Don't ask, don't tell...revisited

[Richard]

Here's a sampling of what those on AD may have to begin dealing with if the latest on-going review of Don't ask, Don't Tell comes forth with a recommendation to allow open accomodation of such a lifestyle as the Dutch military does.

Richard

Fat Lesbians on Crack
Mike S. Adams
Tuesday, August 19, 2008

http://townhall.com/Columnists/MikeS...&comments=true

So this lesbian goes walking into a counselor’s office to get help with her same-sexed relationship. Actually, it sounds like the start of a really bad joke but it isn’t. The counselor’s name is Marcia Walden. In addition to being a counselor she is a devout Christian who believes it is immoral to engage in same-sex relationships. So she faced a tough decision when Jane, her prospective client, sought help resolving problems in her lesbian relationship.

Rather than misleading her, Marcia decided to tell Jane about her religious conflict, indicating that it would be unfair for her (Jane) if she were to serve as her counselor. But she remained helpful and offered to refer Jane to another counselor named Ken Cook.

Jane met with Mr. Cook just ten minutes later and even acknowledged that her counseling experience was “exemplary.” Mr. Cook told Marcia she had done the “right thing” by making the referral. For awhile everyone seemed happy, if not gay.

But later in the day Jane was feeling angry. So she called Ms. Walden’s supervisor Mr. Hughes and complained that she refused to counsel her due to “homophobia.” Hughes contacted Ms. Walden to tell her of the complaint about which he was “very concerned.”

Later, Ms. Walden was subjected to an interrogation about her religious beliefs. There were several supervisors there including Mr. Hughes who told her that if she ever found herself in a similar situation she should simply make up an excuse (read: lie) instead of telling the truth about her religious beliefs. Of course, Ms. Walden also stated that lying was against her religious beliefs.

After Mr. Hughes was unable to convince Ms. Walden to lie to prospective clients an employee relations specialist named Jacqueline Byrum implied that Walden should not discuss her religious objections to homosexuality. Instead, she should just tell the prospective homosexual client that she was not experienced with relationship counseling. Walden again reiterated her religious objections to intentionally misleading prospective clients.

On August 30, 2007, Christie Zerbe, a Center for Disease Control employee, sent an email demanding Ms. Walden’s removal solely because she referred Jane to another counselor. Without the benefit of any effort to accommodate her religious beliefs and practices, Walden’s employment was terminated.

Ms. Walden really wasn’t asking for much in this particular case – indeed, it isn’t like she wanted her employer to build a foot-washing basin to help her prepare for a daily prayer ritual. And Jane the lesbian had to wait no more than ten minutes to get “exemplary” counseling from someone more capable of catering to her needs.

What this case – taken by the Alliance Defense Fund - all boils down to is the unreasonable accommodation of gay activists who simply cannot tolerate the existence of anyone, anywhere who does not accept the gay lifestyle. And to the extent that we accommodate them, we are helping to create a very “uncivil” rights movement. And it is a trend with dangerous implications.

Imagine for a moment that we were to forbid a counselor from expressing her objection to overeating, despite proven health risks, simply because the obese individual likes to eat and claims some genetic predisposition to obesity.

Or imagine for a moment that we were to forbid a counselor from expressing her objection to over-drinking, despite proven health risks, simply because the drunken individual likes to drink and claims some genetic predisposition to alcoholism. (Or, worse, imagine she likes crack!).

But you don’t have to imagine forbidding a counselor from expressing her objection to homosexuality, despite proven health risks, simply because the gay individual likes homosexuality and claims some genetic predisposition to gayness.

That’s where we have arrived because, in America, there is no idea that is too dumb to be taken seriously. And when the gay rights agenda is at stake the entitlement sought is more than just tolerance. It is unconditional love and outright approval.

I’m not claiming that the gay rights movement has taken over the country. But, clearly, when it comes to gays, the patients are the ones who are running the therapists. And, before long, the inmates really will be running the asylum.

[greenberetTFS]

Well put Richard......

