July 21, 2011

"The Pentagon is set to certify that the U.S. military is prepared to accept openly gay and lesbian service members..."

"... and doing so will not harm military readiness, a U.S. official told CNN on Thursday."

85 comments:

David said...

Oh, why not. An entire combat infantry company can marry each other as soon as polygamy becomes a constitutional right and then they will have better esprit de corps.

Family and all, you see.

edutcher said...

Sure, it's worked so well down the ages.

chickenlittle said...

Does this clinch the gay vote for Obama?

Rose said...

Talking to friends in Israel - this is not an issue, EVERYONE SERVES.

MarkG said...

When Major Faggerly gives an eye-rolling speech to the troops for Gay Soldier Appreciation Month, it'll be to supply and logistics personnel in Missouri.

Green Berets, Rangers, Apache pilots, and others whose fighting readiness we depend on, will never have to bother with it. So, yes, readiness won't be affected in any meaningful way.

Paul said...

Now I notice there are women in most of the service branches.And unfortunately alot of them get pregnant and thus have to leave the service (at mucho cost to the military.)

Now gays will have their own set of problems (making passes at straits, gay jealousies, AIDS, etc..)

And so all this will not hurt readiness, right?

Sure. As long as we don't get in a REAL shooting war with an enemy who can fight (and we have been lucky we have had none since WW2 that could really fight.)

We are more and more becoming like the europussies. But that will change once a shoot'en war comes.

Say gang, remember the old saying, 'what if they gave a war and no one shows up?"

Well do you know what happens when they give a war and only one side shows up?

Fred4Pres said...

Fabulous!

I agree, it will turn out not to be that big a deal. And countries like Australia and Israel have it and it is not a big deal.

In Israel everyone serves except for the ultra religious. That pisses off the rest of the country.

chickenlittle said...

Rose said...
Talking to friends in Israel - this is not an issue, EVERYONE SERVES.

But don't they have universal conscription?

Almost Ali said...

Take that hill, Corporal (Barney) Frank!

(Uh oh, I feel a draft coming on)

chickenlittle said...

Did Scalia weigh in on this one?

traditionalguy said...

I will not give this CNN rumor credibility until I see a certification from Titus.

But I do wonder if President Bachmann will pray for them to become men right before she sends them to fight for everyone's life.

MayBee said...

I think that's great. I'm happy gays and lesbians will get to serve openly now.

I find the pronouncement of the fact it's effect in the future to be a little silly, though.

dbp said...

According to the official, who spoke on condition of not being identified, an announcement of that certification -- which is required to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- is likely to come Friday.

Given the routine nature of "officials" deceitfully blabbing to the press behind their boss' back, is it any wonder?
Regardless of what officials really think, it was always a sure bet that they would make this certification?

Rick said...

A new reason for the one-sleeping-bag-per-foxhole rule.

gutless said...

I served. I know the Army and soldier's beliefs and attitudes. This is B S. Open gays and lesbians in any numbers will be an f'ing disaster. It will be very difficult to back out of this later but it will happen and will be the price of maintaining the strength of the American military.

Browndog said...

Let's see...

The "Gay movement"despises the military, and would love to see it disbanded.


"The Gays", by definition, put their gayness above all else.

signed,
Bradley Manning

Browndog said...

I think that's great. I'm happy gays and lesbians will get to serve openly now.

Define "serve openly".

Palladian said...

Oh great, time for another round of whinging about the evil queers from the resident losers.

You lost, bitches. Get over it.

Palladian said...

And for the record, I think Bradley Manning should be executed. But thanks for tying the service of honorable gay members of the military to a traitor that happens to be gay. That's a wonderful way to win an argument and make everyone like you.

Palladian said...

So... I wonder how long it will take for Shouting Thomas to get here. I'm sure his nose is tingling right now... "I sense a great disturbance in the Force! People are whinging about gays somewhere!"

Luther said...

This same Pentagon, in its efforts at diversity, inclusion, and base pandering can't even admit to the dangers of Islamist terrorists in their midst, such as Major Nidal Malik Hasan. So I'm to trust their judgment as to 'anything' that might do harm to the US military... why?

MarkG said...

When I was in the Navy, my girlfriend in Minnesota thought that male rape was a common occurrence on Navy ships. I'd been on a ship for two years when she said that, and the concept of a possibility male rape had never crossed my mind.

When people who haven't been in the military have an opinion about what will or won't work well in military life, all I have to say is STFU.

Rick said...

Mark: Did you ever work in the engine room?

m stone said...

Yes, this does clinch the gay vote for Obama.

Military readiness was never a concern.

