Don't Ask, Do Tell Obama to Keep His Word
Posted by Jason Douglas on 10.15.2009
There is a very easy way to strengthen our military...
Recently there was a rally in Washington D.C. by gay rights protesters who are fighting, among other things, for the repeal of DADT, or Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This policy, enacted in 1993, was a compromise at the time. It was decided that gays could serve in the military as long as they kept their sexual orientation hidden, and obviously no one could ask them about it. Today Bill Clinton is actually vilified for this policy, which was a major step forward sixteen years ago. Being 32 myself, it feels surreal that in just half a short lifetime attitudes have changed so much on this subject. Actually, a bit of my own background on the subject is in order.
Like most if not all of us, back in my childhood words like "fag" and "queer" were regularly used on the playground as general insults. I heard them long before I even knew what they meant. The phrase "_____ sucks" is actually derived from a negative connotation about homosexuality. So hatred or at least social rejection of gays was being culturally ingrained from an early age. At my first job, working at Target, one of my supervisors was openly gay. It didn't bother me, and I don't remember morale suffering because such a person worked among us for all to see. To be fair, employee morale at Target was pretty low to begin with, but you get the idea. Today I live on the north side of Chicago, about a mile from a neighborhood called "Boy's Town". The annual pride parade is so close I can hear it from my window. It doesn't interest me, but doesn't offend me either. I own a condo with a beautiful lake view largely because their presence keeps property values low enough to be in my price range. Sometimes two guys will kiss in the open. That makes me squeamish, but no more so than two ugly straight people doing the same thing. Having met and known gay people, and actually enjoyed a benefit from their proximity, I'm at a total loss to comprehend the hostility they face. In simplest terms, I can't find any reason to take a personal interest in their sex lives. In fact, when a gay person comes out they basically say "This is who I am, world. Deal with it." As someone who has always marched to my own drummer, I have great respect for that.
I could attempt to delve into why so many Americans hate gays, but simple intolerance is not a legal argument anyway. They create no affirmative action or immigration issue. We are not a fundamentalist nation so I'm ignoring religion entirely. The main line of attack on gays seems to be a nature versus nurture argument about why they are gay. When someone presumes to know what has or has not gone on in another person's head, a person they've never even met, engaging them in debate is a dead end. I actively respond to comments because I enjoy the dialog, even when people disagree with me. But on this point I'm making an exception. If you want to rant that gays choose to be gay, don't expect any response from me at all. Even if you could convince me that they're all in on a vast conspiracy to stick to the same lie, what would that change? If being gay really was a choice, in a free society it would still be their right to make that choice, so it's irrelevant. The most common argument for keeping them out of the military is that they would lower morale and pose a distraction. I've seen for myself that they don't lower morale in the workplace, and that's not an argument for denying employment anyway. As for being a distraction, I have never served, but I find it hard to believe that a soldier in constant danger of attack would be preoccupied by the remote chance a fellow soldier is looking at his butt and fantasizing. To anyone reading this who has served, I'd like to get your input here.
President Obama has stated since long before swearing into office that DADT doesn't make sense, and that it should be repealed. He has since taken to having his messengers state that there's too much going on right now to address the issue. Since taking office, he has personally found time to: give a speech to school children on the importance of their studies, go to Europe to campaign for the Olympics, jet to New York for an elaborate date, meet and greet with many dubious figures without substantive conversation, and several more items Stephen Colbert listed on his show. Congress went on a lengthy vacation, and still nothing from them. Before getting my own spot here, I was railing on Obama for not keeping any campaign promises, and had to listen to all kinds of excuses from his apologists/voters (I voted for him but won't apologize on his behalf). Compared to handling two wars, health care reform, fixing the economy, modernizing energy policy, and saving the environment, repealing DADT has to be by far the easiest item on his to do list. Best of all, it's the one item that doesn't cost anything. When you have a lot to do, don't you usually knock off the easiest things first? What is he really waiting for? No matter how you feel about gays, there's no gray area here. The man who said DADT should end, and has the supermajority to make it happen, is sitting on the sidelines. Again. Why is he getting away with it? Why does he get a free pass? Bush swore into office in January 2001, and we know what came on Sept. 11th that year. He has been flogged repeatedly for dropping the ball, and nobody claims he didn't have enough time to act on the available intelligence. All we need from Obama here is a little initiative and a pen stroke, and everyone on the left claims he hasn't had enough time. That's nonsense.
As the President has said himself, it makes no sense for able, patriotic Americans who want to serve their country to be turned away, especially when their numbers and skills are urgently needed. He's contemplating sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, yet a simple change to the law which would provide more troops isn't a priority? At this time, all signs point to Dems losing a significant number of seats in 2010, and the will for Washington to move on this issue in an election year will likely be weak. Demand actions from Obama which are consistent with his words. If the current Administration and Congress lack the conviction to do what they were elected for, they should be removed from office.
They simply can't publically say that they are gay, get married, or get caught committing gay "acts".
My problem with all of this debate is that being in the military or serving your country is a scarifice.
A service person will lose some of their rights- freedom of speech, privacy, and time are all sacrificed for a greater good.
Military people fall in love- but you can't sleep around with people who are under your command, are not within your rank structure,(officers and enlisted, for example- there are some other limits).
Why should we want gays who only want to serve if they demand that they publically state they are gay?
The military is about uniformity, setting a standard and fighting for other peoples rights- people who are too afraid to do it themselves.
There is no time to worry about issues like who you want to have sex with and why...
Its not part of the job description.
You don't get to wear an extra badge for being gay, it does not matter- it makes no difference on if you can shoot straight or not.
Most people in the military work with gays, they know they are gay and most don't have a problem with it.
But the "Don't ask, Don't tell" rule exists to keep problems from popping up- there is no time to deal with moral issues during two wars.
Most of the miltiary is young men, who are not gay- who have to shower, and sleep next to each other- they don't need the burden of having to understand the political correctness of dealing with the needs or wants of a open gay guy sleeping in their shelter half.
Gays can serve in the miltiary- they can serve their country- nobody is stopping them.
