Gays in the military | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Editorial

Gays in the military

The ex-chairman of the joint chiefs says to let the evidence speak

Monday, June 22, 2009

Comment

By John M. Shalikashvili

The Supreme Court announced earlier this month that it would not review a lawsuit challenging the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy forbidding homosexuals from serving openly. The Obama administration had asked the court not to take the case as the president considers ending the ban.

News that the president would change the policy had inspired a group of retired flag officers to argue that service by openly gay individuals would harm morale, discipline, cohesion, recruitment and retention in the U.S. military. The argument assumes that anti-gay sentiment is so fierce and widespread that moving to a policy of equal treatment would drive away thousands and could ultimately “break the All-Volunteer Force.”

In recent decades, Israel and Britain joined more than 20 other nations to allow openly gay individuals to serve without overall problems. But it is not just foreign militaries that show service by openly gay individuals works. The U.S. military itself has had successful experiences. Enforcement of the ban was suspended without problems during the Persian Gulf War. A recent study co-authored by Laura Miller of Rand Corp. found no correlation between a unit’s readiness and whether known gays serve in it.

The officers who oppose lifting the ban say that “losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers” — those they believe might bolt — are unaffordable. Under current policy, we have lost more than 13,000 of those people, and researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles have found that nearly 4,000 people leave voluntarily each year because of the ban.

While the proper timing of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” remains uncertain, it is evident to me that a policy change is inevitable. When change comes, it will be important for senior leaders to send clear signals of support to the rank and file. Every general officer knows that mixed signals undermine leadership.

President Obama has wisely indicated that he will consult carefully with military leadership before making any change to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” In the same way that military leaders take into account research when contemplating a new strategy or doctrine, it will be important for the conversation about gays and lesbians in the military to be informed by data, not speculation or emotion. That people on all sides of the issue feel strongly about it is more reason, not less, to let the evidence do the talking.

(Shalikashvili, a retired Army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997. This essay originally appeared in the Washington Post.)

80 comment(s)

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 22, 2009 9:00 AM:

" The UCMJ has plenty of regulations regarding sexual misconduct.

We expect our heterosexual military members to abide by them.

We can expect our homosexual military members to abide by them.

Gay members of our military already are already abiding by those regulations.

The biggest sexual assault problem in our military is heterosexual in nature.

~Ruff "

napan007 wrote on Jun 22, 2009 9:15 AM:

" We are losing so many dedicated and talented folks already due to DADT - how in the world has that been good for morale? Necessitating secrets and allowing others to "out" folks in order to remove them from the military has done a great deal of harm, both to the dedicated military personnel who were forced to leave (and the families that depend on their income) and the overall strength of the military as we have been needlessly losing talented individuals. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 22, 2009 9:55 AM:

" You'll lose a lot more if it's removed....a lot MORE!

Shalikashvili, I might add, was the master mind of Clinton’s response to the 8 terrorist attacks by al Qaeda during is administration….ranging from complete incompetent to picking his nose, literally. "

reader wrote on Jun 22, 2009 12:22 PM:

" The government and those who oppose gays in the military should be so concerned about the rampent sexual abuse against women in the military, perpetrated by heterosexual men. Heterosexual men comment the vast majority of sex crimes against all groups. Let's get our facts straight and focus on the real problems. "

Raven wrote on Jun 22, 2009 1:07 PM:

" and how do we lose and what do we lose by allowing openly gay citizens to serve glenroy? "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 22, 2009 1:56 PM:

" glenroy- Please recall that Clinton launched missile attacks on places where the CIA said that Bin Laden might be while Republican hypocritically complained.

Sure, those attacks missed OBL, but at least Clinton tried to get Osama BEFORE 9-11 quite unlike Mr. Bush who ignored the warnings and famously told the CIA briefers to go back to Langeley they had covered their a$$es without lifting a finger to do his job just weeks before the 9-11 attack.

I also seem to recall that Mr. Bush withdrew troops from Afghanistan when we had OBL surrounded in Tora-Bora and let him get away. And failed to attack the only Al Qaeda base in Iraq before the invasion which was in the Northern No-Fly Zone. Bush finally attacked the base when it became an embarrassing news story.

Please quit pretending that Republicans do a better job militarily than Democrats do. The facts don't support Republican blowhardery.

Shalikashvili was also the general that the Bush geniuses refused to listen to when it came to the number of troops required when invading Iraq.

There are a lot of dead American kids because of Republican chest-thumping hackery.

When I served in the Navy there were gays aboard our ships, many of them officers. It's time to stop requiring gays to lead a secret life and lie about who they are.

America's armed forces should be rooting out skinheads like Timothy McVeigh (not known as a homosexual) who use their military training against their fellow Americans and leaving gay patriots who want to serve alone.