GB TFS

[Ret10Echo]

Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'
June 8, 2009 - 1:07pm

By LARA JAKES
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday agreed with the Obama administration and refused to review Pentagon policy barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

"I think this decision is an absolute travesty of justice and I think every judge on this court should be ashamed of themselves," said Pietrangelo, who served six years in the Army, seven years in the Vermont National Guard and fought in Iraq in 1991. "It's nothing short of rubber stamping legalized discrimination, the same way Nazi Germany legalized discrimination against Jews.

"The Supreme Court is not infallible, they get things wrong, and they got it wrong this time," he said.

During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman referred requests for comment to the Justice Department, but said the military policy "implements the law."

"The law requires the (Defense) Department to separate from the armed services members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts; state they are homosexual or bisexual; or marry or attempt to marry a person of the same biological sex," Whitman said in a statement.

A legal advocacy group vowed to press ahead with efforts to reverse the policy despite the legal setback.

"We don't see that at all as bad news for repeal," said Kevin Nix, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "What happened today puts the ball back into the court of Congress and the White House to repeal the law, and that's where we think it should be right now."

Nix said there are no objective studies showing unit cohesion, morale and order are harmed by openly gay people.

"There are people out there and still serving, and the unit is not crumbling beneath their feet," he said, adding that attitudes among troops and society are far different than they were in the 1990s when the policy was instituted.

"Times have changed ... fast forward 16 years," Nix said. "The service members in Iraq and Afghanistan _ their attitudes toward gay people are very different than some retired generals in their 50s and 60s who served in the 20th Century. It's a different world."

Opposition to gay marriages, for example, has eased nationwide and six states have legalized same-sex unions. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa allow gay marriage, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant of gay marriage than are older generations.

Pietrangelo, who was in the Vermont National Guard at the time of his discharge in 2004, said politicization of the issue is the only option left.

"We need political agitation, we need to make it a civil rights issue," he said. "Gay America needs to wake up and realize we have no options other than to march on Washington D.C. until America feels enough shame to change something.

"What it's going to take is 30 million gay Americans getting off their butts and standing in front of the White House demanding gay quality," said Pietrangelo, who has since moved back to his native Ohio.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was established in 1993. President Bill Clinton had to abandon efforts to allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces after facing strong resistance from the military and members of Congress.

Last year, the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed a decorated flight nurse to continue her lawsuit over her dismissal. The court stopped short of declaring the policy unconstitutional, but said that the Air Force must prove that ousting former Maj. Margaret Witt furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the first that evaluated "don't ask, don't tell" through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.

The administration did not appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court and Witt's lawsuit is ongoing.

The appeals court in Pietrangelo's case also took the high court decision into account, but concluded that it should defer to Congress' determination that the policy fosters cohesion in military units.

The case is Pietrangelo v. Gates, 08-824.





Rest of the article:

http://wtop.com/?nid=343&sid=1691692

[Richard]

During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

Hinting at or saying something to get elected is one thing - actually having to decide whether or not to deal with it - and when - once you're in office is another. With all that's on the POTUS's plate - combined with California's recent vote to overturn Proposition 8 and the California Supreme Court's upholding of the voters decision - this is not an issue the White House wants to spend its energy and political capital on right now.

However - like Gitmo - the issue - and whether or not the white House wants to deal with it - may hinge more on just how long they can hold off the increasingly impatient and fervent demands of the more radical elements of their constituency than on whether its a reasonably worthwhile or attainable goal.

Richard's $.02

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

"I think this decision is an absolute travesty of justice and I think every judge on this court should be ashamed of themselves," said Pietrangelo, who served six years in the Army, seven years in the Vermont National Guard and fought in Iraq in 1991. "It's nothing short of rubber stamping legalized discrimination, the same way Nazi Germany legalized discrimination against Jews.

I am mystified when people degrade the courts because they disagree with a decision or when they compare their plight to the victims of the Holocaust.

MOO, by doing both, Mr. Pietrangelo cheapened himself and his beliefs. YMMV.

[Richard]

I am mystified when people degrade the courts because they disagree with a decision or when they compare their plight to the victims of the Holocaust.

MOO, by doing both, Mr. Pietrangelo cheapened himself and his beliefs. YMMV.

Emotion trumping reason.

Richard's $.02

[Utah Bob]

Doesn't he know that the Nazis also legalized discrimination against homosexuals? How come he used Jews?
Oh. Never mind.