The gays who serve do so proudly, they scarfice a part of their lives for the good of the country- just like everyone else who serves.
Joining the military only if you can publically say "I'm gay" is not scarfice- its selfish.
If gays want to serve they can- join up, shut up and do your job just like everyone else.
So if your gay and you want to serve join the military, nobody will stop you. You know what the rules are, follow them and serve your country and bitch about it after you serve.
If you don't want to serve then don't. Nobody is forcing you- not one person in this country is saying that you have too.
If we have a draft then I will support further support- but if its simplty a matter of volenteering, then either join up or not...
But don't use your sexual preference for a reason not to serve your country, because you can join if you are gay...but you have to understand the impact to troop moral.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 12:12 PM
I think the whole "Obama won't keep his campaign promises" thing is so funny because the only people he seems to be upsetting are those on the far left. What does that matter?!?! Are you going to vote Republican instead? Heck, are you even willing to stay home on election day? Of course not on either because they view conservatives as being evil incarnate. Obama hasn't fullfilled these items because he knows that no matter how loud his supporters might complain they will still continue to support him because they view the alternative so negatively. It reminds me 1996 when gays were making such a big deal over their issues and how Clinton wasn't championing them, it wasn't like they were going to go vote for Dole instead so where was the incentive?
Jason, you voted for Obama and he has clearly broken campaign promises. Are you saying that you wish you would have voted for McCain instead? I really doubt it.
Posted By: ChErikS (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 01:14 PM
Grant, you really failed to make any kind of valid point here. The military is stretched thin as it is; opening the doors to openly gay men and women could only boost recruitment numbers. There is no doubt that service men and women make huge sacrifices for their country. But no one should have to sacrifice such a key part of their identity. A straight soldier does not have to become a non-sexual entity. A gay soldier should not have to either.
Posted By: JDW (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 01:37 PM
No I made my point- you can be openly gay when you join the military.
Just shut the fuck up before meeting with the recruiter and after you join...do your job and keep your mouth shut...
Hence "Don't ask, Don't tell".
The recruiter won't ask- and you don't have to tell.
My point is that if someone ones to join the service then do so to serve- not because you are gay.
Who gives as shit who you want to sleep with? The military does not care, until you start walking around in the Barracks talking about screwing the other guys there.
And someone show me a line of gays who want to serve and will if the military changed that policy?
The simple fact is that unless there is a huge gay group that just wants to join to prove that they can- nothing is stopping them- except that they want to walk around and act gay, they want to be open about it.
The military is not about sex- its about service. Seperate the two and do the job without asking for special circumstances just because gays want to be gay.
There is a huge number of straight people who already serve, and they have conditions that force them to live close to each other...
Why compound the issues by having sex be made on issue...
YOU CAN SERVE IN THE MILITARY AND BE GAY!
Nobody will ask you about your sexual preference...its a non-issue to everyone who already serves.
And its a slap in the face to those who are gay who serve to think that other gays won't join because they can't act gay at work.
The military may be strectched thin- and they need troops- but only joining the military if they let you express your sexual preference is retarded...
Either join or don't...the military is not keeping people out- they are simply stating that if you join here are the rules we need to follow to maintain order RIGHT NOW.
I believe that gays understand this, but the people who don't are straight liberals who are fighting for a cause they don't understand.
It has nothing to do with "gay rights" or the military needing more troops...
Its a professional organization saying "These are the standards we need to conduct professional combat- we don't need any more headaches- leave us the fuck alone".
and liberal straight people, once again, yelling "Its not fair- we should allow these people who don't even want to serve under these rules to join"!
Gays can join the military aleady- so what is the problem?
They don't get special recognition?
Neither do black people, or fat people, or twins, or anyone else...
It does not matter. Join and do the job and leave sex out of it.
They can join aleady- now we have to have speacial terms just for them to do so?
Fuck em, the military does not need anyone with special terms to join.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 02:13 PM
Grant:
"Most people in the military work with gays, they know they are gay and most don't have a problem with it."
If everyone knows it anyway, then what harm is there in that guy simply saying he's gay? Not making a point of it and telling sex stories, but during guy talk when a fellow soldier asks if he has a girlfriend back home, he could simply state that he's gay. If as a matter of discipline the rule is that talking about sexual conduct is off limits period, I could see that. But limiting it to gays seems arbitrary and discriminatory. The same rules should apply to everyone.
ChErikS: I have firmly decided that I will never again cast a vote based on the lesser of two evils principle. Obama only won by 6% after the opposing party had trashed the economy and ran a ticket which supported a continuation of the same policies. If he doesn't do a complete turnaround, Obama will not get my vote again. The notion that he can take my vote for granted is exactly why he's failing to move on major campaign issues. If staying home means Republicans take back the White House, but these weak, ineffective Democrats get the swat to the head they need, that's better than keeping them in office to do nothing.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 02:24 PM
Awesome idea. Repeal DADT and by 2020 there'll be dozens of discrimination lawsuits as people don't get promoted or assigned cherry posts "because they're gay".
Sexual orientation is nobody's business so shut the hell up about it. On the other side of the coin, there are good, valid reasons for the anonymity(not the right word but you get the idea) but hey, who needs to worry about efficiency, loyalty and trust... it's not like lives are on the line.
Posted By: Guest#1987 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 02:39 PM
"I believe that gays understand this, but the people who don't are straight liberals who are fighting for a cause they don't understand.
It has nothing to do with 'gay rights' or the military needing more troops...
Its a professional organization saying 'These are the standards we need to conduct professional combat- we don't need any more headaches- leave us the fuck alone'.
and liberal straight people, once again, yelling 'Its not fair- we should allow these people who don't even want to serve under these rules to join'!"
Dude, maybe you missed the huge LGBTQQIA rally in D.C. last weekend where one of their key issues was the DADT policy.
You're making it sound like if gay people are allowed to serve openly in the military, all they'll do is talk about sex and have sex with other soldiers. That is both wrong and insulting. The bottom line is that an openly gay soldier poses NO threat to morale, military efforts, etc. There is no evidence that suggests they do.
Policies like DADT only further the ridiculous and idiotic notion that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are inferior in some way to straight people.