~Ruff "

a teacher wrote on Jun 22, 2009 2:47 PM:

" Gotta love Glenroy's response. A former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, a four star general (like that's a difficult thing to accomplish) - WHAT WOULD HE KNOW? "

selim wrote on Jun 22, 2009 2:52 PM:

" Right on, Ruff. "

cab e-girl wrote on Jun 22, 2009 3:08 PM:

" Reader- while I agree that most violence against women in the military are committed by heterosexual men, your statement:

"Heterosexual men comment the vast majority of sex crimes against all groups."

needs to be supported on a per capita basis. Gay men only make up 2-5 percent of this countries entire population, so one would expect the total number of violent crimes committed by heterosexual men to be MUCH higher. Let's put things in perspective, before we make such statements. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 22, 2009 3:38 PM:

" When I was in basic training we had to take our showers in a large community-type shower room. If the Armed Forces don't allow male and female recruits to shower together, why should they allow openly gay men to shower with straights? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. "

reader wrote on Jun 22, 2009 4:02 PM:

" cab-e-girl: No I do not. I was not speaking in percentages per capita I was speaking in the greatest numbers.

If you have 1000 hetero males raping women you have 5 male gays peeping, then what is your biggest problem? "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 22, 2009 4:18 PM:

" cab-e-girl- I'm sure the per-capita sexual assaults on women by gay men is very low.

Or they aren't gay... wouldn't you say?

~Ruff "

Raven wrote on Jun 22, 2009 5:00 PM:

" JR....you have brought this up time and time again and it is irrelevant to whether gays are allowed to serve openly or not, because there are gay men showering with straight men and lesbians showering with straight women now and the prohibition against coed showers has more to do with problems from straight men harassing all women, straight and gay

(I notice your concern seems to be with gay men showering with straight men and not lesbians showering with straight women.)

cab-e-girl...check the FBI assault stats if you want more 'proof' of the rates of sexual assaults by heterosexual men "

cab e-girl wrote on Jun 22, 2009 5:10 PM:

" Ruff- I'm not talking about sexual assaults on women. I'm referring to the statement (I am assuming reader meant commit)

"Heterosexual men comment the vast majority of sex crimes against all groups."

Young boys and young men have been victims of sexual assault by gay men. The victims of Jeffrey Dahmer were all young boys and men. Not sure whether Dahmer proclaimed himself as "gay", but he certainly raped and murdered boys and young men. Reader leads us to believe that gay men do not commit sexual crimes at the same rate as heterosexual men. I dispute that and ask "reader" to supply facts for the statement.

Until "reader" backs up the statement, I think we need only to look as far as the Catholic Church and the gay priests who have destroyed the lives of many young men and boys to know that gay men are every bit as likely to commit sexual assaults as heterosexual men. The victims are not women, but that doesn't make them any less a victim. "

kdbk wrote on Jun 22, 2009 5:11 PM:

" Supporters of openly gay conduct in the military are full of opinions, but very short of fact. Facts are that our military works magnificently under the current agreement, which states that gay conduct is not appropriate. The U.S. military forces do NOT suffer any significant loss of troops due to the current policy regarding gay conduct, be it from recruitment or retainment. The numbers lost in either case are quite minimal, according to the facts that is.

Some will never relinquish the notion that gay conduct should be allowed in the military. They will continue to ramble on with their un-substantiated commentary and our military will continue on as the best in the world in spite of the minority opinion in support of gay conduct in the armed services.

The American people will never sacrifice the effectiveness of their fighting forces to appease a very small segment of our society.

Gay rights have seen their zenith in America. They've just got backwards to go now. If they stop pushing, they'll be able to retain the many benefits they've achieved. If they don't, they will continue to alienate an increasing number of Americans and eventually have no momentum at all. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 22, 2009 5:20 PM:

" kdbk-The guy who wrote the commentary is a four (count'em) star general. I would say that qualifies him as an expert on unit cohesion. HE thinks it's no problem.

I'm going to have to go with the expert here. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 22, 2009 7:09 PM:

" There were folks who told black people that they had all the rights they were going to get.

Martin Luther King did not give up, and I strongly suspect that our LGBT brothers and sisters are not going back in the closet.

The folks that favor suppressing gay rights are largely the older generation who are passing off the scene.

I know my children are much less concerned about suppressing gay rights than my generation is.

~Ruff "

Raven wrote on Jun 22, 2009 10:19 PM:

" Until "reader" backs up the statement,..

cab-e-girl, to use your own words, you have made the charge so where are your figures to back it up. If you check the studies, you will find the vast majority of men who sexually assault male children do not consider themselves gay and the studies indicate that it is not the gender but the age that is the attracting agent. Again, the FBI has great numbers on that.

But the bigger question is what does that have to do with letting homosexuals serve openly in the military? "

John Richards wrote on Jun 22, 2009 10:29 PM:

" Raven wrote: " there are gay men showering with straight men and lesbians showering with straight women now."

The difference is that currently the gays in the military must be very discreet and not allow their eyes to linger, for fear of being found out. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 22, 2009 10:34 PM:

" Teacher wrote, "The guy who wrote the commentary is a four (count'em) star general. I would say that qualifies him as an expert on unit cohesion. HE thinks it's no problem."

He is just one voice. I'm sure we can find a general who thinks the opposite. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 22, 2009 11:04 PM:

" Instead of listening to a four star general, why not ask the grunts in the field what they think? See the article "Troops oppose repeal of ‘don’t ask’." Read it for yourself:
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/ "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 23, 2009 7:51 AM:

" The first soldier wounded in Iraq was a gay man. Recently the military discharged a West Point graduate Arabic language specialist and two tour Iraq veteran, and an 18 year combat veteran pilot simply because they are gay.

General Colin Powell has now gone on the record in favor of reviewing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". "It was a policy that became a law. I did not want it to become a law." Gen. Powell.

