Editor’s note: Rob Smith is a writer, lecturer and openly gay U.S. Army veteran. His work has appeared in USA Today, The Huffington Post, Metro Weekly and Slate.com. His memoir "Secret Soldier: Coming of Age as a Gay Man in the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Army" will be released in the fall 2012, and he is a contributing author to "For Colored Boys ...," an anthology to be released in March. He can be reached at www.robsmithonline.com and twitter.com/robsmithonline.
By Rob Smith, Special to CNN
(CNN) - On September 20, I cheered with gay and lesbian soldiers, veterans and allies alike when “don’t ask, don’t tell” was officially repealed, signaling the seeming end of a decades-long fight against anti-gay discrimination in the U.S. military.
As a five-year veteran of the U.S. Army and a gay man, I know firsthand the discrimination and casual homophobia the law legitimized. While stationed in Colorado as a 17-year-old Army private, I struggled with suicidal thoughts due to the isolation it caused, and found myself on the receiving end of some of the anti-gay language and bullying that the mere presence of the law ingrained into the culture.
More recently, my role in the fight against “don’t ask, don’t tell” has taken me from the steps of Capitol Hill, where I lobbied for the repeal, to my arrest at the front gates of the White House, where I demanded it. I was an invited guest at the Department of Interior ceremony where the final repeal legislation was signed by President Barack Obama.
However, a closer look at the facts reveals work that remains to be done. Indeed, there are a few particularly disturbing ways in which the LGBT community remains vulnerable within the U.S. military, despite the fact that the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a legislated reality – the law of the land.
The biggest pothole in 2010’s winding road to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal was the dropping of the nondiscrimination clause in regard to gay and lesbian soldiers. A disturbing consequence is that even with repeal, gays and lesbians remain an unprotected class in the U.S. military.
One need only look at the GOP presidential debate audience in Orlando, where they booed a gay soldier asking about the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” to realize that anti-gay sentiment doesn’t simply disappear with the repeal of a homophobic law. It is this lack of protection that will give some gay and lesbian soldiers pause when deciding whether to come out in their ranks. Furthermore, it could potentially embolden homophobes in the military to subtly discriminate against gay and lesbian soldiers in regards to matters like promotions and salary increases, discrimination against which they as of now have no legal recourse.
Speaking of legal recourse, a recently filed lawsuit shines a harsh light on another gaping hole in equality for gay and lesbian soldiers: the lack of spousal benefits for same-sex partners. While the issue is indicative of a much larger fight against the Defense of Marriage Act, and for gay marriage, it remains a critical vulnerability for gay and lesbian service members and their partners, civilian or military. In the midst of two wars, it is condescending and disingenuous to ignore the spouses of those who have been serving in silence for so long. To do so places gay and lesbian soldiers and their partners into “separate but equal” status.
Though they are now acknowledged and free to live openly with their service member spouses, civilian partners are still denied benefits like medical coverage and ID cards that allow them to travel freely on bases. When both partners in a gay or lesbian relationship are serving on active duty, they currently have no recourse against different base assignments. Heterosexual married U.S. military couples can - and do - arrange to serve near one another, and in many cases they are encouraged and given support by military leadership.
Finally, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal has focused on the lesbian, gay and bisexual service members while precious little conversation was had about the transgender service members who remain affected by discrimination within the ranks. While the gay, lesbian and bisexual contingent of the community celebrates repeal, transgender people are still forced to serve in silence in a military that doesn’t understand, respect or acknowledge their service. As it stands now, repeal comes at the expense of the transgender community.
True equality for LGBT people in the U.S. military will not come without a nondiscrimination policy regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, full benefits for same-sex couples, and removal of the ban on open service by transgender individuals. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal cannot be seen as anything other than the first step. Gay and lesbian soldiers won’t be fired for being gay, but they remain unable to receive the benefits their heterosexual counterparts get and legally vulnerable to homophobic discrimination. They exercise their freedom to tell at the cost of the continued silence of transgender soldiers.
The repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is not equality. It isn’t enough and it isn’t the end of the fight for equal rights for LGBT soldiers and veterans in the U.S. military.
It is the beginning.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rob Smith.
What defines you? Maybe it’s the shade of your skin, the place you grew up, the accent in your words, the make up of your family, the gender you were born with, the intimate relationships you chose to have or your generation? As the American identity changes we will be there to report it. In America is a venue for creative and timely sharing of news that explores who we are. Reach us at inamerica@cnn.com.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
Rather than earn respect, it's easier to snivel they're gay.
What real problems?
(/sarcasm on)
5 Reasons Why Gays in the Military is Wrong
1) Being gay is not natural. Real service members always reject unnatural things like body armor, camouflage clothing, and vaccinations.
2) Gay service members will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Gays in the military is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
4) Gay service members will change the foundation of the military; it could never adapt to new social norms. Just like they haven't adapted to APCs, indoor plumbing, or electronic communication.