Posted By: JDW (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 04:40 PM
One issue that no one speaks about is the rights of partners/spouses in the military. When a straight person dies in combat the family receives some support from the military. A gay partner would not even be notified if his/her partner was killed in combat.
Everyone talks about the sacrifices of the families at home but no one acknowledges that partners of gay military also make those sacrifices.
DADT puts more than just the solider in the closet.
Posted By: Todd (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 04:56 PM
I support gays in the military and don't get what the big deal is.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 05:18 PM
The main arguement I hear fom pro 'Don't ask don't tell' people is that you can be gay, you just can't say you are... Unfortunately there are thisands of men and women who followed this pocedure but do to 'outside tips' becAme under investagation for being gay... Come on people please dp research on this... Do your homework, with myspacr, facebook, twitter, how hard would it be to conceal that you are straight... It's nearly impossible... This policy is ridiclous, and most media outlets have picked up on the fact that thousands of people never said they were gay, but were outed by no fAult of there own...
Posted By: Patrick (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 05:38 PM
Grant,
You're missing the gist of what the opponents of DADT are about. You say that someone can serve in the military and be "openly gay". You seem to constitute "openly gay" as being gay, but not telling anybody about it or doing anything that ever gives away this part of yourself. That's not very open at all. If I publicly came out at work and was fired for it, that would be discrimination and I could sue the company. If you come out in the military you are kicked out and can't do anything. What's the difference? Why is it wrong in one area and perfectly fine in another?
A hundred years ago blacks were barred from the military (except briefly during the Civil War when the government was desperate). What if, during the period before the armed forces were integrated, they had established a policy where blacks were allowed to serve, but only if they put on white face paint so that no one could tell the difference? That would be pretty racist. This is exactly the same thing. If no one cares if someone is gay and its nobody else's business anyway, then why should it be a punishable offense? That's discrimination.
There's no other word for it. Punishing one group for something that differentiates them from another is discrimination.
DADT was a great compromise at the time, but it has run its course. In fifty years, I think American society will look back on this period with embarrassment, the same way we now look back on the response to the Civil Rights movement in the 50's and 60's. The public has shifted in favor of equal rights for the homosexual community in the last 20 years, and it appears it will continue to do so. Do you want to be remembered as someone with an open mind against discrimination or be one of the people with the (metaphorical) firehoses?
Posted By: General Sandoval (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 07:11 PM
Question: are there any openly straight people serving in the military? Do they go around demanding the right to tell everyone "I'm straight!"?
Really and trully, if you are willing to serve your country then go for it, gay, straight or whatever- you are all heroes. Please stop trying to make sexual orientation an issue though, there are more important things going on here.
Posted By: smithy84 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 07:27 PM
Grant: The military is about...fighting for other peoples rights- people who are too afraid to do it themselves.
LOL! Right, just like any one who doesn't go into teaching is simply too stupid to be a teacher...
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 01:54 AM
Grant - are you basically saying that society is not yet to the point where a man can sleep in an adjoining bed with another man knowing that the other man happens to find men attractive? This is not sarcasm; it's a serious question.
Jason: Expecting a complete country turnaround inside of four years is unrealistic. Heck... Obama said REPEATEDLY it would take YEARS to get our of our "Not A Depression". Moreover, the problems we're having right now predate Bush, though he did do everything in his power to accelerate and exacerbate the problem. Dare I say it started during the Reagan years, and hit its apex with George Dub.
As well, Obama has a different style than what we are used to. Bush wins a squeaker and says "I have political capital, and I'm gonna spend it". Obama has a clear win and says "Okay, let's work together on this". In hindsight, that was stupid, and he is now realizing that.
Of course, a commentator in another thread posed an interesting question: Is the problem that Obama simply won't just TELL us what we want rather than asking us?
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 08:43 AM
Grant : Got a scenario for you that I'd like insight on.
A gay guy joins the military. At any point in which he has a uniform on or is on the military's time, he says and does nothing that may say anything about his orientation. However, from the second he walks out of the door, he is holding another man's hand and kissing them in plain view of other servicemen but NOT in any way, shape, or form that represents the military. Right up until he is at the door of the base he is flamingly gay. However, the second he walks through the door he stops any and all appearances of anything that may hint sexual orientation.
Would this fly?
Again... this is not sarcasm. It is a serious question that I pose, in fact, to ANYONE that has served in the military. How would the military handle that?
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 08:47 AM
“There is no time to worry about issues like who you want to have sex with and why...”
That’s the point, isn’t it? If you’re engaged in armed combat with an enemy that’s trying to kill you, and you’re too preoccupied with whether or not the guy giving you cover is ogling your ass – you *deserve* to get shot square in the face, and YOU probably shouldn’t have volunteered to serve in the first place.
Cut and dry. That is it.
Posted By: The 8th Samurai (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Such a non-issue...there are no flamboyant queens joining the army anyway...if a solider is gay odds are he will blend in with the other straight guys and it wouldn't be an issue.
This is similar to the "what about women who are raped" abortion question. It's such a small sample size and it gets blown up to porportions that are not commensurate with reality and becomes the issue, when it's really statistically insignificant. Show me an army full of Perez Hilton's and I'll show you an army that's going to suck (no pun intended-actually, yes it was).
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 12:13 PM
General,
What a slap in the face to the Buffalo Soldier.
Are you actually comparing being firehosed and beat with a night stick for trying to vote or wanting to be served a sandwich at Woolworths to wanting to serve in the military and not being able openly proclaim your sexual preferences?
Gimme a break.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 01:00 PM
I am not Grant, but that would not "fly".
Two dudes making-out at the front gate is sort of an open declaration of your sexuality. Regardless of whose time you are on. I don't believe being "on leave" mitigates the Uniform Military Code of Conduct.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 01:04 PM
Some food for thought...
What if we had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on Christians in the military?
We don't ask if you're Christian or not, and for sure, don't even bother telling us.
Just do your damn job as a servicemen.
Don't do anything that signifies you're a Christian.
Don't wear a cross around your neck. Don't bring a Bible. And certainly, don't be seen openly reading one.