A few months ago, over 100 generals and admirals in the U.S. military called for the repeal of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell.” Their statement makes it clear that not only should the ban be repealed, but that our military’s top brass is ready for a nondiscrimination law to be implemented. These seasoned commanders understand that "DADT" is discriminatory, inconsistent with military readiness, and at odds with creating a more competitive and effective fighting force.
About 13,000 Americans have been discharged under “DADT” in the last fourteen years, for an average of two people per day. Our government has spent over $363 million in taxpayer dollars firing desperately needed military linguists, pilots, doctors, intelligence analysts, nurses and others with critical skills we need in this time of conflict.
65,000 lesbian and gay service members live with the constant threat of a career-ending discharge under the ban. This is no way to treat patriotic Americans who volunteer to serve our nation in its time of need. Please support the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1246), which would repeal “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” and allow all qualified Americans to serve openly and honestly regardless of sexual orientation. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 23, 2009 7:57 AM:

" "I'm sure we can find a general who thinks the opposite. "

OK. Let's hear from your four star general.

Personally, I think that anyone who wishes to serve should and that worrying about something as trivial as sexuality is unpatriotic. If you have the guts to to put your life on the line, what's it to me(or you) who you get it on with.

As for the grunts in the field, what if they didn't want to serve with blacks, or Asians, or Hispanics or women. The military would say "Too bad, shut up and follow orders". "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 23, 2009 7:57 AM:

" In spite of the ban, some gay service members are serving openly with the support of their colleagues. Others are still harassed based on their perceived sexual orientation and serve in fear of losing their careers.
American troops serve without incident side-by-side with personnel in foreign militaries and national security agencies which do not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Every report commissioned by the Federal government has concluded that the ban could be lifted without determent to readiness.

In 1993 former AZ Senator and Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater wrote the following in the “Washington Post":

"After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it’s pretty damned close.

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country’s economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 23, 2009 8:04 AM:

" 16 years ago, Goldwater's letter included this:

It’s no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there’s no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crazy, but then found that wasn't true. Then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1957 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan’s man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend D. Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it ‘a bit of an old chestnut’.

When the facts lead to one conclusion, I say it’s time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Some in Congress think I’m wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows, they say, perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.

Well, that’s just stupid.

Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential - period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now, each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man - our own Gen. Colin Powell. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 23, 2009 8:14 AM:

" Goldwater also stated:

"The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight. But we seldom have that luxury. That’s why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that’s what we need now.

I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it’s high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.

What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy like “Don't ask, don't tell.” That compromise doesn't deal with the issue - it tries to hide it.

We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It’s time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It’s time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It’s time to get on with more important business.

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

When you get down to it, no American able to serve should be allowed, much less given an excuse, not to serve his or her country. We need all our talent."

Glodwater, Cheney, and others reached the conclusion DADT was wrong long ago. The only purpose it serves it to perpetuate the prejudice it was designed to indulge. "

Raven wrote on Jun 23, 2009 9:00 AM:

" JR.. you bring to mind a picture of people in the shower looking at the floor so they won't thought as being gay....it is time for a reality check. "

reader wrote on Jun 23, 2009 9:12 AM:

" cab-e-girl: My statement is clear and you are reading into it what you want to. For instance, you compared homosexuality to being a pedophile. You have the right to any opinion you choose but educate yourself before you smear people publicly. "

Raven wrote on Jun 23, 2009 10:52 AM:

" JR...that was a non-scientific survey of just the subscribers of the Military times...which is a small percentage of the general military population and was similar to the polls you see here at the NVR site where people are invited to respond

.and a lil tidbit, the 10 percent of officers who said they wouldn't serve is a smaller percentage than those who said they wouldn't serve with women when a similar poll was conducted in the early 70s on women in the military and smaller than the number who said they would serve with african-americans when Truman ordered integration of the military bin the later 40s. In both cases, the predicted fallout never happened.

As for discounting the former chief of staff how about the 104 admirals and generals who have endorsed efforts to end the policy, among them the former superintendent of the naval academy. "

pharper wrote on Jun 23, 2009 11:37 AM:

" cab e-girl, pedophilia is pedophilia. Catholic priests who abuse young boys are not gay - they are pedophiles, and there is a vast difference. As Raven said, it is age, not gender, that typically attracts a pedophile. A pedophile is every bit as likely to attack a five-year-old girl as he is a five-year-old boy, if that's the age to which he is attracted. Jeffrey Dahmer did in fact identify as gay, but he was also crazy and sadistic. The fact that he was gay only made it so that other men were his chosen prey, just as Ted Bundy tracked women who looked like his former girlfriend. Their sexual orientation was irrelevant - no matter who they'd been attracted to, they would have ended up killing someone.

I don't understand the logic behind Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Either way, we have gays in the military. Bottom line. And I doubt that the first thing on any soldier's mind when he's in the field of battle is looking at another soldier's rear end. So I'm not entirely sure why we would take a group of people who have bravely and selflessly volunteered to serve their country and say, "Okay, you can die for us, but you're not allowed to be who you are. Please, though, go ahead and get yourself killed in our name." How does that make sense? We ask them to fight for us without even affording them the right to be themselves, as every other soldier gets. "

glenroy wrote on Jun 23, 2009 1:03 PM:

" LOL….of course you gotta love the truth unless you‘re a lib then it‘s immaterial….silly libs find arguably the worse Commanding General in the last 50 years to advocate your position and you act like it’s a popular position with broad support….it isn’t and it won’t be in our lifetime. No one said it’s wrong or right….just a fact….teach something you’d likely not identify with.