[Richard]

From today's Pravda on the Hudson - homosexual 'stop loss'

And then there's this - Brokeback Sandpile.

Video Op-Ed: A Gay Soldier's Husband
A gay man talks about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the difficulties he faces having a partner on active duty in Iraq.

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/...s-husband.html

Richard's $.02

The Ban on Gays in the Military
NYT, 9 Jun 2009

The Supreme Court’s refusal this week to hear a challenge to the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military is not much of a legal setback. The court did not address the merits of the case, and another lawsuit still moving through the courts may be a better vehicle for challenging the benighted policy.

Even so, relying on a conservative court to make things right would be a gamble. Unfortunately, neither President Obama nor Congress shows much appetite for moving to end a ban that is not only unfair to gay men and lesbians but damaging to the military as well.

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was hatched in 1993 as a compromise after President Bill Clinton failed in an attempt to overturn an existing ban on gay service members. The awkward compromise limited the military’s ability to ask service members about their sexual orientation (don’t ask) and allowed homosexuals to serve provided they kept quiet about their sexual orientation (don’t tell) and refrained from homosexual acts.

The ostensible rationale was that the known presence of gay men and lesbians would undermine morale and unit cohesion, but as it turned out, the policy caused its own kind of damage to military readiness. Thousands of service members have been discharged from duty at a time when the military is stretched by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The loss of highly skilled interpreters and intelligence analysts has been especially damaging.

President Obama said during the campaign that he would work to overturn the ban, but he has made no move beyond asking the Pentagon to assess the implications. Military leaders seem cool to lifting the ban, but we hope they do a fair and honest job. Members of the military and of the general public are much more receptive to the notion of accepting gays than they were in 1993.

Advocates for gay soldiers believe that the administration, on its own, has the authority to prevent the discharge of gay people, perhaps by issuing “stop-loss” orders such as those used to keep troops serving past their original commitments in Iraq — many unwillingly. How much better to use the power to prevent the loss of gay service members eager to keep serving.

President Obama should see if there is indeed any action he could take on his own while awaiting the military’s assessment. In the end, it will be up to Congress to root out “don’t ask, don’t tell” by overturning the law that brought it about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/op...=1&ref=opinion

[Richard]

GEN Lindsay and Company comment on an issue that is yet again resurfacing for the Obama Administration.

Richard's $.02

Gays and The Military: A Bad Fit
James J. Lindsay, Jerome Johnson, E.G. "Buck" Shuler Jr. and Joseph J. Went - WashPost - 15 Apr 2009

With the nation engaged in two wars and facing a number of potential adversaries, this is no time to weaken our military. Yet if gay rights activists and their allies have their way, grave harm will soon be inflicted on our all-volunteer force.

The administration and some in Congress have pledged to repeal Section 654 of U.S. Code Title 10, which states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Often confused with the "don't ask, don't tell" regulations issued by President Bill Clinton, this statute establishes several reasons that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

Section 654 recognizes that the military is a "specialized society" that is "fundamentally different from civilian life." It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands "extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense." The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often "characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy."

While there have been changes in civilian society since this statute was adopted by wide bipartisan majorities in 1993, the military realities it describes abide. If anything, they are more acute in wartime.

In our experience, and that of more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers who have joined us in signing an open letter to President Obama and Congress, repeal of this law would prompt many dedicated people to leave the military. Polling by Military Times of its active-duty subscribers over the past four years indicates that 58 percent have consistently opposed repeal. In its most recent survey, 10 percent said they would not reenlist if that happened, and 14 percent said they would consider leaving.

If just the lesser number left the military, our active-duty, reserve and National Guard forces would lose 228,600 people -- more than the total of today's active-duty Marine Corps. Losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers, when we are trying to expand the Army and Marine Corps, could be crippling.

And the damage would not stop there. Legislation introduced to repeal Section 654 (H.R. 1283) would impose on commanders a radical policy that mandates "nondiscrimination" against "homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived." Mandatory training classes and judicial proceedings would consume valuable time defining that language. Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.

We don't need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life. "Zero tolerance" of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways. Many more will be dissuaded from ever enlisting. There is no compelling national security reason for running these risks to our armed forces. Discharges for homosexual conduct have been few compared with separations for other reasons, such as pregnancy/family hardship or weight-standard violations. There are better ways to remedy shortages in some military specialties than imposing social policies that would escalate losses of experienced personnel who are not easily replaced.

