"Don't Ask Don't Tell" Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

Bloo Driver, if you're watching The View - a show about people whose opinions don't matter - as they give their opinion - which doesn't matter - about Lady Gaga - another person whose opinion doesn't matter - then you deserve to have your soul die a little as you realize how incredibly fortunate we are that their opinions don't matter.

If only they were the only people running around with these opinions...

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Seth wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

I still find it shocking that people are expecting a culture which lags behind (about a generation behind) society's culture to "just deal with it" when society cannot. It would be different if Gay marriage and rights were all equal, and then we were expecting the military to change. I still think it's a little cart before the horse. Glass houses and all.

How long after Loving v. Virginia did it take the military to integrate? :)

The military was desegregated by executive order in 1948.

Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954.

Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967.

At least so far as the civil rights movement is concerned, then, the military was actually ahead of the curve.

There was plenty of criticism of the military, for largely the same reasons. "Combat effectiveness" would be threatened. A senator at the time proposed a bill that would allow all entrants into the army the right to choose whether they would be in a segregated or integrated unit, and it was defeated in committee. The military has effectively been through the same thing previously. The moronic bigots were voted down once, and can be voted down a second time.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

I'm in the army so I can talk bad about soldiers and say we should kick out those that are intolerant and commit hate crimes against homosexuals.

Yeah, that would probably go down about the same way as the zero tolerance policy for hazing.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

I'm in the army so I can talk bad about soldiers and say we should kick out those that are intolerant and commit hate crimes against homosexuals.

Yeah, that would probably go down about the same way as the zero tolerance policy for hazing.

I don't know. The only time I was "hazed" was in basic training. A drill sergeant was making people stand at parade rest in front of him and he would hit them in the balls with his brown round hat. He tried to do that to me and I grabbed the hat and chucked it down the hall. I told him never to even think about doing that to me and he just quietly went and picked up his hat and walked away. You just have to know your rights and not let idiots abuse powers. That's why there is an IG to file complaints with.

How many people have been discharged for asking instead of telling, anyway?

Al wrote:

How many people have been discharged for asking instead of telling, anyway?

My google-fu shows that many people ask this question, and I have yet to find an answer, or a news report of even one person being discharged. On the other hand, I found several articles discussing how military recruiters were "asking". I'm not sure if that technically violates DADT, but it sure as hell violates the spirit of it.

My own Googling turned this up. It's a twelve year old report so I'm not sure what the current trends are but in 1997 it looks like "Don't Ask" violations represented about 10% of the DADT discharges. I'll admit it, though. I'm surprised that there are any.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

I don't know. The only time I was "hazed" was in basic training. A drill sergeant was making people stand at parade rest in front of him and he would hit them in the balls with his brown round hat. He tried to do that to me and I grabbed the hat and chucked it down the hall. I told him never to even think about doing that to me and he just quietly went and picked up his hat and walked away.

That showcases the difference between services as well as (I assume) pogue units versus infantry units. A lot of lip service was always given to the zero tolerance policy, but in reality it went on every day and I have no doubts that 99% of the people knew about it, everything from making the boots push in MOPP 4 Alphas to pinning on bloodstripes.

As for the DI thing, grabbing a Marine DI's cover would have earned you a beatdown and nothing would have been done about it because of the one arm's distance rule. I recall one kid getting his nose busted (crosschecked in the face with a dummy rifle) and another getting the crap kicked out of him by two DIs and the only thing that happened was the DIs in question were sent home for the night.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

I'm in the army so I can talk bad about soldiers and say we should kick out those that are intolerant and commit hate crimes against homosexuals.

Yeah, that would probably go down about the same way as the zero tolerance policy for hazing.

I don't know. The only time I was "hazed" was in basic training. A drill sergeant was making people stand at parade rest in front of him and he would hit them in the balls with his brown round hat. He tried to do that to me and I grabbed the hat and chucked it down the hall. I told him never to even think about doing that to me and he just quietly went and picked up his hat and walked away. You just have to know your rights and not let idiots abuse powers. That's why there is an IG to file complaints with.

That makes me wonder if you were the only one who passed some kind of test.

Robear and I both know someone who went through Marine basic after the institution of the "zero tolerance" policy only to be rudely awakened to the reality Cannibal attests.

On his first morning of basic, the DI woke everyone up with the whole banging trashcan routine at o'dark thirty. The recruit next to him in line was a large African American who was, apparently, awoken in the middle of a pleasant dream as his rather impressive equipment was poking fully out of his shorts. It was all anyone could do to hold in their laughter, so when the DI took off his cover and hanged it on the recruit's johnson and barked "don't you dare drop my cover", the room erupted in laughter. Without missing a beat, the DI gave our friend an uppercut to the balls that lifted him off the ground, verbally berated him, and told him to get his feet back on the footprints before he gave him the beatdown of his life.