Do not do anything that gives away the fact that you're a Christian. Don't pray every night; don't say a prayer before going into battle.
We won't ask, just don't tell.
Accept the sacrifice and just serve your country.
And if you do display that you're a Christian at any point, we kick you out.
Fair and square? Is this okay with everyone?
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 01:08 PM
J. Alexander Mitchell:
First, thanks for having the guts to address Obama's place in this issue. Other than one doubter about my future vote, nobody wanted to touch the subject of Obama not keeping his word.
"If he doesn't do a complete turnaround, Obama will not get my vote again."
Note that I'm calling for Obama to do a turnaround, not the whole country. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, but Obama has been standing still. Iraq is being wrapped up on Bush's timetable. Yes, Obama gave himself wiggle room there but we all know he implied it would end faster if he became President. Refusal to release Abu Grahib photos or seek any prosecutions for the countless crimes during the Bush years, setting the precedent for future administrations that they need only keep their misdeeds quiet until out of office. I could go on and on. In this case, he has shown no will whatsoever to take action. An act of overt discrimination, illegal in any private workplace in America, is the law in the military. Our commander in chief, who is presiding over two wars that have terribly strained our military, doesn't think it's a priority.
All I want is for the man who talks about hope and change to do what's right even if it jeapordizes a few swing votes. Not once since being elected has he directly spoken on this issue. He hides behind his aides because he can't look his supporters in the face and give such pitiful excuses for failing them. Actually, it's not so much that he's failing as it is that he won't even try. When his friend got arrested and it looked to be racial, he cared enough to make an unplanned remark because it upset him. When it comes to gay rights, he doesn't care enough to say anything. His indifference to this issue offends me, both on principle and because it's not what I voted for.
If a friend who borrowed your car and promised to return it by a certain time didn't show up, how long would you wait before calling? I'm not giving the President four years on an issue he could have tackled in his first hundred days.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on October 16, 2009 at 03:05 PM
JAM,
I am saying that the military has determined that they are not ready for that- yet.
And that all of this "change" takes time to be accepted within the oldest active orgaization in our nations history.
An organization that values tradition, not absolute change overnight.
The first step was DADT- it was groundbreaking, it pissed many military members off- and it allowed gays to serve.
They serve knowing that they have rules they have to follow- those rules mean not bucking the traditions of that organization.
I'm not saying that comparing it to social norms means that it is wrong...
It is wrong to discriminate against anyone- but its also wrong to ask straight military men and women to live in the same room as an openly gay person when they have other things to worry about.
Hell, gays are still fighting for acceptence in our normal society- and I have stated on numerous occasions that as conservative as I am that I think that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable.
But the reality is that 90% of the armed services are not gay- and that gay people can serve today as long as they chose to not be open about it.
It sucks, its not fair, but they can serve...and that selfless scarifice means something.
To simply sign a paper that says "Gays can serve and be open" will slap the face of the gays who sacrificed to serve knowing that they could not.
The ones who said sex is not as important as serving my country.
And it will piss off a huge portion of the conservatives who serve in the military in the process.
And we want to do this during two wars?
Why? At least Clinton had the good sense to wait for reasonable peace and even he offered a measured response to the critics with DADT.
This is in many ways the same decriminations that blacks, females and muslims face, and many times still face...I'm not denying that.
My argument is that it takes time to change tradition, to change the entire view of an organization that existed before we created a Bill of Rights.
The military has reasons why that should not change, but they are moving to make those views more accepted.
Its not Obama's mission to make this happen- and it should not be any of ours- let it happen over the course of time. Let society accept it without conditions before we ask our military to deal with more headaches.
People keep using hypothetical scenerios to argue their points- there are not thousands being kicked out of the military because they are gay, its not happening.
I just left the service this year- its not happening.
At the end of the day the commanders are doing what is in the best interest of troop moral- let them do it...they know whats best, not us.
Let them fight the wars and maintain discipline how they see fit.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 03:24 PM
For anyone who's never been in the military, this DADT thing kinda goes both ways. You can be dishonorably discharged under UCMJ for infidelity. No cheating on your wife (or husband, although women who get caught fuckin around rarely face more than a stern warning...it's that whole "equality" thing they've 'fought' for). Does it still happen? You bet your ass it does. The point is, gay or straight, your sexuality has no place in uniform. So DADT should work just fine for gays, same as it works for heteros committing adultery. The military has a code of conduct. If gays don't like it, don't join. If they can just shut the fuck up about being gay for five minutes, they'd probably figure out most people don't care, and as long as they don't put it in their face (no pun intended), they'd probably be just fine.
Posted By: Banky Edwards (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 04:26 PM
This is fucking ridiculous. I'm in the military. I've met more gay people in the year since I've joined then I knew in my entire life, and I spent a good portion of time living in NYC. There's no good reason for don't ask, don't tell to exist because most the gay men and women I know are open about it or don't even bother hiding it; they don't hide it from the people they work with, they regularly go to gay clubs, and still have boyfriends/girlfriends. It only presents a problem when someone has a grudge to hold or when bigoted civilians hold a position of power over military.
You can say the military is a sacrifice, and it is, but you don't see the military turning people away based on religious preference or political affiliation (unless you qualify yourself as a pacifist). Does it really matter that much about someone choosing to be open about who they are? What's the point in fighting for that kind of freedom if we pick and choose who is allowed to have it? I sacrificed certain things when I signed my contract but as a straight man I was never told I couldn't get married or date. That's how DADT is supposed to work in theory; you can't do anything that would "shame" the United States, with the idea being two dudes slamming each other is shameful. If you are caught it's at the discretion of the military to keep you if you promise to stop doing gay things. Seriously. It's all pretty fucking goofy.
Posted By: Guest#5038 (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 04:49 PM
I've said this before but I'll repeat it;
This policy is something I can never understand about America. My country simply has an Employment Equality Act that applies across the board in all employment so anyone can serve in the defence forces, no fuss. Bring that in to America and problem solved.
