March 22, 2017

December 3, 2010

Military Chiefs Cast Doubt On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

The chiefs of the Army, Marines and Air Force warned Friday that implementing a repeal of the policy banning gays from serving openly in the military would be more difficult than a Pentagon study has suggested, challenging the assessments of other top military officials in the administration.

Gen. James Amos, the Marine commandant, offered the most critical comments in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee and recommended against a repeal at this time. He said the Marines would carry out a change in policy if Congress votes for it but said the shift has a “strong potential for disruption at the small-unit level.”

Citing statistics in a recently released Pentagon study showing a majority of combat Marines were concerned about a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Amos said he could not turn his back on their opinions.

  The entire article can be read here.

If we separate men and women, why would it be any different for individuals who self-identify as being attracted to members of the same sex?  Would those who identify as gay be housed with the opposite sex?  What would keep some forward-thinking individual from self-identifying themselves as gay simply for the free peep show?  Just one of many questions this issue raises.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



Overturning DADT would be a guaranteed horror show ... for gay people. It doesn’t take too much imagination to see what could readily happen to some unsuspecting gay person who “told” without being “asked.” God have mercy.

[1] Posted by ears2hear on 12-3-2010 at 07:02 PM · [top]

“92 percent of troops who believed they had served with a gay person did not believe that person’s sexual orientation negatively affected unit morale or effectiveness. That number stayed high even among Marine combat arms units, at 84 percent.”
That’s because under DADT a person could not be “out” and make their sexuality a disruption to the unit morale and effectiveness.  I am glad to see 3 service chiefs stand up against the repeal of DADT.  It looks like the Navy leadership is going the way of the Village People.

[2] Posted by Ralinda on 12-3-2010 at 07:23 PM · [top]

Exactly! I think you, Jackie, and you, ears2hear and Ralinda, are absolutely right. You’ve hit the nail on the head. My son has been a Marine for over 7 years. Believe me, it will not be pretty for the unfortunate gays who “tell.” My son had the misfortune of having a gay roommate once, when he was young and single and living in the barracks. The gay guy made advances to my son - not a real good idea. These young men are under tremendous pressure all the time, whether here or abroad, since they know they may have to go at any time. They endure rigorous training. They are separated from wives, children, parents. They’re shot at, blown up, see their buddies blown up. It is horrendous to put more pressure on them by forcing them to live with gays. It is indeed like putting a man and woman together in the same room, only worse. God bless General Amos! E was just recently made commandant, and it looks like he’s going to be a good one!

[3] Posted by Nellie on 12-3-2010 at 07:42 PM · [top]

Good point, Ralinda, about the survey. I hadn’t thought of that. It did occur to me that it would have been useful to know exactly who answered the survey - how many troops were included, what roles they had (combat or non-combat), how the questions were asked, and whether this was voluntary or not.

[4] Posted by Nellie on 12-3-2010 at 07:50 PM · [top]

Apparently, Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine, and Scott Brown of Massachusetts have announced they will vote to end DADT, though given they’ve both signed the compact to block all legislation until the tax cuts issue has been dealt with to the GOP’s satisfaction, they should be working to keep the bill from coming to a vote until that time. So, there is time for constituents from Maine and Massachusetts to make their feelings known. I can’t help wonder if the RINOs that took over the MA GOP and pushed the lousy GOP candidates for governor and lt governor that didn’t inspire any confidence, who are lobbying Brown… there’s always a chance of nudging him against this bad decision, though Susan Collins is always desperate to vote witht he left.

[5] Posted by mari on 12-3-2010 at 08:51 PM · [top]

Gays serving in the military is a difficult issue. Many have served with distinction. If being gay was not cause for dismissal, then there would be less chance of blackmailing gays or having them compromise security to avoid being outed. In many jobs and situations it would not matter. In small, high pressure combat or other such units it could make a signifiicant difference. Banning gays from those positions would be even more controversial as some would day they were escaping the most dangerous jobs and others would say they were precluded from serving in the most rewarding career building jobs. DADT is a terrible policy. Only problem is I am not sure there is a better one.

[6] Posted by Don+ on 12-3-2010 at 09:55 PM · [top]

Don+ (#6) great post.  Blogged it at NPA.

[7] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 12-4-2010 at 09:43 AM · [top]

Fathers Don and Timothy,

Serving in the United States military is not a right bestowed upon any one by the constitution, legislation or judicial decision.

Each of the services sets its own criteria for enlistment and commission.  Those criteria include, among others, intelligence, literacy, weight, height, physical dexterity, history of violence, criminal record, visual and aural acuity.  Some are more controversial than others.  Some are more consequental than others.

A person who suffers from treatment-resistant congenital chronic Bromhidrosis syndrome is not likely to enhance critical team-building or enhance mission quality on a U. S. Navy nuclear submarine on an extended mission.  The fact that a victim of Bromhidrosis syndrome is not able eliminate the olfactory offense of body odor does not reduce the offense to those exposed to the odor, nor does it reduce the likely negative impact of enforced exposure on morale and efficiency.  The natural desire to distance one’s self from offensive odors is part of the natural scheme of things.

