock]

We had a sizable debate on this last winter, and I (still) stand VERY firm that Obama's intent is a manifestation of a monumentally tragic mistake.

Tragic huh.. for who, and why?

[Homyrrh]

Tragic huh.. for who, and why?
However unfortunate, this is not a move that is in the best interest of the military.

[Vong]

However unfortunate, this is not a move that is in the best interest of the military.

Why?

[Homyrrh]

Why?
I had painted a slight picture of the prevailing argument against here (http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121366&highlight=unit+cohesion), and still feel strongly that the military should not integrate homosexuals. The fundamental logic is that the sanctity of unit cohesion must be preserved.

[Jon Lyrik]

Like the blacks would fuck with the whites when the military was integrated, am i rite guys? They can suck it up and be glad the guy in back of them thinks their ass is pretty cute when it needs saving.

[Homyrrh]

Like the blacks would fuck with the whites when the military was integrated, am i rite guys? They can suck it up and be glad the guy in back of them thinks their ass is pretty cute when it needs saving.
This is generally the most utilized, most convenient argument to advocate for abolishing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". It does, however, posit certain assumptions that are rather short-sighter. For example, to compare segration by skin color and that of sexual preference is foolishly rudimentary: simply, one is definitively superficial and the other is not.

Ultimately I am not seeking for an argument of gay rights; the military should look to act in the best interest of the defense of the nation, and I, like most brass in the service, see unit cohesion as a higher priority than letting gays openly serve.

Besides, if practicing my own natural heterosexuality was hypothetically disallowed (for sake of argument), like any person wishing to serve his/her country should know and be strongly convicted, I would realize the obvious "higher calling" and stifle my own self-interests. Otherwise...conscription has been long abolished.

[Criminal Rock]

I remember that thread now, and I still don't agree with this logic that it's more important to protect the comfort level of homophobic soldiers for the sake of "unit cohesion" and "military efficiency", instead of rightfully allowing gays to exist as equals.

The very notion that a gay person somehow burdens unit efficiency is a complete fabrication, and nothing else, there is no valid evidence to back this up apart from a homophobic's perspective. Mind you this argument holds no truth in other countries who allow openly gay men and women in the military. They would say they are just as efficient and just as productive.

Can't find it now, but I remember reading somewhere on military.com (.gov?) where it said gays do not burden unit cohesion.

I'm sure if someone yahoo's "unit cohesion" "Gays" "Military" you'll find it.

[Jon Lyrik]

What, pray tell, is not superficial in gheyness? It's not like there isn't black identity too.

[jolanar]

Gay folks get the same brainwashing that heterosexual people get, so I don't see how it could possibly affect unit cohesion?

As if somehow straight people don't get mad/dislike each other for personal reasons?

[Vong]

This is the same backwards argument that homophobes use against two gay parents raising a child; as if their gayness would somehow affect their children's sexual orientation. There is no proof, as Tai said, to homosexual's affecting the performance of soldiers. Just as there is no proof to gay parents emitting gay-waves onto young children.

For my first year of university, I shared a dorm room with a homosexual guy. Should I blame him for some of the poor grades that I suffered that year? Because his gayness somehow affected my ability to learn?

[Badbird]

The fundamental logic is that the sanctity of unit cohesion must be preserved.

Or... grown men trained to drive tanks and fire machines guns could just man-up and act like fucking grown ups.

It's not like getting cooties, for fuck's sake.

If a straight dude can't handle being around a gay dude, then he probably doesn't have the mental capacity to be a good soldier and you wouldn't want him in the Army anyway.

I believe the British Army has had an open gay policy in place for some time and they're doing A-ok.

[Cop No. 633]

For my first year of university, I shared a dorm room with a homosexual guy. Should I blame him for some of the poor grades that I suffered that year? Because his gayness somehow affected my ability to learn?

Yes. Yes, you should. God knows those tight shorts must have distracted you while you were studying.

[Preston_79]

This policy ending can't stop soldiers from not asking. I can't really see a soldier wanting to tell everyone he's a homosexual. There are already loads of gay dudes in the military already I'd guess.


I don't see this being a big deal. If guys in the military start coming out of the closet it's not like they'll be sharing cots on base. What they do off base is one thing, but I doubt they'd be slapping skins out in the field when they're supposed to be doing a job. Yea, I don't see this being an issue, but we'll just have to see what happens. Probably nothing.

[electriclite]

Ultimately I am not seeking for an argument of gay rights; the military should look to act in the best interest of the defense of the nation, and I, like most brass in the service, see unit cohesion as a higher priority than letting gays openly serve.


Yeah, but the thing is you already have this policy in place and therefore know that there are probably gays in your troop. So instead of behind highly suspicious of every male that touches you, looks at you or sleeps in your proximity you've evolved past that.

The military evolved into "Don't Ask..." so isn't it the nature of all things that they'll evolve onto the next step from that?

Besides, if practicing my own natural heterosexuality was hypothetically disallowed (for sake of argument), like any person wishing to serve his/her country should know and be strongly convicted, I would realize the obvious "higher calling" and stifle my own self-interests. Otherwise...conscription has been long abolished.

Right exactly! That is generally what gay soldiers are adhering to except for maybe a few exceptions. But most gay soldiers know that just because they repeal "Don't Ask.." doesn't mean they're immediately going to leave pictures of their boyfriends or girlfriends out for all to see. The majority are going to take the temperature of their environment decide to what level they want to be "open" with their fellow officers (if at all) and still act in accordance with conduct becoming an officer of the military.

Also, I disagree that using the integration of the races into the military isn't the best example against "Don't Ask". If someone hates another race, which is parallel to the hatred homophobes have for gays, both are just as potentially destructive to unit cohesion. Both blacks and gay soldiers can easily prove their temperment for the battlefield. But the issue is not gays and blacks, or even women for that matter proving their ability to serve effectively, but of whether their fellow officers will allow them to do so without fear of those officers' own prejudices obstructing their ability to serve, as well as threatening their safety within the military.

[Criminal Rock]

WASHINGTON - Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.

To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.

Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.

Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.

The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches. According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.

Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military - Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.

Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.

Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.

"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.

Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."

"Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.

Source of article (http://www.military.com/news/article/study-gays-dont-harm-unit-cohesion.html)

Source of study (http://www.palmcenter.org/node/263)