And BTW Grant you slimy git, how dare you talk about making sacrifices when one is on the military. Lose some of their rights? I don't see straight people being treated the way gays are with this stupid rule. It's blatant hypocrisy when they can acknowledge their partners and families but gays can't because thin skinned creeps like yourself think you'll be perved over if they can serve openly. That's the whole damn basis of your argument- blind unreasoning prejudice. Or how else will queers spoil the army? Will they attract enemy radar or sharks?
Hey everyone this is what people like Grant really think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3icDB3kRKPg
Posted By: Dr. John Smith (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 04:52 PM
Look most of my responses are not getting posted- if someone is asking me a question will you post the answer I give them...
Whats going on?
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 05:01 PM
Some food for thought...
What if we had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on Christians in the military?
We don't ask if you're Christian or not, and for sure, don't even bother telling us.
Just do your damn job as a servicemen.
Don't do anything that signifies you're a Christian.
Don't wear a cross around your neck. Don't bring a Bible. And certainly, don't be seen openly reading one.
Do not do anything that gives away the fact that you're a Christian. Don't pray every night; don't say a prayer before going into battle.
We won't ask, just don't tell.
Accept the sacrifice and just serve your country.
And if you do display that you're a Christian at any point, we kick you out.
Fair and square? Is this okay with everyone?
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 01:08 PM
What your describing sounds like the public schools. Thats unless your a muslim, then you get prayer rooms.
Show me an army full of Perez Hilton's and I'll show you an army that's going to suck (no pun intended-actually, yes it was).
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Thats is funny......and true.
Posted By: John Galbraith (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 06:20 PM
Quite honestly this whole pissing contest is just old. You have the lefties like Crow who play the tired Christian line (how original) and you have righties like Grant who play the gay line (again, how original). It always devolves into that, with each side attacking the same tired targets.
In case anyone hasn't noticed, the military is an OPTIONAL career choice. Like any career, if you choose to serve, then you follow the employer's rules. It's as simple as that. If there was a military draft or any type of involuntary military service, then everyone has a gripe. However, as long as it is optional there shouldn't be any issues, as all it does is minimizes efficiency.
If you don't like the military's rules, then don't join. Simple as that.
Posted By: Jason (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 07:36 PM
Fuck you Dr. John Smith,
PhD in dochebaggery. If you are even a real doctor.
Not once have I slighted gays in the military.
I commend the ones who do it and follow the rules- it sucks and its not fair.
You're a simple minded piece of shit.
I'm not arguing what is fair in the military, everying in the military is unfair. Everything.
Thats why is a service, selfless sacrifice...the only thing you scarificed was the original hot pockets for the lean pockets while playing Xbox and looking at YouTube.
Not once did I say gays can't or should not serve in the military. They can, they should.
You're the ones who think that being gay means that they should get an extra badge- or a special pin- stating that they are gay.
My argument is that it should be transparent- nobody should need to know who is fucking who- and that it does not matter as long as the job gets done.
People in the military are people.
They have bias, and misconceptions, just like everyone else- and it will be a problem if gays are allowed to serve openly.
Gays will out other gays over pettiness.
Straights will be creeped out over being around gays over religious and social differences/bias.
Straights will target gays for harassment. And vice/versa.
The military is not the proving ground for societies mistakes...it can help push discrimination problems in society to the front, show that people can get along, work next to each other...but there will be problems.
My argument is that DADT should be upheld for now, let gays simply serve and do so without breaking a simple rule- without getting booted out for not following that one rule, and you will see a change in the military culture.
It will happen quickly. But everytime it gets broke, and people like, dumbshit Dr. Douchebag defend the action, they fail to understand that the military is about rules.
If the rules are followed it leads to trust, trust leads to leaner rules, and that is how change is made.
If gays simply follow the rules then none of this matters in a few years...if assholes who are not even in the military continue to accuse the military of being bigots and keep demanding change- the military will refuse because they can.
Just to prove a point they won't change.
And everytime a gay servicemen breaks the rules it just takes away more trust that they can't be trusted to control their own urges while in uniform.
A similar rule to the "Don't cheat if your married"- you can't control yourself then go away.
Follow the rules or leave.
But if you follow the rules long enough the go away. Because trust has been establihed.
So fuck you if think I'm a dick- I never said anything about gays, but thats how the military works.
deal with it.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 07:55 PM
Whats going on?
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 05:01 PM
Hey Spook, I am finding the same thing happening to me.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 08:22 PM
And if you do display that you're a Christian at any point, we kick you out.
Fair and square? Is this okay with everyone?
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 01:08 PM
well since 65% of americans are Christian and less that 1% of americans are homosexuals, that would put a dent in the ranks of the armed forces.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 09:06 PM
Military has rules on being gay. They hire gays, but they're all told stay in the closet or keep it there, meaning keep it to yourself or face the consequences. Employer rules (Military) are if you come out you get kicked out under Chapter 15 AR 635-200. If you don't like their rules, then don't join, simple as that. Really who wants a gay pride parade in the service? Maybe a small few. Fact is the service like to keep things in uniform(the same) not make everyone their own individuality. They get to do that on their own time as long as they obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ)
Posted By: UCMJ Rules (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM
"One issue that no one speaks about is the rights of partners/spouses in the military. When a straight person dies in combat the family receives some support from the military. A gay partner would not even be notified if his/her partner was killed in combat."
As a person that went through all the recruitment process and all, that statement is utter bullshit. At the beginning of the process you have up to 4 people you wish to notify about you status if you were to be killed in action or died in service. There are no problems with DADT. If you are gay, it doesn't mean you can't join the military. It just means that you can't talk openly about it which in a combat situation, I wouldn't want to hear about Pvt. Steve's sexual orientation.
Posted By: Mr. Mack (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 01:07 AM
Grant,
Why aren't you serving any longer? Were you kicked out for some reason that you will not divulge to the public?
Posted By: David (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 02:47 AM
Is it just me or does the Spook only ramble? It seems he lacks any control of the english language.
Over-writing does not make you look more intelligent. On the contrary, it makes you look unfocused and a bit loony.
Posted By: Guest#1903 (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 02:55 AM
"This is who I am world, deal with it."