5) The military has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women can't fly planes, blacks still can't serve with whites, and all ships still run on wind power.
/sarcasm off
Wow. Reading all of this will make you crazy! Here is the bottom line on this issue. NO ONE CARES. Serve your country and shut the hell up. But that is not good enough is it? You want to be openly gay and make others accept that with their heart and mind like the military is a social experiment. The military is too important to have this from the G&L community. So just serve, shut up and handle this countries business like a professional and do whatever it is you do on your own time as a free American.
EXACTLY.
i have been serving in the military for a few years now and i am bi. Even with the repeal i did not want to come out to everyone but i did come out to friends. I realized no one cares and finally came out. out of my 1000 friends on facebook only 5 deleted me as a friend and i dont care. 1 of them was military and to be honest he doesnt belong in the military in the first place. Another one of them has been kicked out of the air force for being racist. I dont care if there are not benifits if i get married because i didnt join for the benifits i joined to serve my country, i didnt join so i could come out it just happened the repeal made it easy, i didnt join for my fellow servicemen to not have my back because of my preference, if you have a problem with serving your country with GBL then please do us all a favor and get out when you can and live your life where no one can see you or hear from you again.
As usual, when you don't agree that something is as Black or White as CNN wants you to believe, they don't post your opinions. Instead of calling the parties the Democrats and Republicans. They should respectfully be called CNN and FAUX news or Black and White, with the American citizens being GRAY (Independent).
Agreed.
is everybody gay now?
Just the weak minded individuals that need the attention.
That's because you're an ignorant bigot, dear. Have a great day!
Dear, dear... Nope... Just exercising my right to, "Just Say No".... To disagree with the gay lifestyle is not to be a bigot... It's to have an opinion. Gee, sounds like my right eh???
Steven in Chas.
I believe, based on my poor memory, that Loving did not say that Marriage was a right. It did say that states did not have the right to discrimate against parites marrying based on race.
See:
http://www.examiner.com/science-religion-politics-in-national/u-s-supreme-court-ruled-1972-that-marriage-laws-do-not-deny-equal-protection
Read the case. It states in no uncertain terms that marriage is a fundamental civil right.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1
To clarify (my other post), Loving vs VA involved an interracial marriage in which the State of VA told an interracial couple they had to leave the state because of their marriage, the intent is not to say marriage is a RIGHT, but to say it is a "civil right." The ruling was made during the heyday of the "Civil Rights" movement and the ruling is entirely "Race" based. The ruling was made because it violated the 14th Amendment which guarantees "Equal Protection" (application) – which means a State law has to be applied to everyone, not selectively (which VA selectively did by saying blacks could not marry whites while other races were allowed to inter-mix which made the law uneven). To understand its intent you need to read the entire ruling (not just use a phrase). IF what you say is correct, marriage is a right for all, then ALL State laws limiting/defining marriage would be erased, right? Since the State laws were NOT erased, and DOMA is still present, the interpretation you gave has to be incorrect (deduction my dear Watson). States can limit or define a marriage as long as it applies to everyone equally (has to meet 14th Amendment criteria).
I stand correct to a point. But the issue of Loving remains race and not gender.
I'll have nothing to do with this gay B.S. Fella wants to rent, or couple wants to rent... I show them the door. Not going down that road. Again, my choice.
How do we even approach the transgenger subject. How do you berth a pre-operative transgender who has breasts and a penis on a ship. Berthings have up to 90 men or women living in a compartment. We cannot give one trasngender a separate berthing just because of his/her status. That would cause hat and discontent among the crew. I do not have an issue with GLB in the military, I only care that when the poop hits the fan the person next to me will have my back.
I agree, the transgender issue is very tricky and I don't have a clue how to approach it. You will not find anyone more pro-gay rights as me but I think in this case the only recourse is to deny them service until their change is complete.
Everyone should be able to serve there country proudly – however we now must address them as Male – Female – Gay Male and Gay Female Soldiers and provide them with seperate living quarters. This is what they want to be treated equally and to serve proudly, part of that is coming forward and allowing themselves to be identified as such and having seperate barracks – I dont think it's appropriate for Males and Females to bunk together, so we should take these same measures for gays serving with our straight service men and women.
I'm glad to see that in the last 24 hours only 3 anti-gays posted here. Face the fact, anti-gays, fully 80% of Americans wanted DADT revoked. Most Americans have a close family member, good friend, neighbor or coworker who is LGBT, and they will NEVER let you hurt us again.
Again, what part of the 80% has served in the military? I think most straights in the military does not want repeal of DADT
Mike, I work as a civilian for the Air Force. I know it's a small sample size but of the 300 people I work with every day I have yet to hear a single person say that they were against the repeal. It's a complete non-issue in the work place. We had gay members before the repeal and we still do now. ~shrug~
Actually, when surveyed, 75% of active military didn't care that DADT was being repealed. So active members are fine with it.