Welcome to the USMC.

Paleocon wrote:

Robear and I both know someone who went through Marine basic after the institution of the "zero tolerance" policy only to be rudely awakened to the reality Cannibal attests.

On his first morning of basic, the DI woke everyone up with the whole banging trashcan routine at o'dark thirty. The recruit next to him in line was a large African American who was, apparently, awoken in the middle of a pleasant dream as his rather impressive equipment was poking fully out of his shorts. It was all anyone could do to hold in their laughter, so when the DI took off his cover and hanged it on the recruit's johnson and barked "don't you dare drop my cover", the room erupted in laughter. Without missing a beat, the DI gave our friend an uppercut to the balls that lifted him off the ground, verbally berated him, and told him to get his feet back on the footprints before he gave him the beatdown of his life.

Welcome to the USMC.

Well, the army/navy/airforce is different I guess. I know if someone did that to an Army recruit they would at the least have rank taken away or discharged from the army. Thus my point of when a drill sergeant tried to hit me I grabbed his hat and chucked it down the hall because I know my rights and it's illegal to haze me. I would have demanded from my chain of command that I speak with IG or a lawyer. But that's just me.

Paleocon wrote:

Robear and I both know someone who went through Marine basic after the institution of the "zero tolerance" policy only to be rudely awakened to the reality Cannibal attests.

On his first morning of basic, the DI woke everyone up with the whole banging trashcan routine at o'dark thirty. The recruit next to him in line was a large African American who was, apparently, awoken in the middle of a pleasant dream as his rather impressive equipment was poking fully out of his shorts. It was all anyone could do to hold in their laughter, so when the DI took off his cover and hanged it on the recruit's johnson and barked "don't you dare drop my cover", the room erupted in laughter. Without missing a beat, the DI gave our friend an uppercut to the balls that lifted him off the ground, verbally berated him, and told him to get his feet back on the footprints before he gave him the beatdown of his life.

Welcome to the USMC.

How tall was the recruit, or how short was the DI, that he could uppercut him in the balls?

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Robear and I both know someone who went through Marine basic after the institution of the "zero tolerance" policy only to be rudely awakened to the reality Cannibal attests.

On his first morning of basic, the DI woke everyone up with the whole banging trashcan routine at o'dark thirty. The recruit next to him in line was a large African American who was, apparently, awoken in the middle of a pleasant dream as his rather impressive equipment was poking fully out of his shorts. It was all anyone could do to hold in their laughter, so when the DI took off his cover and hanged it on the recruit's johnson and barked "don't you dare drop my cover", the room erupted in laughter. Without missing a beat, the DI gave our friend an uppercut to the balls that lifted him off the ground, verbally berated him, and told him to get his feet back on the footprints before he gave him the beatdown of his life.

Welcome to the USMC.

Well, the army/navy/airforce is different I guess. I know if someone did that to an Army recruit they would at the least have rank taken away or discharged from the army. Thus my point of when a drill sergeant tried to hit me I grabbed his hat and chucked it down the hall because I know my rights and it's illegal to haze me. I would have demanded from my chain of command that I speak with IG or a lawyer. But that's just me.

I suspect that there is quite a difference in the way different service branches approach things. I also suspect that far less of this sort of thing happens now than it did 20 years ago.

Our friend told me that the only way you could even approach your chain of command in basic was through either your immediate superior or through the chaplain. Since you needed an excuse from duty and an appointment to see the chaplain in the first place, the DI always knew what was up. There was always a great deal of public humiliation in it for anyone who even suggested that it was time to see the chaplain and it was always suggested that the recruit simply wash out instead.

Paleocon wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Robear and I both know someone who went through Marine basic after the institution of the "zero tolerance" policy only to be rudely awakened to the reality Cannibal attests.

On his first morning of basic, the DI woke everyone up with the whole banging trashcan routine at o'dark thirty. The recruit next to him in line was a large African American who was, apparently, awoken in the middle of a pleasant dream as his rather impressive equipment was poking fully out of his shorts. It was all anyone could do to hold in their laughter, so when the DI took off his cover and hanged it on the recruit's johnson and barked "don't you dare drop my cover", the room erupted in laughter. Without missing a beat, the DI gave our friend an uppercut to the balls that lifted him off the ground, verbally berated him, and told him to get his feet back on the footprints before he gave him the beatdown of his life.

Welcome to the USMC.