Newsflash - the world doesn't care. Stop seeking attention and get over yourself.
Posted By: Finn (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Banky Edwards: I didn't know infidelity was grounds for discharge. The problem however is that you're equating an act of betrayal to any gay sex act, which is apples and oranges. I maintain that if it's truly a UNIFORM code, the same rules should apply to everyone (and saying they do because no one can have gay sex doesn't cut it).
Jason: First, great name. Second, employers don't have the right to impose rules on their employees which have nothing to do with the job. They can't refuse to hire Catholic women because they'll take more maternity leave. The boss can't demand you give him a BJ every morning or you're fired. Demanding that a select group hide a core part of their identity because it's "icky" is likewise unacceptable.
Grant: I hope you were able to get your comments posted. As for giving time for the military to adjust, it's been 16 years since DADT went into effect. Wasn't it common knowledge that it was just a step toward what's being pushed for now? Historically, the law has had to move first, and then society has followed. Women's suffrage and the civil rights movement saw laws change while prejudice was still rampant, because basic rights shouldn't have to wait for majority acceptance.
As for the number being discharged, the Washington Post reported that from 1997-2001, the average was over a thousand a year. Once the wars started, the average dropped to under 730 a year. The implication is that their dismissal or retention depends on how badly they are needed at the time. In a time when convicted criminals are being allowed to join because recruitment goals cannot be met, every serviceman discharged for this reason is one too many. Isn't it more of a distraction to have former gang members in your ranks? Where was the adjustment period for that?
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Seems like a good time for a history lesson.
It's no understatement to say that the Allies would not have won WW2 without the role played by a gay man. Alan Turin led the team which cracked the entire German system of encyrpted communications (Enigma). This feat allowed the US and British Navies to defeat the German U-Boat campaign and praved the way for D-day. In the process he also created what amounted to the first computer. After the war ended he was sacked, persecuted for being gay and eventually committed suicide. He was only retrospectively pardoned by the British Government last month and celebrated for what he was - one of the Allies' greatest war heros.
Apparently gays are welcome in the military when it's a war of national survival, the rest of the time they aren't enititled to defend their country unless they take a decision to put themselves back in the closet.
Anyone who says these are the rules and gays have to put up with them, might like to remember that the US army was segregrated ununtil after the Second World War when the Government desegrated it by order. Soliders said then that mixed (race) army units would lead to a collapse in discipine. It was reactionary nonsense then and it is now when the same arguments are used about gays in the military.
Posted By: bemused brit (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 01:56 PM
well since 65% of americans are Christian and less that 1% of americans are homosexuals, that would put a dent in the ranks of the armed forces.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 09:06 PM
That number of Christians is dwindling every year and the % of open homosexuals in the U.S. is closer to 8%, not counting all the closet cases and republican anti-gay politicians who are flaming. That 1% number comes from racist right wingnuts who make people alright with civil right infringements.
Posted By: L I A M (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 02:50 PM
So it seems the two sides of the argument here are 1)Treating gays differently from straight people is discrimination. and 2)If gays don't like the rules, they don't HAVE to join the military.
Now there are good points to each side but i think a compromise can be reached.
Why not just ban sexual activity in the military? It treats gay soldiers and straight soldiers exactly the same, and if anything, it would take away another distraction from the job. Your thoughts?
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 03:26 PM
Finn: If the world doesn't care, then there's no reason to keep DADT around, is there?
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 06:29 PM
So it seems the two sides of the argument here are 1)Treating gays differently from straight people is discrimination. and 2)If gays don't like the rules, they don't HAVE to join the military.
Now there are good points to each side but i think a compromise can be reached.
Why not just ban sexual activity in the military? It treats gay soldiers and straight soldiers exactly the same, and if anything, it would take away another distraction from the job. Your thoughts?
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 03:26 PM
Its called family planning for married members with spouses(Straght people) So you want to ban Soldiers from having a family? Okay? Who defends the freedom so you can say whats on your mind? Being a former service member, if straght people were not allowed to have sex and procreate then why would you bother finding or asking the someone to marry you if you finally found someone you want to grow old with? As for gays, how do they procreate? Thats right, they don't, unles the lesbian is artifically inseminated or however you spell it. Gay men cannot procreate? You sound like a moron. For those of you that have never been in the service, shut the hell up about it, you have no idea what your talking about and what you do talk about is hearsay and speculation. maybe when you serve you will then know what your talking about, but until then you come off like utter jackasses, that don't have a clue.
Posted By: Former Service Member (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 11:41 PM
This is a very emotional subject, so I thought I'd throw out examples rather than delve into the hate.
August 2008 - Amy Brian, after serving in the Kansas City Nat'l Guard for 9 years, is put under investigation and kicked out after someone supposedly saw her kissing someone at a Wal-Mart. She did not out herself.
June 2002 - David Hall and Jack Glover were both discharged out of the Air Force ROTC despite refusing to talk about their relationship. Another soldier turned them in.
Monica Hill was forced out of the Air Force after trying to get permission to delay reporting, when her partner was revealed to have terminal cancer. Her partner died, while she was said to have fabricated the story. When she reluctantly showed her partner's death certificate as proof, she was discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
Justin Peacock was thrown out of the Coast Guard after another soldier reported that he had been holding hands with another man. Some reports I've seen say that Peacock was also getting anti-gay threats towards him. When he reported these threats, though, it was the same as outing himself.
We've had Purple Heart winners, decades-long service members, newcomers and veterans alike sent out of the military because either they revealed themselves (accidentally or on purpose) or someone who didn't like them had a weapon to turn on them to get them out.
It has to be a difficult task, hiding your sexual orientation. These are men and women who serve together, work together, and when overseas, living together. Also, apparently even while on your own time, you have to be careful who is watching.
I am not gay, and I have to admit, I've found that I have a bias against them which I have fought for years. Quite frankly, I dislike that part of myself. But even I can see that DADT is flawed, or at the least, incomplete.
The main argument I see is that men and women being openly gay would be a distraction to the rest of the troops. My question is, doesn't it seem to be a distraction now? Soldiers who should be worrying about their safety and the lives of those they serve with are having to worry about what they say and do, in order to keep their job.