How would I know…well at one time there were 6 kids just in Baghdad I had coached/taught and stayed in contact… they’ll be here on July 4th and you can hear it for yourself….just don’t show up in your tutu. "

Raven wrote on Jun 23, 2009 2:31 PM:

" arguably the worst eh....because he had the sense to tell the facts as he sees them and doesn't tell his boss what he wants to hear, glenroy....? "

reneefannin wrote on Jun 23, 2009 3:43 PM:

" John Richards wrote on Jun 22, 2009 3:38 PM:
" When I was in basic training we had to take our showers in a large community-type shower room. If the Armed Forces don't allow male and female recruits to shower together, why should they allow openly gay men to shower with straights? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. "

Please elaborate on how it is different if the man showering next to you is "openly" gay or closeted gay. He's still gay. Quite honestly, in a time of war( as we are still in), I don't think anyone cares who showers next to them. From what I understand, they are just happy to have a shower..... "

reneefannin wrote on Jun 23, 2009 3:46 PM:

" Gay rights have seen their zenith in America. They've just got backwards to go now. If they stop pushing, they'll be able to retain the many benefits they've achieved. If they don't, they will continue to alienate an increasing number of Americans and eventually have no momentum at all. "

This sounds like a threat.....Stop trying to achieve equality or else...........was that what you meant?..or did I misinterpret? Please clarify. "

reneefannin wrote on Jun 23, 2009 3:49 PM:

" Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 22, 2009 7:09 PM:
" There were folks who told black people that they had all the rights they were going to get.

Martin Luther King did not give up, and I strongly suspect that our LGBT brothers and sisters are not going back in the closet.

The folks that favor suppressing gay rights are largely the older generation who are passing off the scene.

I know my children are much less concerned about suppressing gay rights than my generation is.

~Ruff "

Thank God for that. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jun 23, 2009 5:18 PM:

" John Richards said: "If the Armed Forces don't allow male and female recruits to shower together, why should they allow openly gay men to shower with straights?"

Gay men and straight men don't have sex together. But women and men do, all too often against the women's will; and women are physically weaker than men. There are differences in the two situations. No honest-to-goodness straight man I know is seriously theatened by showering with gay men; they may be a bit uncomfortable, but it's not a serious threat. Closeted gay men passing as straights, or men struggling with their own sexuality, however, DO have problems showering with gay men. Not forcing men to be closeted, and helping people be themselves, should make the latter problem less of a problem. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jun 23, 2009 5:26 PM:

" cab e girl said "Church and the gay priests who have destroyed the lives of many young men and boys to know that gay men are every bit as likely to commit sexual".

Of course many of those priests are gay AND pedophiles, just as many are straight AND pedophiles.

But its the way the Church puts guilt trips on them when they themselves were growing up gay, and the way that the Church provides a big "closet" to hide in--THAT's a big part of the problem.

The thought "I want to be a priest" is a very common story among young gay men and boys. It's almost steretypical.

In some cases it's because of repression of their sexuality (which they want to finalize by becoming "holy"--only to have normal desires get the best of them later, and come out in unhealthy ways),

In some cases it's because of a natural spiritual bent common among gay people, which, if they were allowed to be openly gay in the church, they wouldn't be forced to clandestine sexual activity; AND being open brings a sense of responsibility and accountablity which being closeted can kill....

In any case, the Catholic priest example is a good argument FOR openness, and against "dont ask don't tell". "

ampsthelena wrote on Jun 23, 2009 5:39 PM:

" kdbk,

You've missed the point. You cannot prohibit gay conduct in the military. It ALWAYS has ocurred, and it ALWAYS WILL ocurr. There will ALWAYS be gay people in the military. Heck, some of the greatest military men in history were gay.

Gay soldiers are and always will be a fact. The question is: is it better for the military to oblige them to lie about themselves, to hide, to cover up, to pretend?

Honesty and candor build trust among troops.

Who would you want next to you in the trenches: a gay soldier who is spending part of his emotional energy and attention on covering up, and who is not entirely sure he can trust YOU; or a gay soldier who knows he can be open with you, and can trust you.

And think about this: you want to be able to trust HIM, too, right? If you are open about your dislike of gays, and yet you are unaware that he is gay, and if he is faced with a choice involving your safety...

Well, you know what? He would probably overlook your hatred of him, and still do the right thing, and save you. But then again.... Hatred too often breeds hatred; and that is not good for morale in the trenches.

You have a choice: a fellow gay soldier who can be himself; or a fellow gay soldier who has to hide.

What you DON'T have a choice about is whether or not you want a gay soldier next to you. Because he always has, and always will, be there. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 23, 2009 7:52 PM:

" glenroy. Pejorative terminology such as "silly libs" is an intellectually dishonest attempt to present your argument as correct instead of arguing the merits of your position. Many conservatives including Cheney and Goldwater have clearly articulated the conservative position of not using government of regulate the lives and equal rights of others. As Goldwater said: "The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays."

Clearly, freedom and equal treatment under the law are conservative positions.