Federal law prohibits certain actions based solely upon race, creed color of skin, physical handicap, etc.  It does not, however, prohibit such actions when valid “mission” related issues are the basis for the action.  (Please pardon the general manner in which I have stated that.  It would take several pages to spell it out in adequate detail.)

Being “comfortable” with the person “covering your back” cannot be legislated or decreed.  Congress cannot do it.  The president cannot do it.  The courts cannot do it.  No general’s or admirals’ epaulets can bear sufficient stars to provide the power to order “comfort” or trust based on “comfort”.

What is being proposed in repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” is in fact reverse “don’t ask, don’t tell”.  Don’t ask if a soldier or marine is comfortable with the homosexual covering his/her back and you won’t be told.  In critical situations, that lack of comfort may unintentionally and unconsciously get acted out at the expense of mission, national security and human freedom.

Serving in the United States military is not a right bestowed upon any one by the constitution, legislation or judicial decision.

God bless.

[8] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-4-2010 at 11:29 AM · [top]

According to the survey, there are many in the military who do not think that having openly same-sex attracted people in the armed services will have a negative effect on the quality of organization and effectiveness, including combat effectiveness, of the military.  The study may be flawed, the respondents may be influenced by “political correctness,” or perhaps it was a well-done, accurate survey.  I do not know - and I am not sure if it matters how accurate the survey was.  It only measures what the people think will be the result of having same-sex attracted soldiers and sailors serving openly.

I have read quite a few writings by leaders in the “Ex-gay” movement, particularly those of Alan Medinger of Regeneration Ministries in Baltimore.  As a result of that reading and some other things, I think that same-sex attraction is a disorder, and that it is a kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder, most closely paralleled to alcoholism or drug addiction.  If I am correct, then those with same-sex attraction will not be able to form normal relationships.  They may indeed form functional and reasonably enjoyable relationships in some settings, and I must also say that we who are opposite-sex attracted have our own relational difficulties, as fallen sinners.  But even with these realities, the setting the military, and of combat troops in particular, will mean stresses that are hard for anyone, and harder for those with same-sex attraction.

All of which is a preface to saying that it does not matter what the people in the survey think, the reality of the situation is that if same-sex attracted people are allowed to serve openly (and that means engaging in same-sex behavior and all that leads up to that), there will be a negative impact on military units and particularly those who are engaged in active combat.  We will find out the hard way that it does not work.

Wishing does not make it so.

[9] Posted by AnglicanXn on 12-4-2010 at 11:59 AM · [top]

Perhaps we could try an experiment.  Let the Navy have freedom to enlist, promote, etc. active homosexuals and leave the Army, Air Force, and Marines continue the present policy and in 10 years look at readiness, etc. A parallel might be found in the church. Compare the Episcopal Church membership, ASA, etc. with the similar figures for the ACNA. Or compare TEC with the UMC.

[10] Posted by TomRightmyer on 12-4-2010 at 01:02 PM · [top]

#8 I am not making a Constitutional rights argument, nor was Don+.  Both of us were looking at practical issues.  I don’t think the Constitution bars anybody from serving, but you are correct that the branches have evaluative criteria that are their own (David Robinson, who played in the NBA, lucked out and had a late growth spurt while at the Naval Academy - he would not have been able to enter at the height at which he graduated.  The standards had to do with the dimensions of vessels and aircraft).

I’m not sure what to do with the behavioral argument you make, #9 - you might be correct, but then almost half of the air crewmen who took part in the heroic Berlin Airlift were treated for syphilis; “war babies” are left wherever our military goes, etc.  The military is not exemplary when it comes to straight relational behavior as is.

I agree with you both (as does Don+) that the issue of organizational disruption is the main objection to lifting DADT or any other restrictions on gay people in the armed forces.  Looking at an organization like TEC, one can see the harm done when an organization is pulled off of core mission and health by the melodrama of a few entitled activists.

[11] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 12-4-2010 at 01:10 PM · [top]

One’s sexual proclivities are no one else’s business, but there are those who insist that they have to be open about their proclivities, or they somehow can’t live without being honest with others.  I personally don’t care, and I don’t want to be told about them; that’s their business, and not mine.  I agree with DODT.

[12] Posted by cennydd13 on 12-4-2010 at 01:20 PM · [top]

Tim, (#11), I know you are right about the sexual behavior of soldiers - it is far from exemplary - due, I imagine, to “youthful passions” and the recognition that one’s life may not be all that long.  BUT - those caddish behaviors are not within the unit, but with civilians.

I was listening to a program on NPR this morning, however, that talked about suicide among female veterans, which is happening at three times the rate it does among civilian women.  One thing it mentioned as a reason for suicide is sexual trauma while in the military.  A lot of enlisted women get raped by their fellow military personnel.  That is shameful.  And the more men and women go into combat together (as is happening to some degree, I believe), the worse it will get - and the more unit cohesion and effectiveness will be affected.  Add same-sex attracted people into the mix, and there will be a mess, to put it mildly.