Any slip-up could allow someone who is homophobic to use his or her prejudices to justify a person's firing.
If I see a fellow soldier, during his off time, in a small club 50 miles away from base dancing with another man, I could turn him in and watch him be discharged, potentially with losing his benefits and, in some cases, even having to repay the military for his training.
I don't know about everyone else, but I have a problem with that.
Posted By: Arcturo (Guest) on October 18, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Grant, your ignorance is astounding. Probably on the level of the soldiers DODA was enacted for.
See, the problem wasn't homosexuals. It never was. The problem was with the small-minded bigoted assholes that couldn't accept homosexuals. The problem was with soldiers who were believed not to have enough discipline and intelligence to understand that just because the man next to him was gay, that does not mean that soldier is going to assrape him the moment he turns around.
The law was enacted because people like you are ignorant homophobes.
They're exactly like the morons that claim the reason they're against race-mixing is "well think of how children of a union like that would be treated!" Yeah, how they'd be treated by racist bigots like yourself, you mean?
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on October 18, 2009 at 12:40 PM
So the problem with gays in the military is that they cannot make babies? Overpopulation is very real and children in every state in this country go to sleep hungry, not to mention all the orphans. maybe you should learn about how families are made and until then shut up, you sound ignorant. Oh and you don't defend our right to say what we want, it was the Patriot Act that stopped our freedom of speach, not the people the military kills.
Posted By: Guest#4639 (Guest) on October 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM
ts called family planning for married members with spouses(Straght people) So you want to ban Soldiers from having a family? Okay? Who defends the freedom so you can say whats on your mind? Being a former service member, if straght people were not allowed to have sex and procreate then why would you bother finding or asking the someone to marry you if you finally found someone you want to grow old with? As for gays, how do they procreate? Thats right, they don't, unles the lesbian is artifically inseminated or however you spell it. Gay men cannot procreate? You sound like a moron. For those of you that have never been in the service, shut the hell up about it, you have no idea what your talking about and what you do talk about is hearsay and speculation. maybe when you serve you will then know what your talking about, but until then you come off like utter jackasses, that don't have a clue.
Posted By: Former Service Member (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Woah buddy, calm the fuck down I was just speculating. Now there are a couple of problems with your argument.
First of all, you're right, I think married soldiers should have an exception to the rule, so lets get that out of the way right now.
Secondly, I am aware that soldiers protect our freedoms, and frankly I don't see how that's relevant.
Thirdly, you seem to think that sex is only about procreation. Are you saying then that infertile soldiers should not be allowed to have sex because they can't procreate?
Fourth, I never said anything about gay men not being able to procreate. I don't know where the hell you're pulling that out from.
Fifth, No, actually people who have never been in the service DO have a right to discuss it. These men and women are in charge of OUR protection, why shouldn't we be able to talk about military policy?
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on October 18, 2009 at 05:52 PM
"What your describing sounds like the public schools. Thats unless your a muslim, then you get prayer rooms.
Show me an army full of Perez Hilton's and I'll show you an army that's going to suck (no pun intended-actually, yes it was)."
A) Christians ARE allowed to pray in schools. I attended a Bible Study my sophomore through Senior years of high school. This wasn't a private school. It was a public, state-run school. The only distinctions that had to be made were that no teachers could be involved in the group (they could only offer their classroom to use) meaning it had to be entirely student-run, and that it couldn't interfere with normal class hours like any other club on campus. It lasted the entire time I was in high school until no one was left to take it over from the girl that ran it. Our numbers were always small (always less than 5 attending). There were also prayer sessions held on days like 9/11 that were completely voluntary to attend. So this myth that Christian prayer is banned in schools is exactly that...a myth. It's a lie fringe conservatives use to scare more moderate religious conservatives, rallying them against the evil bogeyman of liberal indoctrination of our schools.
B) I was the serviceman that posted earlier about the ridiculousness of DADT, pointing out that there are already open gays and lesbians serving. The stereotyping you're doing here is even more ridiculous. Most gay men don't act like the queen stereotype of Perez Hilton. Many of them actually "butch up" their outward appearance, or at least that's the tendency I've noticed. Or they never acted like that to begin with.
Look someone earlier used the comparison of Christians having a DADT policy regarding their faith. A more apt analogy would have been because the country is so predominantly Christian and many of them find Muslims evil, would it be okay to expand DADT to include Muslims (or Jews or Hinus or whoever)? Because that's the main thrust of the argument against gays in the military: the "normal" people are uncomfortable with them. And I don't agree with that given that many of our laws were created to protect the minority from the majority so we don't descend into a mob rule where popular opinion is the only opinion allowed.
Posted By: Guest#4545 (Guest) on October 18, 2009 at 06:35 PM
This is one of the few articles on here recently that have stimulated some good discussion. Even the flame-fests (no pun intended) make good points, as do the pro-GitM crowd. Good stuff.
Posted By: Needless Praise (Guest) on October 18, 2009 at 07:52 PM
Wonderful article on opinions. I know that I am not the only one in America that believes that this issue is not IMPORTANT.
You can enlist in the army and be gay. Men have been doing it for years. Way before half of use were born. I think that is a horrible excuse.
No one has ever walked up to a person and ask are you gay or straight.That is a decision a person choose to state or let be seen.
You will see on an application what i your age, race, and maybe your gender, not are you HETERO OR HOMO. Because no one CARES!
Obama does have other things to worry about its his job to take care of things that are important to everyone in America! Gays being "out there" has been an issue for years why because thats something that they want! Oh screw war, or people not having jobs and homeless people, no lets get right down and make sure all the gay people are fine first because that is so much more important! HOW ABOUT NOT!!!
I have gay friends close ones at that! And I have not heard one of them, or their friends claim to have such a problem with whats going on they pretty much do not care.One thinks its very silly that they had rally believing they are speaking up for everyone which they ARE NOT!
As an American you are entitled to your own opinion and your own way of life. Do so and stop worrying about what everyone thinks!
THERE YOU GO PROBLEM SOLVED!!!