Um, plenty of them. I served for 12 years in active duty combat units. The vast majority of my soldiers couldnt care less about someone's orientation. The were far more concerned with soldiers ability to perform thier assigned tasks.
And I think you are wrong. I spent 8 years working directly with the military on military bases in the Middle East. Most of the soldiers already knew that some of their coworkers were gay and did NOT care!!! The main question was "Are they doing the job?"
boy can't read.
Wow, and that statement is 99% B.S.
Why are fundiots so fixated on what gay men do in bed?
And why in the world do they spend such an inordinate amount of time fixated on doing the dog, porking the pig, diddling daddy, boffing their brothers, or doing children?
Ignoring the childish name calling...
No one cares what they do in their own beds. Just keep your mouth shut about it.
When people say things like this, what they usually mean is "I can be as public as I want about my own personal life, but yours makes me uncomfortable so I want you to keep quiet about it, and as long as I can pretend that you are really straight, I'll try to not discriminate against you."
Well, I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. There is no right to not be offended, or to not be presented with things that make you uncomfortable. If you don't like GLBT people, fine. That makes you a bit of a bigot, and your kids and grandkids will probably eventually be embarassed to be related to you, but that's your perogative. But the days of pretending we don't exist, and aren't contributing members of society are over.
Knowing that someone is gay tells you absolutely nothing about what that person is doing in his or her own bed. No more than knowing that someone is straight tells you anything about what that person is doing in his or her own bed. I strongly doubt that anyone, gay or straight is trying to give you that information. What you think they are doing, that is in your head, comes from your imagination, may or may not have a basis in reality, and is your own issue.
Bill, if someone IS a fundamentalist ld-iot, why is it wrong to call them that. If someone is left-handed, do you object to calling them left-handed?
And why should gays have hide who they are, just because you find them icky?
Gay rights is the last major civil rights issue. The reactionaries who stand against equality are marching against the tide of history. As a straight man, I will say to the LGBT community: don't stop until you have achieved equality.
easy solution. any one in the army making a non gay friendly comment/action is iinstantly booted out and spend a nice 10 years in military jail. Solution to most problems are so easy.........
That's absurd!
I agree with the person that said that this thread sucks!!! I guess others in the military will want their status recognized soon too.. You'd be surprised to know who is serving in the ranks right now!!
Put em out on point in Afghanistan... Make em work for a living.... Draw fire...
Wow, are anti-gays STILL whining about their loss in this? Face the facts, anti-gays, fully 80% of Americans wanted and GOT DADT revoked. No one cares that you are afraid of LGBT Americans. Grow up and get over it.
But how much of the 80% were ever in the military?
Your post is non-sequiter.
You are conflating two different statistics to conclude what you want the statistics to conclude.
Nice try.
I was in the military, am now medically retired. I wanted DADT gone. I want them to have the same rights as everyone else. Those who were loudest about not wanting that? Also tended to be the biggest JERKS that I had ever seen when it came to women, or anyone else they decided 'didn't fit in THEIR service'.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/12/most_back_repealing_dont_ask_d.html
"Nearly eight in 10 Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
Elmer,
The DADT "survey" was skewed statistics at best. The questions were purposefully misleading and the results were slanted.
Bill,
That's what people say when statistics don't say what they want them to say. Just because it didn't turn out the way you thought it would doesn't mean it was "misleading."
This is the same as in the 60s when nearly half the population was opposed to interracial marriage and twenty years later such a belief is considered outlandish. The number is 80% because the more the older population dies and the younger people step in, progression occurs. Always has. Sorry that we have now progressed past you...you could catch up if you'd like, or stay on the wrong side of history. Your choice.
I would like to see the source of your comment "over 80% backed repeal of DADT". Never heard that stat, and find it hard to believe. Or are you projecting?
80% is stretching a bit, but according to Gallup, as of December 2010, only 28% were opposed to repeal. Apparently CarrotCake isn't the one projecting.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145130/support-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell.aspx
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/12/most_back_repealing_dont_ask_d.html
Really.....80%? Then why do 39 states have an amendment saying marriage is only between a man and a woman? That does not add up to 80%, unless of course they only ask a few people (like they normally do). Really?
Don,
Because:
1) U.S. Population is not divided equally amongst the states.
2) While there are a few exceptions, most of the states that have passed anti-gay marriage laws have done so by very narrow margins. If a state passes such an Amendment, we cannot assume that the population as a whole is anti-gay, just that enough to pass the Amendment were.
3) Voting patterns frequently reflect get-out-the-vote efforts more than public opinion. The sponsors of these bills have been very crafty in determining WHEN to introduce them - frequently selecting elections where other factors increase the liklihood of high conservative turnout.
Regardless of the votes of individual states, NUMEROUS polls have determined that the vast majority of the population favors elimination of DADT, passage of ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Agreement) and legal recognition of GLBT relationships.
and.... a vast majority of the population has nothing to do with the military.... so we give them a say anyway ??? you take the majority of military.... they don't want to have anything to do with the gay life style... this agenda is being forced upon the many by the few... Not in my command it won't.