Additionally, the truth is, despite your assertion to the contrary, the majority of Americans favor allowing gay people to serve honestly and openly in the military. "

pharper wrote on Jun 23, 2009 11:49 PM:

" To expand on something ampsthelena said (although to be honest, s/he said just about everything I'd say) I'd like to point out that gay people are probably far less prone to lusting openly after straight men than straight men are to lusting after women (and even vice versa). The stigma placed on them in ordinary society probably makes gay soldiers far less likely to let their eyes wander, openly gay or not.

On senior trip just a few weeks ago, a gay male friend roomed with three straight males (other friends of mine). And guess what? They were fine. No worrying that my gay friend was "looking" at them, no complaints of harassment, nothing. He even shared a bed with another guy (as was necessary in the room configuration) and no problems. And that's even without a wartime mentality.

The world (and the views of the younger generation) are changing faster than a lot of people seem to think. "

OU now wrote on Jun 24, 2009 9:32 AM:

" p.harper... Don't ask don't tell is great logic if those on both sides are let go for telling. We should keep sex out of the military, they should be killing everybody like they are told. Or better yet, put the gays on the front line like the yanks did to the blacks in WW1. (tongue in cheek) The truth is, if you really care about gay rights why would you want them to go to war? (remember johnny got a gun?) I really feel that this fight belongs to those inside the military, not those of us on the outside. Its a life I can't and won't understand(military life). Can anybody? Also, you said you rode bareback and barefoot in carnaros, so did I 18 to 45 years ago. Cut down middle ave. across cuttings warf to stanley Ln. and back down sonoma hwy.Back then (45 years ago) guys did not ride horses any more, so I rode alone most times. But I started wearing shoes when I was 14 so girls did not think I was a "hick" and start riding with me! "

aknra wrote on Jun 24, 2009 10:43 AM:

" Did you all recall that is was President Clinton(D) who came up with DADT, and let me tell you, because I was serving at the time - I knew of NOBODY who liked that cop out policy - we knew then as we do now, that anyone going public about their sexual orientation was just as guilty as a heterosexual lying about something they lied about so that they could join; coming out was and still should be considered BREECH OF CONTRACT. Unless the person "turned into" a homosexual after signing the enlistment papers.

Ounow, please tell us the evidence of the Yanks having put the blacks in the front lines during WWI if you would; that is a serous accusation. All I could find was a sketchy reference to perhaps as low as 3,000 black casualties out of 116,516 total American deaths! Not exactly supportive of your claim… "

Raven wrote on Jun 24, 2009 11:09 AM:

" one lil point aknra, you did have homosexuals serving next to you during your 21 years in the navy...

As far the black troops in WWI...the US created the 92nd and 93rd divisions of all black troops, about whom Gen pershing said..

“I cannot commend too highly the spirit shown among the colored combat troops, who exhibit fine capacity for quick training and eagerness for the most dangerous work.”

The divisions were placed under French command and served in the Meuse-Argonne campaigns in 1918. Between the two division there were more than 5,000 casualties. 5k from just 2 divisions is a pretty high casualty rate by any measure. "

O/U now wrote on Jun 24, 2009 12:46 PM:

" aknra... No facts, just a old tale grandpa told me. But the comment was made tongue in cheek. I wonder if you served with one of my students (on the G.I. bill) that I had to tell to quit talking about his gay lovers on his ship in my class? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 25, 2009 6:30 AM:

" O/U now. aknra gives us a good example of the negative belies and pejorative terminology used to stigmatize and marginalize gay people. Because gay people are an unpopular minority population, we are an "underdog" and therefore need your help in fighting for equal human rights. I hope you will vote for equality and for those who support equality the next time you have the opportunity.

Many people enlist at an early age, sometimes even at 17. While the stigma imposed by those like aknra is less than it was when he was a child, and some come to understand their orientation at an early age, the stigma still obviously exists, and some have not come to terms with their sexual orientation at the time of enlistment. When that self awareness develops after enlistment, as it does for many, they should not have to keep secret such a basic part of their personality. Nor should anyone be denied enlistment even if they are aware of their sexuality at the time of enlistment. Clinton and those who put the policy together did not come up with the idea on their own. They simply put in writing what homophobic people have been trying to impose on gay people for ages. Another way to express it is: "don't let anyone find out, or else we will hurt you." "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 25, 2009 7:58 AM:

" Spelling correction. I intended to write:
"aknra gives us a good example of the negative beliefs and pejorative terminology used to stigmatize and marginalize gay people." "

glenroy wrote on Jun 26, 2009 6:35 AM:

" LOL…‘example of stigmatizing and marginalizing gays….’

Gays do a good enough job without help from straights…. "

OU now wrote on Jun 26, 2009 7:49 AM:

" equalnotspecial ... I do respect you as a humanbeing, but I will not go against my beliefs to help you further your cause. It is MY opinion that homosexuality is not normal in nature. This does not mean that I feel they have a choice. My heart goes out to them for their problems with this life. My life is made up of rules and codes that I live by. But how you live is your choice, choice or not. glenroy 6/26 @6am is right to some extent, "flamers and butches" do a lot of harm, as do some "freeks" on gay freedom day. When people quit trying to "flaunt" whatever they believe we will all get along better. ( this does not mean I dont enjoy youth expressing rebelion with goth, punk, long/short hair ect.) "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 26, 2009 9:56 AM:

" glenroy.
Your demeaning post blames those you demean for the stigmatization you ascribe to them. While yours is much more subtle, the now non existent post I was referring to was a crystal clear example of the attempts to demonize and stigmatize gay people by straight people.