Other than those who are gay and those who are PC, nobody cares.

Browndog said...

Palladian said...

But thanks for tying the service of honorable gay members of the military to a traitor that happens to be gay. That's a wonderful way to win an argument and make everyone like you.

I didn't tie anyone to anything-you did.

No, not a traitor that "happens to be gay"

Typical libtard rationalizing.

He became a traitor because he was gay.

See if this helps: I'm not here to "win" anything, and I'm even less interested in people "liking" me.

I'm just here to say my peace.

-peace

MarkG said...

Rick: No I was in OPS, but I knew people in Engineering. Still doesn't ring a bell.

Lem said...

"I sense a great disturbance in the Force! People are whinging about gays somewhere!"

lol..

chickenlittle said...

m stone wrote: Yes, this does clinch the gay vote for Obama.

I'll vote for whomever has the best economic plan, but that's just me.

Luther said...

"Still doesn't ring a bell."

Ha.

MarkG said...

There was a gay guy in my division. He slit his wrists because he wanted out of his enlistment. But instead of slitting his wrists in private, like you're supposed to so you have time to bleed to death, he did it in front of the chief. Drama queen. But it worked. He got his discharge.

Rick said...

MarkG
I spent some time in the boiler room of a destroyer one summer, decades ago. While I saw no rape it did cross my mind: That was a wild set of guys.

jeff said...

"Typical libtard rationalizing."

Wow Palladian, he really nailed you. All these years, I some how missed you being a libtard. Thanks Browndog, for helping me see the light. Disagree with browndog=libtard. Genius. Finally a metric to identify the libtard.

MarkG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MarkG said...

Rick - were you a Naval Academy midshipman? I never thought of rape on a ship, but Annapolis is a different story.

Rick said...

MarkG:
NROTC, summers of 1963 and 1964. I do think that the guys were on the best behavior having a midshipman around.

MarkG said...

Rick, I can assure you they were buggering each other when you weren't looking, despite their rowdy behavior.

mariner said...

gutless,
I served. I know the Army and soldier's beliefs and attitudes. This is B S. Open gays and lesbians in any numbers will be an f'ing disaster.

And that is precisely the object.

Dustin said...

"He became a traitor because he was gay."

It does bring something into play.

It's just a fact that fraternization in the military can lead to a lot of problems. In combat units, I think the problems are much worse, or could be, though with male only units the problem is controllable with contact with support units.

It's definitely something the military will have to clamp down very hard on, but currently, the military often turns a blind eye to fraternization. I see the potential for some difficulty as this kind of issue is resolved.

However, I've never seen a jilted lover leak classified intel, and that's probably not going to be a common problem. Manning's real problem is that he didn't care about this country's safety. He's a traitor. His access to so much information was also a bigger problem than DADT.

If people do decide to leave the military, it will be in lower ranks where quarters are generally closer. In this economy, they will be easier to replace (though it still will be a bad thing to see).

Life goes on, though. Obama is the president. The democrats have a lot of power. This is what the American people wanted.

craig said...

To hear the flag officers tell it, Diversity is the highest military value: it did no harm at all to military readiness when superior officers repeatedly rubber-stamped Major Hassan's fitness for service, and in the name of multiculturalism. This situation will be similar; the rank and file will be prevented from speaking up about real problems because the generals have decreed that no such problem can exist. Political correctness will drive away all the most fit and most willing, because they are the least likely to put up with it. Thus endeth the all-volunteer military.

The first time a Moslem soldier beheads a gay soldier, the brass won't know which side to take.

MarkG said...

I mean they weren't

Rick said...

MarkG: I accepted your first comment as probably correct. They did from time to time let it all hang out, so to speak. Those boiler rooms were really something: incredibly hot and noisy. Some guys did it for their careers.

jimbino said...

The military should accept only single, childfree men and women. Just think how many of our scarce dollars would be saved in commissary privileges, housing and health benefits and survivors benefits.

As it is, any single, childfree man or woman who enlists is a fool who suffers the same risks for meager compensation compared to that offered the married breeders.

MadisonMan said...

Filed under No Big Deal in the Long Run.

MarkG said...

The first time a Moslem soldier beheads a gay soldier, the brass won't know which side to take.

The biggest cowards in the world are senior military officers. Toss in a little controversy and they'll shit their pants where they stand.

Dustin said...

"jimbino said...

The military should accept only single, childfree men and women. Just think how many of our scarce dollars would be saved in commissary privileges, housing and health benefits and survivors benefits."

You say that as though it's sarcastic, but yes, it would be awesome if the military was for single childless men and women up to the rank of E-6 or O-3.

Then they can get married.