[13] Posted by AnglicanXn on 12-4-2010 at 02:02 PM · [top]

Ol’ Bob(#8), excellent assessment of the situation. You seem to have knowledge of the military, leading me to believe that you either serve or are close to someone who did. AnglicanXn, you make a good point about men and women serving together. I recall that when we first went to Iraq, there were quite a few pregnancies resulting from putting men and women together. People in combat areas, whether actively fighting or not, are under tremendous pressures. And indeed, I agree that adding homosexuals to the mix will make things even worse. The Marines don’t give young enlisted men separate rooms; they share with a roommate. This would be a mess. It surely isn’t fair to subject a heterosexual man or women to a homosexual roommate; and if they put 2 homosexuals together, that could be a problem, too. And what about showering, and latrines? The whole thing is ridiculous. Granted that with DADT, you might still end up with that sort of situation, but if the gay person just keeps quiet about his sexual preferences, at least no one would be uncomfortable. In my son’s case, he wouldn’t have known anything about his roommate’s idiosyncrasy, so to speak, if the guy hadn’t made advances to him. That sort of thing is guaranteed to lead to trouble. Trumping all of this is the effect on combat readiness and on morale in combat situations.

[14] Posted by Nellie on 12-4-2010 at 02:54 PM · [top]

Father Timothy (#11),

You wrote: “ … almost half of the air crewmen who took part in the heroic Berlin Airlift were treated for syphilis; “war babies” are left wherever our military goes, etc.  The military is not exemplary when it comes to straight relational behavior as is.”
It would be very helpful to me as I try to put that comment in perspective if you would share with me your thoughts, your best estimates, of 1) the percentage of all military personnel involved in sexual misconduct compared with the percentage of all ordained clergy involved in sexual misconduct and 2) the percentage of all ordained clergy who are “exemplary when it comes to straight relational behavior” and the percentage of all military personnel who are “exemplary when it comes to straight relational behavior”.

God bless.

[15] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-4-2010 at 03:26 PM · [top]

Nellie (#14),

I proudly served 6 years, 3 months and 18 days on active duty in the United States Army in the early 1950’s, having served a four year commitment and then recalled.  I served in the “active” reserves after that.

God bless.

[16] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-4-2010 at 03:31 PM · [top]

[15] Ol’ Bob. Accurate statistics, especially historically, are just not available for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, there are likely significant changes over time based on circumstances, prevailing views of morality, peer and leadership pressures, and opportunities and stresses. Peacetime I would guess the statistics for clergy and military straying would be remarkably similiar. Wartime I would guess untoward behavior - sexual, physical, alcohol, drug, gambling abuse - would be significantly higher in the military than in the clergy. I suspect that such abuse in the wartime military is signifcantly lower now than during Vietnam and earlier wars. I have seen both military and clergy breakdown. We still need both military and clergy and we still both to serve in trying times.

[17] Posted by Don+ on 12-4-2010 at 05:40 PM · [top]

Father Don,

Thanks for responding to my questions.

I agree that both the military and (Christian) clergy are essential elements of what makes up our precious United States of America.

I think that each represents something of a microcosm of America.  Both are comprised of fallen mortals, some more fallen than others, but all fallen.

The military is an essential element of our defense against earthly aggressors.  Christian clergy is an essential element of our defense against spiritual aggressors.  Individuals in the military, more often than individual Christian clergy, are sometimes called upon to act in violation of some of their basic Christian beliefs and values.  Being expected to kill on Monday may make sex outside marriage of one man to one woman seem less consequential on Tuesday.  No excuse or justification is being suggested, just my thoughts.

May God bless your continuing ministry.

[18] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-4-2010 at 07:57 PM · [top]

The survey was clearly flawed.  Members were invited to participate - with the US Government pledging anonymity - yet participants were required to validate their identity to prevent multiple entries.  Participation was voluntary, so the study suffers self selection bias from the start.

As anyone who has served can tell you - members are typically wary from documenting their opinions on issues in which they could be placed on a losing side.  I saw this extensively with the introduction of women on combat ships - dissenting views ended careers.  In other words, a negative entry in this survey could produce a record that - despite the pledge of anonymity - might be used against the member.  Commenters here are very familiar with the perspective of some that a negative view of SS behavior is a mark of bigotry. 

For those following the hearings - you will also be familiar with problems in how the questions were worded - one of note being that the members were not given a simple up or down vote on the policy.

Bottom line is that the whole thing is an unecessary gamble as to combat effectiveness and discipline.  IMHO, it is quite telling that evidence overturning decades of prior testimony suddenly appears with the current Congress and administration.


[19] Posted by tired on 12-6-2010 at 10:03 AM · [top]

I have a son in the Air Force Academy and a surrogate son serving as a Firefighter in Germany.  Woe to the man who makes a very unwanted advance on either of them! 