Well, the army/navy/airforce is different I guess. I know if someone did that to an Army recruit they would at the least have rank taken away or discharged from the army. Thus my point of when a drill sergeant tried to hit me I grabbed his hat and chucked it down the hall because I know my rights and it's illegal to haze me. I would have demanded from my chain of command that I speak with IG or a lawyer. But that's just me.

I suspect that there is quite a difference in the way different service branches approach things. I also suspect that far less of this sort of thing happens now than it did 20 years ago.

Our friend told me that the only way you could even approach your chain of command in basic was through either your immediate superior or through the chaplain. Since you needed an excuse from duty and an appointment to see the chaplain in the first place, the DI always knew what was up. There was always a great deal of public humiliation in it for anyone who even suggested that it was time to see the chaplain and it was always suggested that the recruit simply wash out instead.

It probably helped that I was not 17 and already had a college degree and was a teacher prior to entering the Army. I knew enough about my rights and would have demanded to immediately speak to a chaplain/IG/Lawyer. I would not have taken no and am old enough to not care what people think of me when my rights are infringed. Trust me, no one would pull any kind of shiza like that on me. I look after my troops the same way. I encourage them to openly tell me if they feel infringed upon or if they feel like they are being treated unfairly. They tell me and I make sure it is rectified if it is more than just common whining like "this sucks". It's poor leadership that allows for hazing to occur in today's Military.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Robear and I both know someone who went through Marine basic after the institution of the "zero tolerance" policy only to be rudely awakened to the reality Cannibal attests.

On his first morning of basic, the DI woke everyone up with the whole banging trashcan routine at o'dark thirty. The recruit next to him in line was a large African American who was, apparently, awoken in the middle of a pleasant dream as his rather impressive equipment was poking fully out of his shorts. It was all anyone could do to hold in their laughter, so when the DI took off his cover and hanged it on the recruit's johnson and barked "don't you dare drop my cover", the room erupted in laughter. Without missing a beat, the DI gave our friend an uppercut to the balls that lifted him off the ground, verbally berated him, and told him to get his feet back on the footprints before he gave him the beatdown of his life.

Welcome to the USMC.

Well, the army/navy/airforce is different I guess. I know if someone did that to an Army recruit they would at the least have rank taken away or discharged from the army. Thus my point of when a drill sergeant tried to hit me I grabbed his hat and chucked it down the hall because I know my rights and it's illegal to haze me. I would have demanded from my chain of command that I speak with IG or a lawyer. But that's just me.

I suspect that there is quite a difference in the way different service branches approach things. I also suspect that far less of this sort of thing happens now than it did 20 years ago.

Our friend told me that the only way you could even approach your chain of command in basic was through either your immediate superior or through the chaplain. Since you needed an excuse from duty and an appointment to see the chaplain in the first place, the DI always knew what was up. There was always a great deal of public humiliation in it for anyone who even suggested that it was time to see the chaplain and it was always suggested that the recruit simply wash out instead.

It probably helped that I was not 17 and already had a college degree and was a teacher prior to entering the Army. I knew enough about my rights and would have demanded to immediately speak to a chaplain/IG/Lawyer. I would not have taken no and am old enough to not care what people think of me when my rights are infringed. Trust me, no one would pull any kind of shiza like that on me. I look after my troops the same way. I encourage them to openly tell me if they feel infringed upon or if they feel like they are being treated unfairly. They tell me and I make sure it is rectified if it is more than just common whining like "this sucks". It's poor leadership that allows for hazing to occur in today's Military.

I tend to agree with that.

There may have been a time when the hazing actually contributed to overall awesomeness, but that time has long past. I suppose if you're an early 20th century military and need to condition recruits to run headlong into machinegun fire without so much as a second thought, beating innovative thinking out of folks early is right and necessary. I suspect that a great deal of the abuse was historically tolerated because of this sort of justification.

Today's military and today's conflicts are entirely different and require different mental tools. If you have a buck private too intimidated to tell his NCO that that plastic 5 gallon bucket on the side of the road looks suspicious, you'll end up with a platoon of dead marines.

Not really a huge contribution, but this discussion regarding the DI and hazing makes me think of Jarhead.

I haven't read the book yet but I have the DVD so I've seen the movie a few times. On one of the commentary tracks the author Anthony Swofford talks about a few DIs they encountered in the Marines. He said, IIRC, that the only one he knew of that got physical with recruits had pretty severe fallout, I believe he was discharged or demoted.

These things probably depend on several factors, including a recruit being willing to stand up for himself, finding a way to get word to someone in the chain, and finding a person who will take action.

In a blatant attempt to re-rail the thread...