I guess this sounds alien to our free society, but I think it makes a hell of a lot of sense. Leave 100% of enlisted men in barracks together, until they earn higher ranks.

I actually wouldn't mind if the Army and Marines were male only, and never really saw the oppression in asking gay soldiers to make the additional sacrifice of keeping their sexuality private.

I guess I'm just crazy, though.

Methadras said...

For decades the Pentagon has said no. Now they say yes. Buckle and cave into pressure much? Looks like the weak-willed, weak-spined are taking over. Where is the gravitas?

G Joubert said...

MarKG: No I was in OPS

OS?

phx said...

Wow Palladian, he really nailed you. All these years, I some how missed you being a libtard. Thanks Browndog, for helping me see the light. Disagree with browndog=libtard. Genius. Finally a metric to identify the libtard.

That "disagree with me you're a libtard (or worse)" is not that unusual here. For the Rethuglican equivalent visit balloon juice dot com.

Phil 3:14 said...

Next issue:

Why are gay soldiers promoted at the same rate as their heterosexual counterparts?

-AND-

You have three candidates for the command of that post, 1 is black, 1 is a woman, 1 is gay. Choose. (And no, neither the women nor the black officer are gay.)

Big Mike said...

If they're wrong, we'll probably find it out too late.

MarkG said...

@G Joubert. I was an AG -- weatherman. Which eventually took me to UW-Madison, so there's a silver lining.

Luther said...

"The military should accept only single, childfree men and women."

When I joined you could only marry after attaining a certain rank.

But then, free medical for life after serving twenty years was also proffered.

But the rules change at the whims of Congress. You really can't trust anyone in government, nor the higher ranks of the military. If you are an individual whose boots are on the ground, the only ones you can trust, at least up to this point, are those immediately around you. Even then, one has to factor human nature into the equation. Having read Mailer before joining the military I was most comforted by "fuck'em all, save six for pallbearers." It was warning and indicative as to what I later learned.

Michael K said...

Oh great, time for another round of whinging about the evil queers from the resident losers.

You lost, bitches. Get over it.


Great attitude. You would last about 30 minutes in the military and would be found in a dumpster. The Israelis gave up on women in combat and I suspect the rear echelons, already well equipped with gay soldiers, will be the place for gay pride parades while the guys who aren't interested in newspaper stories win the battles.

MarkG said...

The bottom line is that the gays will be with the women. They'll serve admirably in their roles as paper pushers and what-not, so long as their lifestyle isn't too challenging.

Perhaps the Navy was popular with gays after that Village People song, but the Air Force is their natural home.

Palladian said...

"Great attitude. You would last about 30 minutes in the military and would be found in a dumpster."

So not only is our military full of pussies that will fall completely to shivering pieces when confronted with an openly gay brother-in-arms, but it's apparently full of homicidal psychopaths as well. What a wonderful picture you armchair paratrippers present of the United States military!

Jason said...

The devil is in the details. And here they are. Yes, if you're a guy, you can have a boyfriend. You can even marry him on the side. But no, your gay spouse doesn't get to live in military housing. Heather's two mommies won't get to live on base. Your gay spouse doesn't get a dependent ID. Doesn't get commissary privileges. Your gay spouse's baby doesn't get dependent status, unless she's formally adopted.

No medical bennies for stepchildren of gay servicemembers unless formally adopted in addition to the gay wedding. No medical bennies for gay spouses.

No BAH Type II for servicemen and women married to same sex partners.

They've created a monster. Two militaries, separate and unequal.

How do you think that's going to be for troop morale?

Luther said...

I was actually hoping, Palladian, that you might engage in a more relevant discussion other than picking off the low hanging fruit. No pun intended.

I also see, from you, yet another example of intellectual wishes facing the hard lines of reality.

Though really, I don't care to argue. You have won the battle, the war may or may not be another story. Though of course, by then, it may be too late.

wv - promen... yeah, so what's it to you.

G Joubert said...

MarG:

I was an RD (Radarman) which was later changed to OS (Operations Specialist), and was an OS2 when I got out way back in the stone ages, 1973. Three WestPac cruises, one on a destroyer and two on an amphib. Like you, I never heard about anybody ever being raped. There were rumors about so and so having homosexual sex with so and so, and there were a couple of gays on both ships that served on. They weren't out of the closet and on the record about it, but it was an open secret. Sort of a de facto don't ask, don't tell. And it worked. There were no problems. They knew their place and we knew our place. But that isn't good enough for today's gays They want to be out and in everybody's face with it, just as I'd imagine they perceive straights as being out and in their face with heterosexuality. And that's what the kerfuffle is all about. Morale and espirit de corps? I dunno. In my day they definitely would've suffered, but today, maybe not so much. Youth nowadays seem more accepting of gays than previous generations. And it doesn't really matter much, because it appears to be a fait accompli at this point. The military and military readiness as a laboratory for social experimentation.