Most gay people don't attempt to spread negative beliefs about gay people, and most don't use slurs or pejorative terminology when referring to gay people.
Most gay people don't vote to take away or otherwise restrict their rights to employment, housing, relationship protections, health care, adoption, or liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while preserving those same rights for the majority.

While some gay people behave in ways of which you don't approve, there are many others you don't even know of because they don't happen to stand out, and lead what you would consider to be very normal public lives. So stop worrying about what some might do privately, and even a few might do openly, and treat everyone equally under the law as our constitution requires. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 26, 2009 1:53 PM:

" "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers, For he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother, Be he ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition"

from Henry V

Wouldn't be a refreshing thing to hear from someone like glenroy or aknra that any red blooded American who wants to defend his or her country should be patted on the back and told - grab a weapon and stand your post, soldier. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 27, 2009 8:37 AM:

" OU now. My cause is equal rights for everyone, and that is something I think you agree with.

While some gay people behave in ways you don't approve, many walk among you undetected. Would you deny equal rights to any entire group, based on the behavior of a few?
Would you deny any equal rights to goth, punk, or anyone other than gay people? Sexual orientation is neither a choice nor a lifestyle. Gay people can be found in all walks of life, and all of the lifestyle choices you see around you, including conservative republicans, libertarians, all religious denominations (yes, there are even gay Catholics and Mormons, though the Mormons have to be secret or get kicked out)

"The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality." (APA)

I don't recall seeing you post until fairly recently, so I don't know if you were following these threads 6 months to a year ago, when the arguments were made that being gay is normal and natural expression of the human experience for a minority of the population. If you need more evidence, it can be provided. But if, like many, your negative opinion is based on the prejudice you were taught early in life, and no amount of scientific evidence can change your mind, then that would be a waste of time. But from things you have said, I have the impression you are reluctant to use the laws to single out minority populations for less than equal treatment under the law. If the rights of one group can be restricted, the rights of any group can be restricted. "

O/U now wrote on Jun 27, 2009 4:21 PM:

" eq nt sp.... I realize its natural for you. I just will not be in your struggle for your freedoms. On the street I will have no problem being your friend, I just cannot see this as natural. I have friends that don't agree with things I feel passion for, but I'm not a liberal who wants to force everybody to think like me. And I'm not a conseritive who wants everybody to be like me. So as long as my friends accept me, it's cool. My religion is not founded upon hate, but love. But I do have my codes and rules in my life. You have yours. "

OU now wrote on Jun 27, 2009 4:53 PM:

" Here is a true story about how we should all feel about one another. A transgender rode a shuttle that also took my class across campus everyday. The guys in my class would wait for the next shuttle and make rude remarks. One day I asked, who in my class was gay( I could have been fired for this)to raise their hand. No hands. Next I asked who was unsure if he was gay or not. No hands,shocked faces. Then I asked who thought that if they sat next to a gay, or touched a transgender they would turn gay? no hands. At last, I asked who was afraid of being made fun of for riding Sue's bus or sitting next to her? Every hand went up. I told them that if they were men, secure in who and what they were, a bus ride is no big deal,IF THEY WERE MEN. the next day I rode that shuttle for no reason, and sat next to Sue. Is this why so many men are afraid? To serve with a gay in the military,to talk to their gay son, to sit with one in church? I don't feel it's what nature intended for man, but they are our own. Show respect and don't be afraid of what other people think or do. Be a man. WWJD "

John Richards wrote on Jun 27, 2009 11:45 PM:

" pharper wrote: " I doubt that the first thing on any soldier's mind when he's in the field of battle is looking at another soldier's rear end."

You'd be surprised how much down time there is even in a combat zone. At any given moment, only a small percentage of those serving are actually engaged in real combat. So, there is plenty of opportunity for gazing at another soldier's body parts if you were so inclined.

Here's my rationale. I'm a healthy straight male, and I admit that I'm easily aroused by the sight of a scantily clad good-looking female. So, it follows that a healthy gay male is probably easily aroused by the sight of a good-looking male. Is there something wrong with my logic? "

Raven wrote on Jun 28, 2009 8:38 AM:

" That also may occurs when people simply walk down the street. You then assume that the healthy male has no control over his actions. You can control yours and don't ravage that scantily clad female do you? And having been there when the bullets zip overhead, that arousal is the last thing on your mind. (No problems with the reactions of the healthy female?) "

a teacher wrote on Jun 28, 2009 10:16 AM:

" "Here's my rationale. I'm a healthy straight male, and I admit that I'm easily aroused by the sight of a scantily clad good-looking female. So, it follows that a healthy gay male is probably easily aroused by the sight of a good-looking male. Is there something wrong with my logic? "

That situation happens everyday. High school teachers are surrounded by pretty young girls all day long. By your argument should heterosexual male teachers be prohibited from teaching in high school or college?