This is the most stupid idea I have ever heard of in my life.  Are you kidding me? 

Terrible that Obama et al would sacrifice our military readiness for political favors.

[20] Posted by B. Hunter on 12-6-2010 at 10:18 AM · [top]

The problem with the ivory-tower social engineering behind repeal of DADT is that most of Congress, and most of the bureaucracy, including the Pentagon civilian bureaucracy, have never served in the active military or naval service, and thus are utterly clueless about the physically close quarters and human-relations pressures of everyday life in the military and naval service.  These pressures are worsened by the tension of combat, and the ongoing tensions of the perennial shortage of service personnel to accomplish the assigned missions.

To enlist in the services, or be commissioned as an officer, you have to pass a strict physical.  So you have guaranteed-healthy young adults away from home for the first time, and in a different culture than they have previously experienced.  It should not be surprising that pregnancies result for females, and that the immediate transfer of the pregnant service member to a location ashore or away from combat becomes necessary.
Homosexual members are going to be shunned and reassigned, at best. At worst there will be tragic “accidents” for which the social engineers will not take the blame that will be theirs.  The reassignments and investigations of “accidents” will take time and effort away from the unit mission. The immediate negative effects on unit readiness go well beyond the risks in the shower.

[21] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 12-6-2010 at 11:35 AM · [top]

I just recalled an example of undermanning and post-incident investigations:  (watch the wrap) that also hasn’t been recalled by the “mainstream” media…..

[22] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 12-6-2010 at 12:20 PM · [top]

Are most of you saying that U.S. soldiers are less capable of adjustment to change than our allies?  If so, that is highly insulting.

[23] Posted by To the Left on 12-6-2010 at 03:56 PM · [top]

To The Left (#23),

Members of the United States military have been adjusting to change since Washington lead his rag tag Army across the Delaware on Christmas Day in 1776.

The issue here is not, repeat not, whether the services can adjust to change.  The issue is whether having openly homosexuals serving in the military would less its ability to protect our critical national interests in time of war.

Most, not some, but most, of the foreign military services which have openly homosexual persons serving have not, repeat not, been signaficantly tested in extended actual combat.  If you disagree, please provide some factual data on units which include openly homosexual members and which have been involved over a meaningful period of time in actual combat with an actual enemy.

Upon what do you base your assumption that anyone has been insulted here?

I look forward your answers.

[24] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-6-2010 at 04:13 PM · [top]

#23 - Not to disparage our allies or anything, but emulating their militaries is probably not the best strategy.

[25] Posted by via orthodoxy on 12-6-2010 at 04:16 PM · [top]

#24- Generally what is thrown up by advocates of openly homosexual troops is the “troops of Sparta”. Have you seen the movie 300? What an awesome fighting force all those buff men were.

[26] Posted by via orthodoxy on 12-6-2010 at 04:21 PM · [top]

Another Old Sergeant chiming in (20 yrs, 10 months).  Applying the laws of unintended consequences to the repeal of DADT, I see a serious degradation of the “All-Volunteer” Military.  This, in-turn, will either precipitate the return of the draft or the dangerous notion of hiring 3rd nation mercenaries to shoulder the load of our national defense.  I suspect it’ll be the former.

[27] Posted by aterry on 12-6-2010 at 04:39 PM · [top]

Can you envision a scenario in which a conservative chaplain of any denomination is asked to do an SSB, or faux “marriage?”

I suspect that all chaplains have had pastoral conversations with young men and women facing the lures of same-sex attraction. Can you imagine a scenario in which a conservative chaplain of any denomination is forced to affirm that homosexual practice is OK?

If the chaplain refuses, he/she could face disciplinary charges.

[28] Posted by Ralph on 12-6-2010 at 04:42 PM · [top]

I’m another ‘Old Sarge,’ and I assure you all that repealing DADT will prove to be harmful to our servicemen and women in combat with Muslim extremists, for example.  Islam’s indictment of homosexuality as an abomination is well known, as is the Koran’s prescribed punishment of homosexuals, and one does not to be a gold-plated genius to realize what that punishment would be if Islamists were to discover that an American prisoner is a homosexual.  Those in favor of the repeal need to seriously rethink their attitude, or American service people could be in even more mortal danger than they are now.

[29] Posted by cennydd13 on 12-6-2010 at 05:13 PM · [top]

#27, Old Sergeant, your 3rd nation mercenary plan is already on the table.  It’s called the “Dream Act”.

[30] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 12-6-2010 at 05:23 PM · [top]

#23, the German military up to WWII was very capable of “adjusting to change” with regards to accepting new ethical norms. Why do you say that like it’s always a good thing? If our armed forces are unwilling to allow moral compromise, I’d say that’s a feature, not a bug.

And that’s another one of the worries about this issue. This administration is trying to change the very makeup of the armed forces, as relates to the ethics and patriotism of those in it. If they create the right “culture” all the decent people will leave.