Ralph L said...

Commandant Mundy proposed restricting a Marine's ability to marry during his first enlistment in 1993 (bad timing), and Patsy Schroeder said he'd been out in the sun too long. Of course, Mids and Cadets were already prohibited, so it would have evened the rules up for everyone except ROTC.

Palladian, they'll put you in the dumpster alive so you can enjoy the smell.

AJ Lynch said...

Lately, Althouse never misses an opportunity to post about gay stuff and WI's histrionic inside politcial baseball.

And, to me, that's gotten boring.

MarkG said...

@G Joubert: I was on an amphib for two Westpacs. LHA-3. (Built after your time but now an artificial reef off of Hawaii.) I got out in 1983. Anyway, our gay guy, Kyyyyyyle, wouldn't have had such a problem except he was such a prissy drama queen. I seriously think he thought the Navy was a non-stop orgy of buggery. He was disappointed.

On an Air Force base in California, he would've done just fine. Maybe.

Fen said...

If people do decide to leave the military, it will be in lower ranks where quarters are generally closer. In this economy, they will be easier to replace

NCOs are the backbone of the Marine Corps. Their leadership is what seperates us from the rest. They are not easily replaced.

Fen said...

Wow Palladian, he really nailed you. All these years, I some how missed you being a libtard. Thanks Browndog, for helping me see the light. Disagree with browndog=libtard. Genius. Finally a metric to identify the libtard.

Well, to be fair to Browndog, Palladian does turn into a snarky little bitch whenever this subject comes up, hysterically tagging everyone who disagrees with him as a homophobe.

frank said...

@ dustin, you are correct, ecept this, "If people do decide to leave the military, it will be in lower ranks where quarters are generally closer." My info is the 'backbone' Senior NCO's & Field Grade Officers are the ones getting out.

Methadras said...

Fen said...

tagging everyone who disagrees with him as a homophobe.


I really doubt palladian has ever met a real homophobe and frankly I really doubt that they really exist either. I know that people can be vehemently anti-homosexual, but not homophobes.

Palladian said...

"Palladian does turn into a snarky little bitch whenever this subject comes up, hysterically tagging everyone who disagrees with him as a homophobe."

I have never, ever called anyone a "homophobe", not in the physical world, nor online. If you bothered to think about things a little bit, and actually read the comments that other people write, you'd know what I've written here for years regarding that term. But instead it's easier to lie about it, and accuse me of writing something that I've never written in order to toss my opinions in the bin with the other "libtards".

I'm sorry, but who's the "bitch", little Fen?

Palladian said...

"I really doubt palladian has ever met a real homophobe and frankly I really doubt that they really exist either."

I don't know what "homophobia" is, nor am I interested in wasting my precious time teasing out the psychoanalytic motivations of stupid people. I have met a lot of people who dislike me because I'm gay; I don't know and don't particularly care if that dislike was born out of fear, prejudice, conformity, religious doctrine or otherwise.

What I do know is that I have little tolerance for stupid people, whatever their motivations.

I also know that all this thinking about U.S. military men has filled my head with warm memories of a Paratrooper and a Staff Sergeant I've had the pleasure of knowing. To quote Blanche Devereaux, "I'm gonna go slip under the covers and enjoy it..."

Unknown said...

I tend to be a lurker on this blog, and usually enjoy the input of the commentariat, and I swear it's only when this specific issue comes up that I feel "wow, everyone here is 30 years older than me." This is a non-issue among the majority of 20-somethings...you know, the same 20-somethings who are the backbone of our armed forces.

If the guy next to me in a firefight is a smart and competent soldier, I could give a flying fuck if he takes it up the ass in his free time. There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no "fags" or "breeders" either. The only dividing lines are "good soldier I can trust" and "shitbag I need to worry about." You know, content of their character stuff.

As far as benefits, In the DADT brief my infantry company received, we were told that the lack of benefits was solely attributed to DOMA and if it was repealed in the future it was assumed that there would be nothing stopping full benefits for same-sex couples.

Anyone who thinks that the SOF units are magically shielded from "the gays" is just delusional. Grow up.

G Joubert said...

Anyone who thinks that the SOF units are magically shielded from "the gays" is just delusional. Grow up.

I find myself wondering how many of SEAL Team 6 are gay and I'm drawing a complete blank. I'm guessing none. Not that it matters.