Your implication is that somehow a gay soldier would be unable to control his desire. "

steph wrote on Jun 28, 2009 10:30 AM:

" JR-
Maybe all us women should stay away from the men, you know, be segregated, or wear protective clothing, like burkhas, so you won't be so distracted and contantly aroused and unable to concentrate on your work, and not be provoked.

Or, are you man enough to not be constantly incapacitated by arousal?

Seems there are many, many gay men and women serving honorably in the military. Let them serve our country. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 28, 2009 7:30 PM:

" Raven wrote: " That also may occurs when people simply walk down the street. You then assume that the healthy male has no control over his actions."

But the social environment is much different. Lonely young soldiers far away from home don't have the social structure that those of us in normal society have. And I'm not talking about actual sexual activity, but more in the nature of leering. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 28, 2009 7:40 PM:

" Teacher wrote: "High school teachers are surrounded by pretty young girls all day long. By your argument should heterosexual male teachers be prohibited from teaching in high school or college."

But teachers have to operate under a fairly rigid moral code, which forbids one-on-one fraternization with a student. Their are no rules in the armed forces forbidding gays from fraternizing with same-sex colleagues. I doubt that a teacher would ever find himself in a tight foxhole with a coed in some jungle forest. :-) "

John Richards wrote on Jun 28, 2009 7:52 PM:

" steph wrote: " are you man enough to not be constantly incapacitated by arousal?"

Of course, most of us men are very civilized and well-controlled. But I'm not talking about overt sex acts. I mean the leering, and the wolf whistles you typically hear at construction sites when a pretty girl walks by. That kind of thing is usually limited, and taken in stride when it happens within the confines of society's structure. But it's a different situation when it happens far away from the structured confines of civilization, out in the barracks and foreign jungles. "

zist707 wrote on Jun 28, 2009 10:26 PM:

" I think, and this is just an opinion, that most straight men that don't want to be around gay males, or work next to gay men, are just afraid that they will be looked at the same way they look at women. And they know how they look at women so I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to be looked at that way. Not all men, but some. Just saying. "

pharper wrote on Jun 28, 2009 10:33 PM:

" You really think that gay members of the military, were they allowed to be open about their sexuality, would be making wolf-whistles and catcalls at other soldiers deep in the jungle of some godforsaken war-torn country, JR? That's possibly the most ill-reasoned argument I've ever heard. By that same reasoning, men and women shouldn't be allowed to serve together. It just doesn't make any sense. "

O/U now wrote on Jun 29, 2009 6:28 AM:

" Wow John... I sometimes agree with you, and feel that the military has the right to set it's own rules.( I guess Obama feels this way to ) But to hear you now,to me, it sounds like you are afraid of what women have to put up with every day. I think that you, like me base our belief's on Gods word. But read my post from 6/27/4:53. You don't have to accept this type of life into your life, but if you surround your self with all types, and live by example,(like Jesus) you can do more more good. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 29, 2009 7:09 AM:

" The fear that someone may look at you in a way you don't want is hardly justification for ending the career of highly trained combat veterans. All of the excused boil down to prejudice, and that is hardly sufficient grounds for denying equal treatment under the law. The only reason DADT was instituted was indulge an outdated, irrational prejudice.

As Barry Goldwater said years ago: "We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It’s time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It’s time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It’s time to get on with more important business." "

John Richards wrote on Jun 29, 2009 9:35 AM:

" zist707 wrote:

"most straight men that don't want to be around gay males, or work next to gay men, are just afraid that they will be looked at the same way they look at women. And they know how they look at women so I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to be looked at that way."

You've summed up my viewpoint in plainer words than I could have.

Also, this problem is exacerbated when you're away from the constraints of society, as soldiers often are. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 29, 2009 9:42 AM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "All of the excused boil down to prejudice..."

No, you're the one who is prejudiced because you want more protections for women in the military (separate shower rooms, no leering allowed, etc.)than you want for the men. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 29, 2009 10:06 AM:

" pharper wrote: "You really think that gay members of the military, were they allowed to be open about their sexuality, would be making wolf-whistles and catcalls at other soldiers..."

Some would, although I expect most would be more discreet about expressing attraction for the objects of their desire. :-)
There is a whole continuum of actions between doing nothing and making outright passes including obnoxious wolf whistles. "

Raven wrote on Jun 29, 2009 11:35 AM:

" and JR, zizst, you now how 'most' men feel how? appointed yourselves the spokesman for all men, have ya?

Women, straight and gay, have more problem with the unwanted attentions of straight men than you have with unwanted attentions from gay men...(and you both do realize that you are working next to gay men or in contact with them everyday?)

oh, equal wants the same protections not more...you are the one wanting more in this situation. "

zist707 wrote on Jun 29, 2009 6:17 PM:

" I think I should probably clear things up. I DON'T believe people should use the fact that men don't want to be seen like objects (the way SOME men look at women) as a reason to stop gays from serving our country. I'm sorry if it might have sounded that way. The point I was trying to make was that that's the real reason I believe some men don't want to work with gay males. Have they complained about working with lesbians yet?

Also, women in the military are harassed and do have problems with unwelcome attention from men but that doesn't mean we should stop them from serving next to men should it?
The people that I've met that have joined the military have told me that they learn discipline and self control. I'm sure all soldiers (straight/gay males/females) learn enough self control to keep their hands to themselves. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 30, 2009 11:26 AM:

" That sentence was intended to read: "All of the excuses boil down to prejudice, and that is hardly sufficient grounds for denying equal treatment under the law."