Also, it should be noted that those who are or have served in the military are, generally speaking, more selfless than the general population. In the military, you have to learn how to get along with other people of widely differing views. I was in the Air Force for 7 years, and at one point I shared my office with a wiccan, a muslim, three athiests and an agnostic. Some Christians might find that uncomfortable, but I called these people my friends, and I would have gladly taken a bullet for any of them, and most of them felt the same way. So it's unsurprising to me that the majority of the military was behind the repealing of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, because in the military, it doesn't matter what the guy across from you believes or what he does in the bedroom. What matters is whether or not you can trust him under fire. It's actually easier to trust someone when they're free to be truthful about major cornerstones of their life instead of hiding them.
Let it go. I'm a gay service member. I'm out in my civilian life but will NEVER come out to my boys. My military choice is a career. Don't mix business with pleasure.
Probably the smartest comment here. Thanks for your service
And I'm sure none of your "boys" EVER talk about their wives or girlfriends. You have every right to live your life as you wish. But don't pretend that you are more enlightened than others when you are showing a lot less courage bravery than many of your brethren.
EXACTLY. You need to stand up for full equality even if it's not what you specifically need or want–or I guess if you want to sound self-involved you can keep making statements that say you got yours so who cares about anyone else?
Then YOU stand up for obese people's ability to serve, or admit your hypocrisy.
These comments are just as bad as YouTube's, lol.
I have tried to explain to everyone the special considerations and treatment the GLBT are already getting in the military but the CNN editors keep blocking it.
Yup. Nothing is ever enough for "special" groups, as this author shows to the max.
Actually, it's quite simple for "special" groups Gene. Enough is when we have the same that you have. You have the right to get married? So should I. You have the right to serve if you are physically fit enough to do so? So should I. You have the right to work without your supervisor being involved in your home life or making a decision about your position because of it? So should I.
Your statement is about on par with someone in the 60s saying "The waterfountains are integrated. Isn't that enough?"
The issue of allowing transgendered people to serve openly in the military is a difficult one. Look at the sports programs in the United States. Rarely do men and women compete on the same team unless it's co-ed in nature. That's why allowing women into the Special Forces is not a good idea for many different reasons. I am a retired military member with over 30 years of service. When I was younger, I too thought women should be allowed to try out for special forces. Watching GI Jane too many times didn't help. However, as I aged in body and wisdom, I realized that positions requiring brute strength and endurance should be segregated. Just like they are in sports. If you need females to perform special force maneuvers, train a platoon or squad of women to do it. This is currently being done in the Army for special operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. Allowing a transgendered female-to-male the opportunity to apply for special forces in an all male unit could create more problems than benefits to the program. Also, who is going to supply a transgendered person with the hormones necessary to sustain his/her new gender? Should the VA be required to financially compensate for a veteran who wrecked his/her system by injecting hormones while in the military?
Do you have a logical argument on which to base your opinion? You know, the fact that you served doesn't mean that you know best.
Maya....have you ever served in the military? Have you ever waited for over a year for VA benefits or disability payments? The U.S. Government is currently broke! I was promised "free" medical & dental benefits in exchange for 20 or more years of good service. However, I must now pay $100 per month out of my retirement income for TRICARE & Delta Dental premiums. And also fork over $12 co-pays for doctor visits through the TRICARE system. And if I have an expensive medical procedure and live by a military base, I have to give them first right of refusal to treat me. All for the benefit of the U.S. government. So tell me....with no longitudinal studies available, how can the military and VA afford to pay for someone with breast cancer or health conditions related to hormone therapy? Why does the U.S. military discharge active or Reserve members who contract the AIDS virus? Answer: costly medical procedures and medicines. That's why it took so long to appeal DADT. The gay community was being blamed for the proliferation of the AIDS virus. President Clinton tried to change the legislature way before Obama did. Economics drive everything in this country.
Yes, Yes and Yes: That person is putting s/he life on the line every single day!
We honor and support our people in the military, no matter what their gender or lack of gender!
I suspect GOD, forced down your throat in the military and 30 years of service have left you a little bit behind where the rest of our society is today...
The military precludes from military service those who may require on-going medical treatment who are otherwise able-bodied, such as those with eczema, to avoid additional expense. Such medical screening is for purely economic reasons. As good stewards of taxpayer dollars, the military is expected to minimize personnel costs. If taxpayers are willing to pay for "more expensive" miliitary personnel, whether that be people requiring eczema or hormone treatement, let your Congressional representatives know that you're willing to pay the subsequent tax increase in military spending.
What the author did not mention with transgender persons is that right now,the military considers it a medically disqualifying condition, like asthma, for entry or continued service.
Personally, I have no issue with it as long as the person has completely completed the process. As long as they can medically make it through MEPS.