LarsPorsena said...

Winston Churchill famously said, "The real traditions of the British Navy are rum, buggery and the lash."

Bartender Cabbie said...

It really is no big deal. A beauty shop queen is not going to be interested in joining anyway.

holdfast said...

Words are wind.

And flag officers are particularly windy

Jason said...

I had a long talk about it with the 20-somethings in my unit. Yes, it was an issue, with most of them.

(The one it wasn't an issue for majored in dance in college.)

LarsPorsena said...

"..It really is no big deal. A beauty shop queen is not going to be interested in joining anyway..."

It's never a big deal for those who don't have to live in a squad bay or a bunker.

Fen said...

Palladian: I have never, ever called anyone a "homophobe", not in the physical world, nor online. If you bothered to think about things a little bit, and actually read the comments that other people write, you'd know what I've written here for years regarding that term. But instead it's easier to lie about it,

You have. You've never used the word "homophobe" but your posts on DADT in the last year insult people who disagree with you as "pansies who are terrified of icky fags".

You want to argue over the definition of what "is" is, knock yourself out.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Here's one - and this was just my first hit on a DADT thread at Althouse, in under 3 mins:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/12/dadt-dead-enders-latch-onto-shower.html

Palladian: Are you pussy men going to start pushing for separate neighborhoods for yourselves, where you don't have to live in fear that some faggot might be checking out your ass?

Your entire posting history on this topic is laced with such gems.

But sure, lets pretend you never called anyone a homophobe...

Jason said...

It's funny. But Palladian, who's normally an excellent, rational commenter here, all of a sudden regresses into feather-boa'd, hysterical, drama-queen, shrieking hissy-fits whenever this subject comes up.

It's entertaining. But it serves as an example AGAINST repealing DADT.

John said...

I spent 7-1/2 years in the Navy, some of them working in the engine/boiler room of a steamship (I was an MM)

I don't think I ever heard of a male on male rape in the Navy during that time.

I don't think I ever even heard it as a sea story.

BTW: It is 3:00 Friday PM and no announcement yet. Was that just a trial balloon?

John Henry

Palladian said...

Oh Fen, dumb as post as usual. So you're defaulting to the "fake-but-accurate" defense of your accusation that I call people "homophobes"? Why not link to a comment I made nearly six years ago on the subject rather than pulling crap out of your butt?

Jason said: "It's funny. But Palladian, who's normally an excellent, rational commenter here, all of a sudden regresses into feather-boa'd, hysterical, drama-queen, shrieking hissy-fits whenever this subject comes up."

Actually, Jason, my hysterical act is a mocking imitation of you nancy-boys who actually believe that our military is full of "homophobes" who will wilt and shiver and riot if confronted by the possibility that a few of their fellow soldiers are gay (never mind that there are already, and always have been, gay soldiers, it's just now they won't get blackmailed and punished for it when someone dislikes them). It's you people who seem to have so little faith in the members of the US Military, and I'm making fun of you.

Anyway, it's all a moot point now.

By the way, what "unit" are you in? If you can accuse me of saying things I didn't say, and tossing gay stereotypes as slurs at me, I'm going to take the opportunity to accuse you of being a poser who has about as much friendly contact with 20-somethings in the military as Barack Obama.

william said...

All things being equal, I don't see much of a problem with getting rid of DADT.

Palladian, you Sir, and I use that term ironically, are a jerk.

Palladian said...

"Palladian, you Sir, and I use that term ironically, are a jerk."

I try.

Fen said...

Palladian: my hysterical act is a mocking imitation of you nancy-boys who actually believe that our military is full of "homophobes" who will wilt and shiver and riot if confronted by the possibility that a few of their fellow soldiers are gay

No, its your dishonest Strawman attack. While you ignore the arguments about privacy and unit morale.

Michael said...

Every time I read one of these blogs, I get a chuckle. You see, those of us who were actually in the military, know that gays have always been there. Some of the most dedicated people that I had the pleasure to work with, were suspected of being gay. Most gay military that I knew of, carried their "business" off base, and were too afraid of being beaten or harassed by their straight counterparts. I don't think anything will change, since the attitudes of the many military people has not changed. Most gays are not "rapists" and will choose to be with other gay people. I just don't understand all of this hysteria from the homophobic, narrow minded, "conservative" faction, unless they are concerned that they may have some gay tendencies, and are uneasy with their own sexual orientation.

Michael said...

Also, the military already has a way of ensuring that people are not harassed, sexually, on the job---It's called "zero tolerance of sexual harassment." It shouldn't matter if someone is straight or gay--anything other than professionalism on the job should not be tolerated!