Your comparison also fails in that it doesn’t take into account cultural differences. Here gays are encouraged to be very vocal and “out and proud” and in your face. If homosexuals have affected other armies less, it’s probably because they keep it to themselves. See Nellie’s post at #14. All this will do is lead to cases of sexual harrassment and abuses of power in pursuit of that. It should be avoided for the same reason mixed sex units should be avoided.

[31] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 12-6-2010 at 05:41 PM · [top]

I have a son, NCO, serving in combat arms.  It is his opinion that having openly gay men living with other men creats problems just as having women living showering etc with men would create problems.  That being said, I have witnessed and had issues with gays in the military, superior officer jumping on me because I needed time off for the birth of a child, during peace time.  I know of an active duty gay man who had over 30 sexual contacts in one month before it was discovered he was HIV +.  In combat operations area your dog tag is marked with your blood type not only to know what to give you but what can be gotten from you if blood is needed. Can you really be sure somebody that has that many sexual partners is a good blood donating canidate?  The blood banks don’t think so!

[32] Posted by Dave B on 12-6-2010 at 05:48 PM · [top]

#26 - that’s fiction. 

Here’s some science for you:
20% of sexually active homosexual males have AIDS, 44% of those don’t know it.  (CDC Sept. 2010 CDC)

Active homosexual males are 71 times more likely than females and 46 times more than other males to have syphilis, and they are 44 times more than other men and 40 times more than women to have HIV. (CDC March 2010)

Preliminary reports just out from a Spanish study reveals that 75% of sexually active homosexual males are infected with the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) compared with 30% of teen population.

[33] Posted by St. Nikao on 12-6-2010 at 06:13 PM · [top]

After reading about the young army private involved in the Wikileaks crime and an HIV story at T19 last week, I spent a couple of hours catching up on the journal literature on this topic. 

Here is a sampling of the medical and mental health research journal citations over about a ten year period that indicate the need for medical and mental health professionals to be aware and treat self-harm, substance and physical/domestic abuse and other mental health issues in homosex populations.  This does not include the increase of STDs mentioned in my earlier post.  Nor does it include the physical injuries to the body incurred during some homosex acts.

McKirnan and Peterson, Addictive Behaviors, Volume 14, Issue 5 (1989) 545-553
Bailey, J.M., Archives of General Psychiatry, (October 1999) vol. 56, no. 10, 876-880.
Greenwood 2001, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Volume 61, Issue 2, 1 (January 2001) 105-112
Hughes and Eliason, The Journal of Primary Prevention, Volume 22, Number 3, (2002) 263-298
British Journal of Psychiatry (December 2003) 556
King, M, et al, British J. of Psychiatry (2003),183, 552-558.
McAndrew, S., et al, J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2004 Aug;11(4):428-34.
Vanable, P.A, et al, Health Psychology, (September 2004) Vol. 23, No. 5,
Balsam, KF, J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005 Jun;73(3):477-87.
King, M., et al, BMC Public Health. 2006 May 8;6:127.
Cochran, BN & Cauce, A. M, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, (March, 2006) 30, 135-146.
Cochran, S. et al, J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007 October; 75(5): 785-794.
King, M, et al, BMC Psychiatry. 2008 Aug 18;8:70.
Tyler, KA, Violence Vict. 2008;23(5):586-602.
Wilsnack, et al, J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs (2008) 69: 129-139,
McCabe, SE, Addiction. 2009 Aug;104(8):1333-45. Epub 2009 May 12.
Woolfe, SE., et al,  AIDS Behav. (August 3, 2009) 4):757-82.
Bostwick, WB,  Am J Public Health. 2010 Mar;100(3):468-75. Epub 2009 Aug 20
Conron, KJ, Am J Public Health. 2010 Oct;100(10):1953-60. Epub 2010 Jun 1.
Dilley, JA, Am J Public Health. 2010 Mar;100(3):460-7. Epub 2009 Aug 20.
Gupta, J., Public Health Rep. 2010 Jan-Feb;125(1):79-87.
Mansergh, et al, PLoS Med. (August 24, 2010) 7(8): e1000329.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000329
Stephenson, R., West J Emerg Med. 2010 Aug;11(3):242-6.

This evidence supports the idea that there may be an increased security and health risks with this population due to the kinds of issues cited in the journals.

[34] Posted by St. Nikao on 12-6-2010 at 06:34 PM · [top]

It’s the old “elephant’s nose in the tent” incremental change approach.  First, homosexuals were not allowed to serve in the military and it was ok to ask.  Next, homosexuals can serve in the military but no one is allowed to ask and no one is required to tell, but if you do tell, you will be discharged.  Now, after several years of that, comes the next increment of change which is openly homosexuals serving with no restrictions.

St. Nikao at #34 makes some very pertinent points, with authorities cited.

The issue before us now is whether we continue this incremental threat to military effectiveness and national security.

No one has a constitutional or other right to serve in the United States military.  It is an honor, not a right.  In peace time, it is voluntary, in war time it may be mandatory; in both cases, one must meet certain criteria.