Secondly, coming from the Coast Guard, I am glad to be in a service where it doesn't matter what gender you are when it comes to a job. If a female can keep up with the special training needed in the Special Forces then let them go. There is a wonder quote in the movie you talk about, saying that a females life should be worth no more than a man's. I don't view my life any more or any less valuable than a man's.
There is a reason why there is special training in the Special Forces. If a female can't hack it, then she doesn't make it in. But it shouldn't be based solely on the fact that it is a woman trying.
As a gay man, I think you raise a lot of interesting questions that I honestly don't have complete answers. I feel like conservatively, trans people wouldn't have any problems in non-combat roles or flying aircraft (does it take brute strength to fly a fighter or stealth jet? No sarcasm intended, I honestly don't know). On the other hand, I've met a lot of male to female transpeople that were still right s**t-kickers, so I feel like it could still be case-by-case.
As far as how to treat trans servicemembers while they are transitioning, I'm not sure. Does the military have a policy towards bariatric surgery? In a weird way, I feel like they might be somewhat comparable.
My father served in Desert Shield, from 82nd AD...He would agree with your comment. There are areas that people will always consider to be unfair in thought. In application, I can understand the hardships and nonfocus that would be present if this were the case. Forget the fairness of this one, too much is on the line to not think practically.
I pushed ctrl-f + "bully" and, just as expected, it was used in the first two paragraphs. This is getting old, quick. Let's pick a new buzz word.
Howabout antagonize? Or intimidate? Seems to me these simple, non-buzz words have a more authentic and even more chilling effect while remaining completely literal.
Support our Veterans by going to The National Veterans Art Museum website to adopt a dog tag of one of our fallen service men and women. It supports art therapy for veterans from all campaigns. It is art by veterans from all campaigns. The museum is at 1801 South Indiana in Chicago.
I am a Marine Corp veteran and I am proud to be standing next to everyone who served or is serving in the Armed Forces. No matter what your religious, political or orientation is, I still would gladly take a bullet for you.
I think you should check the spelling of "Your Service". Thanks for the info on the art.
"Your fight with Defense of Marriage is NOT with the military but with the federal gov't. So long as Defense of Marriage is on the books, the military will follow the federal rules laid out as such. So shut up the bashing of the military on this issue. Stop asking for special treatment or protection that allows you to spew your views but will not tolerate an opposite point of view. Freedom of speech, which I have served 25 years so far to protect, ally to all, even people I don't agree with."
^^^That right there.
Who's asking for special treatment? All I see is a request for the same treatment.
I believe the author is asking for special treatment: "A disturbing consequence is that even with repeal, gays and lesbians remain an unprotected class in the U.S. military."
Isn't a protected class special treatment?
I ment UCMJ not UMCJ, sorry about that.
You really need to get a CLUE...
Gays are facing what people of color and women already know very well: that laws don't change how people feel. Hateful people may be forced to act according to law if they really have to, but inside them they will still see that person as less and unfit. And their behavior will reflect that belief, like it or not. So while flagrant discrimination will be prosecuted, subtle discrimination will go unchecked because by its very nature it's hard to pin it down as discrimination. All we can hope for is that haters who get to work side by side with the object of their hate will slowly change their minds. Or that they will all eventually die off as society evolves.
Excellent post. Your statement is supported by the fact that older people have an issue with gays at much higher numbers than younger people. The same is true about civil rights. It takes time for the old guard to die out and be replaced by people raised without bigotry and racism as a norm.
Young people of today are brainwashed by all the TV shows produced in hollywood portraying gay as "born with" and sweet. Why do you think it's not on prime time or in the movies, most people know it's sick when they see it. Until people get off the politically correct brainwashing of TV, no one will do the work to show it's a treatable reproductive disorder.
uh, "dad", it is not a reproductive disorder. We can and often do, reproduce just fine. In fact, I would like to see the current medical or psychological evidence that this is a disorder.
It is a difference, that is all. And really not an important one in the ultimate scheme of things, except to those of you who would like to deny people's rights based on it.
Too many kids these days want to be special... Look at me, I'm gay and coming out.... BS. No soldier is going to follow a gay commander and put out 100%.
Your fight with Defense of Marriage is NOT with the military but with the federal gov't. So long as Defense of Marriage is on the books, the military will follow the federal rules laid out as such. So shut up the bashing of the military on this issue. Stop asking for special treatment or protection that allows you to spew your views but will not tolerate an opposite point of view. Freedom of speech, which I have served 25 years so far to protect, ally to all, even people I don't agree with.
"Freedom of speech, which I have served 25 years so far to protect, ally to all, even people I don't agree with."
"So shut up the bashing of the military on this issue."
LOL! Forgetting the grammar, is anybody else seeing the contradiction here?
QS–Nope, no problem there at all. Just because someone thinks that you have a right to do something doesn't negate their right to think you shouldn't be doing it. People have a right to sign a contract for a subprime mortgage with an undefined variable intrest rate and unrealistic payment schedule and I'll support the right for people to still have that right to keep govenment out of their business, but it doesn't mean that I shouldn't tell anyone and everyone that they're an idiot for doing it.
Your response NoOn8 is typical for those who disagree or have a different point of view reference gays in the military. You talk about discrimination and bullying which is exactly what you are doing in your post. So it is okay for you to bully and insult and that will be the major stumbling block in the military reference the reversal of DADT. There is an old expression in the military of "one yellow raincoat, all yellow raincoats" meaning all are equal and the same. Do gays have the right to serve opening in the military, yes. Do they have the right to be treated better and sprew hatred for others who do not agree with them, no. I've served in the military for 23 years and can tell you I have experienced more that my fair share of harassment and worse from both men and women. I fully understand bullying, discrimination and worse for I served at a time when women were not treated well in the Army – started out as a WAC. It was a time when women were viewed as gay, spinsters or worse. I didn't let anger or hate take over but worked hard and proved that I was as good as any other soldier and earned respect – that's how you do it.
"There is an old expression in the military of "one yellow raincoat, all yellow raincoats" meaning all are equal and the same."
It must be really old, otherwise there would never have been a falsely perceived "need" for DADT to begin with. If all were supposedly seen as equal why force gay people to hide who they are or face penalties?
serving is not a right, its service.
I thank you for your service...
The Armed Forces do not supercede the Laws of the Land the fact that the Clinton Administration enacted 'DADT' was a mis-step. The further repeal by another subsequent democratic administration only shines light on the party's desire to appeal to a group with campaign dollars. Finally the author's fantasies of suicidal thoughts would have emeged regardless of his career choice. To blame it on the Army is unfounded.
Actualy yes it does supercede the laws of the land. thats why they have there own laws UMCJ there are things that arent illegal in society that you can go to jail for in the military. so yes the armed forces do supercede the laws of the land
Spot on!
The UCMJ does NOT supercede Federal or State laws. To supercede it would mean that if the fed law says it's illegal to smoke cigarettes and the UCMJ says you can that you won't go to jail. That's not what happens. UCMJ augments and extends federal and state laws and applies restrictions that aren't covered by either.. Meaning, it's not illegal in most jurisdictions to commit adultry.. It'll help you lose a divorce, but you won't go to jail for it if you are a civillian. In the military it's against the UCMJ to commit adultry and you will be punished for it.
Actually you are partly right, if a military law is more restrictive than a State/Federal law then yes the restrictive one takes hold for military members. However, military people also have to follow whatever State/other country law in place (military members are always under dual juristiction – UCMJ and the State/Federal law that is in place - both apply).
The military is a whole different world. And oh yeah: military law DOES trump civilian law (including "Federal").
" The world would be a better place without people like you in it." WOW talk about a hater. That almost sounds like a threat.
Typical twisted logic from a closet bigot. Intolerance of intolerance IS NOT intolerance, but I guess that's too heavy a concept for a bunch of mouth breathing flat-earthers.
Dean, I'm willing to bet that people said the same thing about desegregation before the services were integrated. We (the military) got over it, society has (somewhat, it's a work in progress) gotten over it, and this too shall pass.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had been elected to speak for all of society.
You are absolutely correct; this is only the beginning!
Wow, is that all your small mind could come up with? You fail at life.
I like your way of THINKING, and that is not sarcasm.
The same could be said about people of color and hispanics. By bigots.
Being Baptist is a preference. Does that mean it is OK to discriminate against Baptists?
why do they have to tell if they are gay or not' if they don't say if they are not' then go on with the war life' some people you can tell by just being around them' you get that spirit' or i do
that they are' but these day' men are saying they are gay' and don't look it at all' the last thing i would think that they are Gay??????
Sweet humour, /sarcasm off. Rob makes an important point. Nature clearly endorses the strenth in diversity. I'm not sure it matters, but I'm as straight as most of my gay friends are gay.
Ever read about black history and race discrimination and the route it took?
Define "natural". Gay behavior is seen in every mammalian species. Seems pretty natural to me.
Of course, if your argument is that if it isn't natural, we should get rid of it and definitely should not have any special protections for it, then we need to get rid of religion (doesn't exist in nature), clothing (doesn't exist in nature), marriage (as religious, doesn't exist in nature – natural pairing might or might not be considered "natural"), YOU (you are a product of human beings – presumably – and man-made things are not natural)....and so on.
@driving, I think you don't understand it all. It's not that all the gay service members want to tell you they are gay. It's that they don't want to be in constant fear of someone finding out. They don't want their e-mails to the people they love to be searched, they don't want their letters to Iraq and Afghanistan from their respective partners to be found and thus set them up for possible discharges unfairly from the military. Nobody in the military should give a crap who you love. That is what the issue was about.
Why are you SO concerned about gay men and whether they "act" it, "look" it or you can;t tell.
I really do not get the fascination unless you want to date one.
And, pray tell, what SPECIAL rights are being asked for. I'm straight and I do not hear anyone asking for anything more than I already have.
WillB, you are really quite hateful. Were you one of the bigots who booed the gay soldier at that debate? I bet you are.
Wake up. You already HAVE special rights and privileges that LGBTs don't have.
yes
... if only.
Just another "protected class citizen" group in the military. We're full of this crap.
Wow, stupid and bigoted. Your mother must be very proud. About half of pedophiles are men, and 90% of them are hetero. Also, being gay does not mean you are attracted to little boys any more than being straight means being attracted to little girls.
I'm guessing you listen to Fox a lot.
Thank you, SGT J!
CPT K
a. *disgusting
b. nice transition from, it's bad for moral + my roommate was gay so everyone thought i was gay.
...those two things are unrelated sir. stop being a bigot and get over yourself, you old coot.
Mike, it's trash like you that make a bad name for ppl in the military, which explains why you were a Chair Forcer.
Were you ever in the military? If you were then you know I am right.
Were you every in the military?
Chair Forcer? Correct me if I'm wrong but I've only heard the phrase "chair force" as a derogatory term referring to a person in the Air Force. Mike does not speak for ANYONE but himself but you've chosen to combat ignorance with the use of more ignorance...epic fail.
That's an insult to all of us that serves/served in the Air Force! Retired 21 years
Mayes, so what percentage of straight people have military baring?
I was 11 years active duty and 11 years reserves in the USAF and I agree with you 100%
I'm pretty sure this article is saying that the LGBT community will stop "complaining" when they get equality, which they apparently still don't have in terms of benefits and such.
MAC, there were still gay people in the military showering with you, you're just saying that you didn't want to know that they were gay.
Nope, realist.
When does giving rights to others take away from your rights? No one said you cant boo at anyone they just said you shouldnt boo at a soldier just cuz hes gay. Dont get your panties in a bunch.
Army security forces..lol....thats REAL soldiers....not in nam...try Special Forces for four years tuff guy, then came back and rode rodeo for six years and now own a ranch, with my married partner, another cowboy.
Yep! he came back and said he was not happy at all, imagine that, can you?
Paranoid much?
I love hyperbole!
Why would it have been hell? Because gay people are treated so poorly? Hmm, maybe we should be trying to change society then...
Replace "gays" in your statement with "African Americans" and see how it looks:
"Next thing they will want is African American history month or they will want CNN to due a segment on African Americans in America. California already will now begin forcing teachers to teach about African Americans in history. I am tired to have pro African American issues forced down peoples throats!"
Looks terrible and bigoted, doesn't it?
I appreciate your actually taking that into account, truly... but maybe we shouldn't try to confuse these ignoramuses with, you know, LOGIC...
Lol what a stupid comment. Man is man-made and therefore not natural. Pfft.
If women, people of color or hispanics do not like the way they are treated, do not join the military. Gee, that sounds like racism and bigotry. Well, in fact it is. As is the original post.
Well said!
I have no problem with Black History month because blacks are a race, gays are not. I do not want to see a gay history month.
Then you don't know the first thing of respect.
If you can't get past your own prejudice just because they are 'gay', then how about if we replace that word with 'black, jew, mexican, etc...'
Yeah, you deserve a UCMJ butt kicking.
Mike: how can you say that? that is ignorant what you believe. if you are a prior service member than you should know fist hand about respect, and esp for officers just because some one is gay not mean they r no less or equal to you. so they should be given the respect that you would give your brother or your sister to the right and to the left of you. i am in the Marine Corps, the worst branch for the Gay and lesbian jokes, fights and whatever else. so i know what i am talking about.
Actually, freedom of speech doesn't 'exist' in the military. You sign over your freedom of speech when you join. YES, that's actually true. You can get in legal trouble for disagreeing with the President, even during semi-confidential and unofficial conversations amongst your peers.
You are not allowed to strike. You are not allowed to not work in the event you aren't paid. You are not allowed to do many things that civilians take for granted.
So yes, the military CAN say that people aren't allowed to speak certain ways. They've done this for women, and other races, simply because without doing so things wouldn't change.
As a woman who served, I can tell you that it is still pretty bad, and without those rules, it would have been even more hell than it was in a maintenance squadron.
Chris if you are not born a got the gene as a gay person. I suggest you keep your opinion to yourself. If I have the opportunity to wear the shoes of some one else and feel how that fit in my own feet then and only then I have the right to have an opinion
lol, you're an idiot. If you think giving rights to GLBT people is the end of our country then you must be locked in a closet somewhere. How about our debt to China? How about the poverty and the widening of the gap between the upper and lower class? How about the constant wars we are in and the threat of terrorism? Have you considered our environmental footprint or our dependence on foreign oil? Maybe you should look into how we obtain our food products. Did you know if we lost power to more than a quarter of the US for an extended period of time, 1/4 of the population would be in dire peril? So thinking that allowing gay people to have rights as the end of the US is pretty asinine.
Previous comment was to Nikki
WOW, completely off base. I don't agree with the article however, in our country there is a freedom of religion (not just one). Really, being around tall people will make you tall.....I always felt a little short.
I am surprised that you hate the USA as much as you do. That you wish that we lost the Revolutionary War.
Unlike you, I am glad to be an American, and not a British Subject of their Crown.
If you remember American history, the Revolutionary War was going bad for us. We were loosing. That was until George Washington hired a "black balled" German General named Von Steuben. Von Steuben was tossed out of the German Army for being gay. Yep, Von Steuben was GAY. And "black balled" by all other European armies for being gay. However, Washington didn't care that Von Steuben was gay. Washington only saw a brilliant general; a general who's talents Washington despairingly needed. Washington hired Von Steuben, and assigned him to Valley Forge. Von Steuben turned the failing American Army around, and won the war!
So, American exists today due to it allowing Gays into its Army from the very start.
Please read the last line of my post above.
Tall is a physical attribute nimrod, Ga y is psychological.
I don't think that state laws have any baring on the Military. On base, they follow federal law, and if federal law ever supports giving benefits to married gay couples, then that should triumph over state laws.
Josh,
Then why do I, as a Soldier, require a state's driver's license or a state's wedding certificate or a state's birth certificate if I am only bound by federal law on post? Because Soldiers have to have a home of record of a specific state so we can pay taxes and get a drivers license and et al. It is not the militaries decision about the rights given to it's members; it is the federal government that we work for that decide that. And much like the repeal of DADT, if the federal government decides to give benefits to all married spouses, the military will enact it.
You know in 50 years you're going to be like one of the racist grandparents everyone has now, right?
Marry their sister/brother? You mean like Abraham who married his half-sister, Sarah? A dog is not a human, by the way, and they made all these arguments against interracial marriage when it was up for debate.
We're talking about a civil marriage contract, not a religious sacrament, and someone has yet to come up with a coherent, non-religious reason for excluding gays from this type of contract.
It is incredibly sad that we need laws and rules telling people not to discriminate against gay folks. Or women. Or blacks. Or hispanics. Or the disabled. Or those of different faiths.
What's even sadder, is that these folks are discrimated against because other folks are just positive that their version of a god wants them to discriminate.
You're an idiot. Being gay has no effect whatsoever on how one handles oneself in combat, obesity and special needs would.
Hey bud, out gays and lesbians have served for a long time as police officers and firefighters like on the NYPD and LAPD. They have restrictions on handicapped and obese people for obvious reasons. Are all the Police and Fire Departments of Major American Cities all wrong as well?
This is easy to answer. Every soldier, no matter what their job, is a soldier first. Part of basic training is learning how to stay physically fit, and fire a weapon. If you were able to get through MEPS and basic being fat, then good for you, it may be more muscle than fat. Being gay has -nothing- to do with being physically fit. So the argument is a moot point.
Bill, if you truly are a retired vet then you know that the fitness requirements are for everyone. Because everyone needs to be able to pull a deployment assignment if the need arises. I work with USAF personnel and even though they are looked at as the most likely to never do combat of the four branches, everyone has a chance that they may deploy. Thank you for your service.
Bill, if an overwight person can do the job to the same degree of excellence as we expect from a non-obese soldier, then I do not see why the overwight soldier should be discriminated against.
I joined the Marine Corps knowing full well that there could be a time that I could get sent to a combat environment like the Gulf War... I am sorry to say that a morbidly obese or handicapped person cannot be trained to endure these kinds of rigors. There are options but actual military service is not one of them – not only are they a liability to themselves, but they would become one to others. Bill, we have a civilian workforce to fill the gaps. If you or anyone else who is physically unfit to serve in a full-duty capacity has such a determination to work with the military then they should look into civilian service. It is just ridiculous to make a comparison to a physically able gay or lesbian Marine/Soldier/Sailor/Airman and a handicapped or obese person.
Idiot. Being gay is not a handicap. A gay person can shoot a gun and carry heavy weapons just as well as a straight person. A wheelchair bound person can't. You bigot. Grow up.
Dear Bill:
Thank you for serving your country honorably and I beileve that you have a point concerning discrimination against people who are carrying a few extra pounds, or as they say in the UK, killograms.
Though you may be angry or upset about being treated unfairly, there are things you can do to better yourself and overcome the unfairness that you encountered.
Not going to happen becuase for handicap people you must be "Deployable" otherwise you are mustered out. This means you have to pass a physical since when deployed complete hospital facilities may not be at where you are going (of course if your disability is slight you may pass the physical). Obese people have to meet a weight and standards test every year. If you deployed an obese person and that unti has to run 10k somewhere, do you really think that obese person can do it? Bottomline – if you are declared "Undeployable" you can no longer be in the military because that means someone else has to carry your load (go deploy in your place).
Bill...if you are 5'8" and have a 40" waist, you should be on a diet because that's not healthy. I agree the waist measurment needs to go the way of the dodo bird, but you still have to be physically fit to perform any duty in the military.