Judge Ronald Leighton ruled last Friday that Major Margaret Witt is to be reinstated to the Air Force after ruling that her discharge under DADT did not further military readiness, unit morale, and cohesion. The Judge went as far to say that removing her did the opposite by removing a highly decorated and effective flight nurse and harmed her unit's morale.

If the same logic is applied to future DADT cases and discharges, the policy might be effectively neutered before it's overturned.

Yay for so-called activist judges. Screw politicians.

The case Paleo and I are familiar with was from the early 80's.

To give you an idea of how comfortable the majority of people in the Army are now with homosexuals I'll show you a video some people made downrange. They are being a little over the top with it, but it made for a humorous video.

NSFW

Eight months in the making. 400,000 service members questioned, the largest survey of military personnel ever..115,000 responses. Millions of dollars wasted spent.

A fat 250+ page report to justify it all.

The result? A giant meh.

The results of the survey are best represented by the answers to three questions:

When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of
Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.

When asked “in your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a co-worker that you believed to be homosexual,” 69% of Service members reported that they had.

When asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a co-worker who they believed was gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very
good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”

So now that the generals can no longer claim that the enlisted folks would get all creeped out by teh gays, how long does everyone think it will take to get DADT to be officially consigned to the dust bins of history?

OG_slinger wrote:

Eight months in the making. 400,000 service members questioned, the largest survey of military personnel ever..115,000 responses. Millions of dollars wasted spent.

A fat 250+ page report to justify it all.

The result? A giant meh.

The results of the survey are best represented by the answers to three questions:

When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of
Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.

When asked “in your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a co-worker that you believed to be homosexual,” 69% of Service members reported that they had.

When asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a co-worker who they believed was gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very
good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”

So now that the generals can no longer claim that the enlisted folks would get all creeped out by teh gays, how long does everyone think it will take to get DADT to be officially consigned to the dust bins of history?

Hard to say. The influence of homophobic religious nutbars is disproportionate to their numbers and they are sitting on the terrain and dug in.

I know it's a silly naive thought and would never happen, but the way blacks were integrated into the military was to have their own units, why not have a gay brigade and when they show they are just as good as any other soldier, people would start to forget. I guess that's not possible, but eh, why not.

MaxShrek wrote:

I know it's a silly naive thought and would never happen, but the way blacks were integrated into the military was to have their own units, why not have a gay brigade and when they show they are just as good as any other soldier, people would start to forget. I guess that's not possible, but eh, why not.

Alexander did it already.

Paleocon wrote:
MaxShrek wrote:

I know it's a silly naive thought and would never happen, but the way blacks were integrated into the military was to have their own units, why not have a gay brigade and when they show they are just as good as any other soldier, people would start to forget. I guess that's not possible, but eh, why not.

Alexander did it already.

I think you are thinking of Thebes Sacred Band, they were a couple of decades before Alexander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_...

I don't understand why we even care what the opinion of the military is. They work for us, not the other way around. Shut up and soldier, you know?

I don't think we took widespread opinion polls about integrating black soldiers.

Malor wrote:

I don't understand why we even care what the opinion of the military is. They work for us, not the other way around. Shut up and soldier, you know?

Yup. You don't need to ask the opinion of someone you can order around.

NathanialG wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
MaxShrek wrote:

I know it's a silly naive thought and would never happen, but the way blacks were integrated into the military was to have their own units, why not have a gay brigade and when they show they are just as good as any other soldier, people would start to forget. I guess that's not possible, but eh, why not.

Alexander did it already.

I think you are thinking of Thebes Sacred Band, they were a couple of decades before Alexander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_...

I wonder is Achilles and Patroclus were members at one stage.

Although homosexual behaviour was so accepted in Hellenistic society you could probably argue that Alexanders army probably was one large, gay army.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
MaxShrek wrote:

I know it's a silly naive thought and would never happen, but the way blacks were integrated into the military was to have their own units, why not have a gay brigade and when they show they are just as good as any other soldier, people would start to forget. I guess that's not possible, but eh, why not.

Alexander did it already.

I think you are thinking of Thebes Sacred Band, they were a couple of decades before Alexander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_...

I wonder is Achilles and Patroclus were members at one stage.

Although homosexual behaviour was so accepted in Hellenistic society you could probably argue that Alexanders army probably was one large, gay army.

So I guess Al is short for Alexander?

IMAGE(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa7/willis1888/BigGayAl.png)

As far as I can tell the reason that gays are not currently allowed in the military is one of the same reasons why women arn't allowed in combat units. I don't think the biggest problem is the fact that they are gay (although this is probably a part it). It's because once you allow either women or gays into a combat unit you run the risk of romantic relationships forming, and a romantic relationship within a combat unit could risk the effectiveness of that unit.