Prejudice: (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

All of the many public showers I have been in over the last 30 years have had partitions. I have not been in any of the local health club facilities since then, so can't speak to those. I have been told by reliable sources, many of the military facilities now have individual partitions. While I don't believe partitions are necessary for people to be able to control their behavior, I see no reason partitions could not be employed in most military situations, to accommodate the unjustified fears of homophobic individuals. Gay people are everywhere, including the military and showering has not been a problem. Therefore, there is no reason to believe people would not be able to control themselves in the future as long as they continue to be taught to respect others and to treat others the way they wish to be treated. The unfounded fear of some is not a sufficient justification for legal discrimination. The primary purpose served by DADT is to perpetuate the prejudice and discrimination it was designed to indulge. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 30, 2009 7:31 PM:

" The Army provided waivers to a whopping 18 percent of active-duty recruits in the last four months of 2008, allowing them to enlist despite criminal records, medical conditions and obesity. So an overweight convicted thief with ADD is deemed eligible to serve his country, while a fit, law abiding, highly educated West Point graduate, trained Arabic linguist with two tours of duty in Iraq, and an 18 year combat veteran decorated pilot among 13,000 others are kicked out for being gay.
Even non-U.S. citizens are being welcomed and granted rights that are unavailable to natural-born, experienced, highly educated and highly skilled U.S. citizens because they happen to be gay. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jun 30, 2009 8:15 PM:

" Make that" "Even non-U.S. citizens are being welcomed and granted rights that are unavailable to natural-born, combat experienced and decorated, highly educated and highly skilled U.S. citizens who happen to be gay. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 30, 2009 10:02 PM:

" "Have they complained about working with lesbians yet?"

If I was still in the military, I don't think I would have a problem working with lesbian colleagues. Obviously they wouldn't give me a second glance, which is fine with me. But that would be more of an issue for straight female soldiers to address.

I don't think you can quite equate this issue with the problems females have in general with aggressive males in the workplace. Although such behavior is often unwelcome, it doesn't generate the level of revulsion that a straight male feels when he senses vibes like he's the object of a gay male's desire. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 30, 2009 10:19 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "I see no reason partitions could not be employed in most military situations, to accommodate the unjustified fears of homophobic individual."

As a data point, the shower room we had to use during my basic training did not have partitions.

It appears you feel that shower partitions are sufficient to allow gay and straight male soldiers to live in harmony. Do these partition walls have closable doors? How do you feel about male and female recruits showering together as long as there are some partition walls. If not appropriate, why not? "

Raven wrote on Jun 30, 2009 10:54 PM:

" oesn't generate the level of revulsion that a straight male feels when he senses vibes like he's the object of a gay male's desire.

Again, you know all straight males feel this? ...maybe you should be saying...'the level of revulsion "I" (JR) feel'....and not try and speak for all straight males...

Unwanted behavior is agansit the UCMJ no matter who makes it and no matter who it is directed toward, JR. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jul 1, 2009 7:39 AM:

" In basic training, most people are too tired at the end of the day to engage in any prohibited activity in the shower, even if they were inclined to do so, which history has demonstrated most are not. While I don't believe partitions are necessary, and gay and straight people are already sharing the same facilities without incident, I see no reason partitions could not be employed to appease the fears of some straight people. Because of the numbers involved, social norms of appropriate shower behavior should be sufficient to deter any prohibited conduct.

While I can't imagine it happening anytime soon, I see no problem with male and female soldiers showering in enclosed or partitioned stalls next to each other. Many of the public showers I have used have curtains rather than solid doors. They are much cheaper yet serve the same purpose. Because many people would be using the same facilities, a level of supervision and social expectation of proper conduct would exist which should be sufficient to deter any improper behavior. Anyone who can't control their behavior in such a social setting has no business carrying a gun. Other armed forces our soldiers interact with allow gay people to serve openly, and if our military is as good as those of other countries, we should be able to do the same.

Young people today are much less homophobic as a whole than they were in the past. Prejudice has to be taught, and while many are still teaching it, more and more people are rejecting it, and learning tolerance and acceptance instead. While there are exceptions, many more people are accepting the reality that gay people exist everywhere, are not going away, and should not be punished or denied equal treatment. "

O/U now wrote on Jul 1, 2009 8:29 AM:

" I think the "don't ask don't tell" is working just fine. Straight or gay, it's nobodys buisness. The government Knows what it's doing,sex does not belong in the military. Just send everybody off to die in a forgien war for oil and let God sort out the mess. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jul 1, 2009 9:51 AM:

" A policy which forces people to lie and hide who they are is not honorable.

A policy which has resulted in the discharge of 13,000 highly trained and qualified soldiers including mission critical interpreters, doctors, pilots, combat decorated veterans, and others at the expense of hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars can hardly be considered a success. It is past time to overturn the ban and start dealing with reality. "

aknra wrote on Jul 1, 2009 2:21 PM:

" I would love to continue to add my two cents to this posting, but apparently my cents are more worthless than pesos now to the NVR. "

Raven wrote on Jul 1, 2009 10:36 PM:

" the problem is the military is still asking....and if sex doesn't belong in the military, you ready to prohibit members of the military from marrying each other, to try and wipe it out? "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: