Forums | MacLife

With Presidental elections on the horizon, don't expect any of the major candidates on either side to support/push reversing the policy.

Oh for God's sake. Clinton smurfed up huge time by addressing this issue right out of the gate ... the Dems can't be stupid enough to do that again, can they?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Oh for God's sake. Clinton smurfed up huge time by addressing this issue right out of the gate ... the Dems can't be stupid enough to do that again, can they?

Not nearly as many people will fall for the anti-gay fear tactics in 2007 than in 1993.

Americans still are pretty bigoted about marriage, but by now most accept basic civil rights for gays.

The Dems probably don't have the guts to do it though. Maybe if they win in 2008...

So, filing out the grid, the other options are:

-ask and tell
-don't ask, but tell
-ask, but don't tell

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Oh please. It's an incredibly sensitive goddamned issue. I'm for full equality myself, but let's face it, American public opinion isn't comfortable with gay rights yet.

I'm not saying they can't touch this issue at all, ever. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be the at the top of the frickin' agenda.

I don't think it's as sensitive as you're making it out to be.

I think all the stories about gay Arabic translators and such have changed a lot of minds in the last few years.

A new poll measuring Americans' attitudes towards gays in the military reveals significant support for allowing lesbians and gay men to serve openly. Seventy-nine percent of the 1,004 adults surveyed said they believe people who are openly gay should be allowed to serve.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, conducted December 5-7, found that 91 percent of people aged 18-29 were supportive of allowing gays to serve openly, as were 85 percent of all women, and 73 percent of all men. These numbers represent a significant increase in Americans' support for gay and lesbian servicemembers in recent years.

In August 2003, a poll by Fox News found 64 percent of the public supported gays serving openly in the military, and a 2001 MIT poll placed the figure at 56 percent.

"After 10 years of Don't Ask, Don't tell, the public understands that discrimination undermines military effectiveness," said Geoffrey Bateman, Assistant Director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM) at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in a prepared statement.

Approximately 10,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers have been discharged under the policy since its inception in 1993.

Bateman believes the highly publicized firing of nine gay language experts last year may have swayed public opinion about gays in the military. The linguists were proficient in Arabic, a language the military needed expertise in to aid in the U.S. government's war on terror.

"Apparently, the Bush administration thinks the war on terror should take second place to the war on homosexuals," wrote journalist John Aravosis at the time the nine linguists were fired.

According to the CSSMM, almost 40 linguists have been fired over the past two years for being gay or lesbian.

The most recent poll found solid majorities of people in every age group supportive of gays in the military, though older Americans were less supportive than younger ones. Sixty-eight percent of respondents over 65 supported gays serving openly, as did 74 percent of respondents aged 50-64, and 81 percent of people aged 30-49.

The military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy has faced increased public scrutiny and criticism since three high-ranking retired generals came out and protested the policy earlier this month.

U.S. Army brigadier generals Virgil Richard and Keith Kerr, and U.S. Coast Guard (news - web sites) Rear Admiral Alan Steinman disclosed to the New York Times that they were gay and voiced sharp criticism of the practice of excluding openly gay people from serving in the military.

"Because of these policies and because of the need to be secret, I was denied the opportunity to share my life with a loved one and to have a family, or to do all the things that heterosexual Americans take for granted," Steinman said. "That's a pretty big sacrifice to make for the opportunity to serve one's country."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1231-09.htm

bratboy wrote:

after-life wrote:

I don't think it's as sensitive as you're making it out to be.

Agreed.

I see.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

bratboy wrote:

after-life wrote:

I don't think it's as sensitive as you're making it out to be.

Agreed.

I see.

Careful now.  You wouldn't want me to jump in and gang up on you.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Look, I'm not arguing the issue, we're on the same side. I'm just debating the politics of this move. I remember well the hysteria that accompanied Clinton's foray into the issue, and can only assume it will be similar (or worse) this time around.

I really don't see how it could be as bad or worse, after everything that has come out concerning the loss of skilled troops due to the practice and the fact that we are at war and facing shortages.

If we can slam the Republicans for focusing on social issues at the expense of policy, why can't we slam the Democrats for doing the same thing, though admittedly from a different angle?

I don't see how this is comparable at all, to be honest.  Could you give an example?

Ra wrote:

Perhaps civilians would accept the idea, but I doubt that military members will. Keep in mind that I have been out of the military for over ten years, so perhaps I am wrong.

You're not.  I can only speak from my point of view in the Navy.  First, I've served with sailors that pretty much everyone has known were gay.  I'd say many are over-achievers and are probably on average, above average.  The don't ask, don't tell rule allows us to pretend they don't exist.  Sucks big time for everyone but I don't see a way around it.  If gays are given full freedom then you're going to have to deal with privacy issues.  If some sailors don't want gay same-sex sailors sharing their showers and berthing areas, how are you going to address this?  It's already hard enough trying to balance berthing issues for males and females.  Are you going to have four different berthings?  Are you going to purposely berth gay sailors together?  The civil rights, morale, and privacy concerns would be a major issue that would cause more problems than they solve.  It's not fair, it's not right but the military is a unique institution where many rights are sacrificed.

jeremiah256 wrote:

The civil rights, morale, and privacy concerns would be a major issue that would cause more problems than they solve.  It's not fair, it's not right but the military is a unique institution where many rights are sacrificed.

How are these issues dealt with in countries that allow such membership in the military?

jeremiah256 wrote:

I'm not sure.  As someone else stated, they don't seem to care (at least the Canadians are like this).  I could make up excuses that our crews are younger and spend much more time away from port than our counterparts (ergo, sexual tension is higher), but the bottom line is, Americans are different.

...but don't problems of prejudice arise with other groups that are present?

What if I join the military but I really dislike blacks, or jews, or women.  Am I afforded special treatment in light of these concerns? 

I doubt a change in policy would be painless but I have a difficult time buying the argument that it would be impossible.

bratboy wrote:

jeremiah256 wrote:

I'm not sure.  As someone else stated, they don't seem to care (at least the Canadians are like this).  I could make up excuses that our crews are younger and spend much more time away from port than our counterparts (ergo, sexual tension is higher), but the bottom line is, Americans are different.

...but don't problems of prejudice arise with other groups that are present?

What if I join the military but I really dislike blacks, or jews, or women.  Am I afforded special treatment in light of these concerns? 

I doubt a change in policy would be painless but I have a difficult time buying the argument that it would be impossible.

Not impossible, but too much of a risk for anyone to take on.  I don't see gays joining the military just because they will be able to serve openly.  Any civilian, regardless, has much more freedom than a military member.  But you would lose service members and you would create costs in trying to solve the issue.  Plus, while it is illegal to discriminate in civilian and military society against blacks, jews or women, it is legal to tell races that certain cultural dress is not authorized, jews not to display religious symbols while serving in certain countries, or women they can't serve in certain units.  And you can dislike all the above, you just can't show or act on it.

Until society makes it illegal to discriminate against gays in civilian society, I don't see it changing in the military.