The U. S. military is an instrument, the primary instrument, of national security.  It is not an instrument of social and moral innovation and change.  It cannot be both; they are mutually exclusive.

God bless.

[35] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-6-2010 at 08:09 PM · [top]

Sigh. I don’t think that getting rid of DADT will improve the following situation. The quote, “It felt as if my spirit had left me,” took my breath away.

[36] Posted by Ralph on 12-6-2010 at 09:09 PM · [top]

#33- Yes, but the warriors of Sparta are bigger role models to martial homosexuals than even Tinky Winky.

[37] Posted by via orthodoxy on 12-6-2010 at 11:58 PM · [top]

ADM Roughead seems to have overlooked that there is the US Navy, and navies that, by comparison, do not count.

In a better world I would go back to pre-WWII: official agnosticism and punishing sodomy as an offense under the Articles for the Government of the Navy.

[38] Posted by Ed the Roman on 12-7-2010 at 08:57 AM · [top]

It wasn’t too many years ago….say 100 or so….that sodomy was a hanging offense in most navies, when offenders were court martialled and hanged from a yardarm of their ship by their own shipmates; a very sobering experience designed to warn potential violators of the King’s Regulations and the Articles of War in the case of the Royal Navy.

[39] Posted by cennydd13 on 12-7-2010 at 09:44 AM · [top]

#39, Navy discipline also weakened when keelhauling was abolished.  Seeing a shipmate emerge from the water after a keelhaul would also be indelible.

[40] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 12-7-2010 at 10:34 AM · [top]

Today, December 7, is Pearl Harbor Day, the day in 1941 on which the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.  President Roosevelt described it a as day which will “live in infamy”.  Most seem to have forgotten it.

I have known several Pearl Harbor survivors, though most are dead now.  Not one that I know or knew favored homosexuals serving in the armed forces, either openly or “in the closet”.

God bless America.

[41] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-7-2010 at 05:46 PM · [top]

Amen, Ol’ Bob. I too noticed that here wasn’t much adoabout this being Pearl Harbor day. Fox News did have a piece on about it - including the new museum in Hawaii that was going to open officialy with a visit form 100 Pearl HArbor survivors.

[42] Posted by Nellie on 12-7-2010 at 09:25 PM · [top]

The U. S. Senate today voted 57 to 40 against considering legislation ending DADT.  That was a procedural vote and is not final, but it is a good sign.

[43] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-9-2010 at 05:49 PM · [top]

Hooray! (Or maybe I should say “Oorah!”) This is indeed a good sign. I was watching Fox earlier today and it wasn’t looking too good. Some of the senators must have been playing it close to the vest.

[44] Posted by Nellie on 12-9-2010 at 07:08 PM · [top]

The U. S. House of Representatives voted 250 to 175 to repeal DADT this afternoon.

It is up to the Senate now.  Sen. DeMint is considering requiring that each bill, especially the proposed budget and the new Start treaty, which each Senator has the right to do, be read on the floor of the Senate before they can be voted on.

[45] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-15-2010 at 07:03 PM · [top]

I suspect that there may well be a revolt among the service chiefs similar to that which occurred between the Air Force and the Navy in 1948, when the Air Force got their B-36s and the Navy lost the supercarrier USS United States, with the main resistance coming from the Marine Corps rank and file.  If this happens, watch for reelistments to plummet to an all-time low.  Esprit de corps and unit coherence will be damaged.

[46] Posted by cennydd13 on 12-15-2010 at 07:28 PM · [top]

It is immoral for the President and Congress to expect those Americans who serve their country in the Armed Forces to tolerate sinful and immoral acts.

[47] Posted by cennydd13 on 12-15-2010 at 10:30 PM · [top]

Cennydd13, I hate to say it, but the sexual behavior of heterosexual service members leaves a lot to be desired.  In my dad’s day (WWII vet), service members engaged in fornication, but it was often “monogamous,” and resulted in marriage in many cases.  There was respect for propriety.  In today’s military, as in society at large, sexual activity is often regarded as recreational and of no consequence - and those who do not engage in sex at random can be looked down upon, and in the case of female service members, sexually attacked.

I agree with you - but the armed forces are far from a bastion of sexual morality even with DADT.

[48] Posted by AnglicanXn on 12-16-2010 at 06:33 AM · [top]

#48 - AnglicanXn is right on.  Sexual sin is harmful and has negative spiritual, emotional and physical consequences whether it is hetero or homo.

Here’s a word on conditions in the military -
One marine does not want his daughter to become one, and for good reason:  The Choices of a Marine’s Daughter
The ceremonial sword of a Marine Corps officer graces our dining room wall. The owner’s patriotism and pride in the Corps has inspired an unexpected potential recruit: our teen-age daughter.

The expert in the house has deep reservations about how our diminutive daughter (4’11”) would fit in with the Corps’ warrior culture. He successfully has steered her towards investigating other branches of the military. Now there is evidence that NO branch of the service might be suitable for her, especially at the tender age of 18 or 19. Consider:

*a female soldier was pinned down at knifepoint and repeatedly raped by fellow soldiers in her own barracks;

*during a routine physical exam, a female soldier was raped by her military physician;

*according to a Department of Defense report released last month, 2,688 sexual assaults were reported by female military personnel in 2007;

*29% of the female vets seen at the Los Angeles VA Health Center report being raped during their tours of duty in Iraq.

From Anglicat:

[49] Posted by St. Nikao on 12-16-2010 at 06:51 AM · [top]

49.  And that’s exactly why I never encouraged my daughter to join any of the services, nor I ever encourage my granddaughters to join.  Coed barracks are a mistake, too….in all of the services.  Our female NCOs were required to live off base because of the male/female cohabitation situation.  It helped some, but of course it didn’t eliminate the problem.

[50] Posted by cennydd13 on 12-16-2010 at 11:12 AM · [top]

Some random thoughts:

*  Service in the U. S. military is always an honor, sometimes a duty but never a right.

*  There could be no rape of female members of the U.S. military if there were no female members of the U. S. military.

*  The members of the U. S. military are, morally and ethically, a microcosm of the U. S. population whose freedoms they protect.

*  The general population of the United States is no more or less a “bastion of sexual morality” than is the U. S. military.

*  Zero tolerance of “sinful and immoral acts” is no more or less achievable in the military than it is among the civilian population.

God bless.

[51] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-16-2010 at 12:57 PM · [top]

Ol’ Bob,  Violence and rape are just as big a problem on college campuses as in the military.  Statistics are grim - 50% have been victims of date violence.  Statistics also show that women are becoming more violent and abusive.  It’s not just a male thing any more. 

May the Lord reveal His Son, the Living Word… May the Church return to The Written and Living Word.  Amen

[52] Posted by St. Nikao on 12-16-2010 at 04:42 PM · [top]

St. Nikao (#52),

I thought that in #49 you were suggesting that these types of statistics were worse in the military than in the civilian population. Thanks for the clarification presenting both sides of the statistical story.

I have been more than a bit put off by several comments which seem to me to suggest that the moral standards of U. S. military personnel are lower than the moral standards of U. S. civilians.  Indeed, it is my perception that among the senior professional non-commissioned officers, warrant officers and commissioned officers, moral and ethical standards might well be above that of the general civilian population.  I have in some 40 years, most in the senior ranks, if private industry heard duty and honor mentioned much less frequently than I did in 6 years, three months and 18 days on active duty in the United States Army.

God bless.

[53] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-16-2010 at 06:58 PM · [top]

That last sentence in #53 should read “in private industry heard” not “if private industry heard”.


[54] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-16-2010 at 07:26 PM · [top]

The U. S. Senate just voted 63-33 on a procedural motion clearing the way for debate and vote on the repeal of DADT.

Call your senators and pray.

[55] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-18-2010 at 12:45 PM · [top]

The U. S. Senate voted 65-31 to repeal DADT.  It now goes to President Obama.  We lost!

[56] Posted by Ol' Bob on 12-18-2010 at 05:48 PM · [top]

That means two senators who voted against cloture voted for the repeal.

I told our Republican senator that I would remember in November of 2012.

[57] Posted by AnglicanXn on 12-18-2010 at 08:34 PM · [top]

For those who are interested:  Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, ‘Indecent Acts with Another.’

Explanation:  ‘Indecent’ signifies that form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is not only grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, but tends to excite lust and deprave the morals with respect to sexual relations;  the maximum punishment for which is Dishonorable Discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for five years.

Since the Senate has voted to repeal DADT, and the President has said he will sign the repeal into law, is it safe to assume that Article 134 will be eliminated from the UCMJ?  I think not, and I also think that there will be much resistance among the services….particularly the Marine Corps.  It is going to be a very messy situation.

[58] Posted by cennydd13 on 12-19-2010 at 12:21 AM · [top]

In addition:  Article 125, UCMJ, ‘Sodomy,’ provides that (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy.  Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.  (b)  Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial shall direct.

I wonder if this, too, might be repealed.

[59] Posted by cennydd13 on 12-19-2010 at 12:44 AM · [top]

#24- Generally what is thrown up by advocates of openly homosexual troops is the “troops of Sparta”. Have you seen the movie 300? What an awesome fighting force all those buff men were

I’m hopping this is a for of sarcasm.  At any rate, the sources are mixed on Spartan sexual practices.  However, even those that do say the Spartans engaged in same-sex behavoir present a model of same-sex pederasty that would violate modern AOC laws rather than inter-adult same-sex behavoir.

It wasn’t too many years ago….say 100 or so….that sodomy was a hanging offense in most navies, when offenders were court martialled and hanged from a yardarm of their ship by their own shipmates; a very sobering experience designed to warn potential violators of the King’s Regulations and the Articles of War in the case of the Royal Navy

Yes, but it still happened, and sailors to this day still have a reputation (at least among soldiers) for having a greater tendency towards that kind of behavoir.  “Rum, Sodomy and the Lash” and all that.  Some books I’ve read have also suggested that many captains were hesitant to hang an otherwise perfectly competant sailor for that type of thing, and were more likely to charge a person that got caught with a lesser non-capital offense.