Posted By: ms mooe (Guest) on October 19, 2009 at 03:39 PM
If they are going to homosexuals from the military, then they would need to ban those who view pornography, those who go to the strippers, those who cheat on their wives, and those who have premarital sex.
Because its all the same sin and if they were kicking people out because of a sexually deviant nature, then 75% of the soldiers would be discharged
It's a secular society with a secular army protecting it. I don't associate with those who embrace sexual immorality off hours (bad company corrupts good character) but I would have no problem working with them. We've all got a job to do.
Of course, if I were to take a cue from the crybaby atheists who force any religious symbols from their sad little eyes, I could say any outward symbol of their homosexuality should be met with derision and whining.
But that wouldn't be fair, now would it?
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on October 19, 2009 at 05:50 PM
How about YES because when they're paying the same taxes as everyone else they deserve the same rights. You don't mind that so-called "1%" paying for your defence forces, public schools and child welfare yet they're the things you want dominance over whether its keep out the queers, bring back public prayer regardless of whether anyone else want to pray or not and pay for my sprogs. So why shouldn't everyone get to discuss it even if they're not in the military? They pay for your salary.
War and hunger are always going to be problems, that doesn't mean you ignore the things that can be fixed very simply. And if you think no one cares maybe you should tell Anthony Woods, Timothy R. McVeigh or Allen R. Schindler, Jr. except it's a bit late for him since they killed him.
And finally it's funny to always hear that old chestnut about "procreation" whenever the troglodytes want to keep people down as if love had to be determined by biology. The way some of you talk about the most intimate parts of people's lives; reducing love and sex to 'breeding', like dogs or horses. If that's all it is to you it could be followed to its most logical end with artificial insemination. Zager and Evans may have been on to something. No need for anyone to fornicate to procreate but then you'd all get your knickers in a twist over being denied your basic rights, and then you'd know how it feels.
Posted By: Dr. John Smith (Guest) on October 19, 2009 at 07:52 PM
Wonderful article on opinions. I know that I am not the only one in America that believes that this issue is not IMPORTANT.
You can enlist in the army and be gay. Men have been doing it for years. Way before half of use were born. I think that is a horrible excuse.
No one has ever walked up to a person and ask are you gay or straight.That is a decision a person choose to state or let be seen.
You will see on an application what i your age, race, and maybe your gender, not are you HETERO OR HOMO. Because no one CARES!
Obama does have other things to worry about its his job to take care of things that are important to everyone in America! Gays being "out there" has been an issue for years why because thats something that they want! Oh screw war, or people not having jobs and homeless people, no lets get right down and make sure all the gay people are fine first because that is so much more important! HOW ABOUT NOT!!!
I have gay friends close ones at that! And I have not heard one of them, or their friends claim to have such a problem with whats going on they pretty much do not care.One thinks its very silly that they had rally believing they are speaking up for everyone which they ARE NOT!
As an American you are entitled to your own opinion and your own way of life. Do so and stop worrying about what everyone thinks!
THERE YOU GO PROBLEM SOLVED!!!
Posted By: ms mooe (Guest) on October 19, 2009 at 03:39 PM
Oh its not important? Tell that to the guy who lost not only his pension, but his ability to make a living because he has a dishonorable discharge on his record because someone with an axe to grind decided out out him to a superior officer. You seem to think that every soldier who is discharged from the army is discharged because he or she outed themselves. That is simply not the case. It may not be important to you, but its important to a lot of people. Until we start treating all of our soldiers the same, the problem is most assuredly not "Solved"
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on October 20, 2009 at 12:06 AM
I don't know what would be worse, being in a foxhole with 3 flamboyant pole smokers or being in a foxhole with LIAM, Scott B and Dr. John Smith.
Both would be horrifying.
Posted By: J (Guest) on October 20, 2009 at 02:09 PM
Grant Mucus; die in a fire, prick.
Posted By: Dr. John Smith (Guest) on October 20, 2009 at 02:13 PM
I am a democrat & a gay man. I am not solely defined by either of those titles. I do consider myself a realist though. While I'm not personally offended by the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy I can see why some people are.
When President Clinton created this policy I think he did it in hopes to make gay people feel a little bit more accepted but at the same time not creating a ruckus among the country.
I don't find it necessary to go up to people & say, "Hey! My name's Tim & I am gay" but if asked I'm not going to withhold the information. I'm not ashamed of myself, I am who I am. I am capable of loving someone just like everyone else even if it's not the "norm." I'm also a proud American and think that anyone who enlists, regardless of sexuality, gender, race, creed, etc. deserves respect because they are willing to die for our rights... even if they don't have the same amount of rights as everyone else.
People say it's 2009 & people need to move on and not concern themselves with the lifestyles of others. However, prejudice is always going to exist. Stereotypes are always going to be around, whether that be against gays, blacks or women.
I should be required to follow the same laws as straight people. I should be required to respect my fellow man. I should be required to have the same rights as everyone else. The more the topic is discussed the more it's going to be a taboo.
If you're not gay then don't sleep with a man. Don't be concerned with my life unless I'm doing harm to you or your loved ones & I will do the same.
Posted By: Tim (Guest) on October 20, 2009 at 07:05 PM
Generally when a gay man/woman is discharged they don't receive a dishonorable discharge. They get one of the other general discharges that affords them partial entitlements unless someone is really trying to fuck them over. Not saying its right but its what happens. Or they shuffle them into a low exposure position where they can be marginaluzed to quietly finish out their career.
Posted By: Some Guy (Guest) on October 21, 2009 at 06:26 PM
Chapter 15s are usually an Honorable Discharge, unless the person comes out during Basic Tranining or it involves a sexual assault case. When the person comes out in Basic it normally is an uncaharacterized discharge and when it turns into a sexual assault case it is normally refered to a court-martial. The only time a person can receive a dishonorable discharge is when they get court-martialed. A Dishonorable discharge is a punitive discharge not administrative. Look up the regualtions if you want to know more. Google USAPA and you will find the Army regulations.
Posted By: Former JAG Paralegal (Guest) on October 23, 2009 at 05:45 PM
STAY CURRENT