[60] Posted by AndrewA on 12-19-2010 at 10:48 AM · [top]

#60 Yes, but it still happened,

That’s the problem with sinful human beings. Their evil behavior is punished, and yet “it still happens”. Doesn’t mean it should be allowed.

[61] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 12-19-2010 at 11:02 AM · [top]

When it is discovered, it should be dealt with immediately by the local Command Authority; let the SecDef handle the fallout.

[62] Posted by cennydd13 on 12-19-2010 at 05:06 PM · [top]

And they spontaneously broke out in chorus, singing Go West.

[63] Posted by Wilf on 12-19-2010 at 05:17 PM · [top]

President Truman issued the Executive Order racially integrating the armed forces in 1948.  In 1959 I was eating lunch in a wardroom (where Navy officers eat) when another officer, noting that the vegetable was boiled turnip greens, became furious and issued a number of racist epithets as he pulled a card from his wallet and put it on the tablecloth above his plate, so the steward clearing the plate would have to see it.  The card was his White Citizens’ Council membership card.  Note that this was over 10 years after Truman’s order.  The “repeal” of DADT will have no more effect than prohibition had on the sale of alcoholic beverages.

[64] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 12-19-2010 at 10:31 PM · [top]

I was among a group of Marines today; they weren’t happy about the repeal. The general opinion among the Marines I know is that this is defintiely not a good thing. They’re hoping it will tkae a long time to actually implement the change. I see a lot of trouble ahead. Those who compare this to Truman ending segregation are missing a rather important differnece; segregation was immoral, and should have been ended. In the current situation, homosexuakity is immoral, and should nost be protected. but one doesn’t dare say there’s somethinmg wrong with being homosexual.

[65] Posted by Nellie on 12-19-2010 at 10:58 PM · [top]

I have no problem with it as long as such individuals keep to themselves, but when they start making unwanted passes at others, they have no right to complain if someone slugs them in response to such passes.  They bring it upon themselves, and they deserve the consequences.

[66] Posted by cennydd13 on 12-19-2010 at 11:38 PM · [top]

IMHO, I seriously doubt if we are capable any longer of robust, symmetric warfare - it doesn’t seem to be much of a priority for our leadership.  Why do you think we must have such fancy, expensive equipment?  The present issue simply drives that home. 

Misplaced priorities, along with a pervasive atmosphere of (more important?) social engineering, were certainly among the factors prompting me to punch out this year.  Let the ruling elites send their own kids into combat under such conditions.  Sorry, but I’m done.


[67] Posted by tired on 12-20-2010 at 09:00 AM · [top]

There is a huge difference between racial segregation and same-sex attraction & behavior.  Race is simply a conglomeration of physical characteristics, often (but not necessarily) accompanied by a set of values and attitudes that form a culture or a sub-culture.  Within a race (and the boundaries of races are rather blurry), you will find all kinds of attitudes, behaviors, personalities, etc.

But with sexuality you have attraction and behavior - and the most important is behavior.  I would guess that the reason behind “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was the idea that sexual attraction did not matter nearly as much as sexual behavior - and same-sex sexual activity was viewed as having a very high potential for negative consequences.  That is, of course, a view we can appreciate - and for which there is much evidence, both anecdotally and in research.

We are about to find out the effects of the approval of not only same-sex sexual attraction, but of same-sex sexual activity.  If we are right, the results will not be positive in the least.

[68] Posted by AnglicanXn on 12-20-2010 at 09:35 AM · [top]

Look at the landslide victory that was won in the last election. Surely we need not give up hope that this can be undone eventually, although the whining from the activists will be deafening. People are starting to see through the Left’s schtick. Let’s not buy into their fatalistic lies that the road we’ve come down so far is irreversible.

[69] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 12-20-2010 at 11:58 AM · [top]

Apparently some posters missed the point I tried to make in #64 above.  I was not trying to lump racial segregation with DADT.  My point was that the prejudice and discrimination lasted for at least a decade after it was supposedly outlawed.  So the DADT “repeal” won’t change people very rapidly.

[70] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 12-20-2010 at 01:16 PM · [top]

Surely we need not give up hope that this can be undone eventually, although the whining from the activists will be deafening. People are starting to see through the Left’s schtick. Let’s not buy into their fatalistic lies that the road we’ve come down so far is irreversible.

Actually, no, it is quite irreversible, and last election was not a “landslide victory” for anyone.  The GOP will not have the power to pass repeal on this (or any other hot button issues) through the Senate, much less override the presidential veto. 

Also, consider that there was already one federal court ruling against DADT, and that the SecDef (originally appointed by a Republican) and JSC are fully supporting the president’s policy.

[71] Posted by AndrewA on 12-20-2010 at 03:39 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.