Some suggest that the United States must emulate Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, which have incorporated homosexuals into their forces. But none of these countries has the institutional culture or worldwide responsibilities of our military. America's armed forces are models for our allies' militaries and the envy of our adversaries -- not the other way around.

As former senior commanders, we know that the reason for this long-standing envy is the unsurpassed discipline, morale and readiness of our military. The burden should be on proponents of repeal to demonstrate how their initiative would improve these qualities of our armed services. This they cannot do.

Consequently, our recent open letter advised America's elected leaders: "We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."

Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The issue is not one of individual desires, or of the norms and mores of civilian society. Rather, the question is one of national security and the discipline, morale, readiness and culture of the U.S. armed forces upon which that security depends. It is a question we cannot afford to answer in a way that breaks our military.

Retired Army Gen. James J. Lindsay was the first commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. Retired Adm. Jerome Johnson was vice chief of naval operations. Retired Lt. Gen. E.G. "Buck" Shuler Jr. was commander of the Strategic Air Command's 8th Air Force. Retired Gen. Joseph J. Went was assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. They are founding members of Flag and General Officers for the Military.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...402704_pf.html

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I am mystified when people degrade the courts because they disagree with a decision or when they compare their plight to the victims of the Holocaust. MOO, by doing both, Mr. Pietrangelo cheapened himself and his beliefs. YMMV.

Here here. I second that. Why must everything be compared to the Holocaust? Especially when the comparisons do not exist. The Military is not rounding up gays and concentrating them (actually, we'd prefer they stay a little apart), no one is making them wear stars (in fact, we just expect them to wear the uniform like everyone else. Maybe some DO wear stars.), no one is working them to death (but they are being given jobs -- good ones that until we train them they couldn't do).
Don't ask, don't tell works. Most of us "don't ask because we don't care. What we care about is if/how they do the job. Those that want to tell define themselves by there genital preference.

Just once I'd like to see someone complain about being a treated like a contemporary unter-menchen.
"I think this decision is an absolute travesty of justice and I think every umpire in this National League should be ashamed of themselves," said Pietrangelo, who served six years as a Utility fielder on the Chicago Cubs, seven years with the Tennessee Smokies (AA), and fought his way out of the Peoria Chiefs (A) in 1991. "It's nothing short of rubber stamping legalized discrimination, the same way the St Louis Cardinals legalized discrimination by laughing at us last year when we looked like the Cubs might go to the World Series.
“Don’t Point Don’t Laugh” probably caused us to blow the Pennant race. (Again)

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Here here. I second that. Why must everything be compared to the Holocaust? Especially when the comparisons do not exist. The Military is not rounding up gays and concentrating them (actually, we'd prefer they stay a little apart), no one is making them wear stars (in fact, we just expect them to wear the uniform like everyone else. Maybe some DO wear stars.), no one is working them to death (but they are being given jobs -- good ones that until we train them they couldn't do).
Don't ask, don't tell works. Most of us "don't ask because we don't care. What we care about is if/how they do the job. Those that want to tell define themselves by there genital preference.

Just once I'd like to see someone complain about being a treated like a contemporary unter-menchen.
"I think this decision is an absolute travesty of justice and I think every umpire in this National League should be ashamed of themselves," said Pietrangelo, who served six years as a Utility fielder on the Chicago Cubs, seven years with the Tennessee Smokies (AA), and fought his way out of the Peoria Chiefs (A) in 1991. "It's nothing short of rubber stamping legalized discrimination, the same way the St Louis Cardinals legalized discrimination by laughing at us last year when we looked like the Cubs might go to the World Series.
“Don’t Point Don’t Laugh” probably caused us to blow the Pennant race. (Again)

D,

Go Cubbies..........

Big Teddy

[Richard]

The issue that came to dinner...and stayed.

Richard's $.02

Gates Says He Wants To Soften Gay Expulsion Rules
Anne Gearan, AP, 30 Jun 2009

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday he wants to make the law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the armed forces "more humane" until Congress eventually repeals it. He said he has lawyers studying ways the law might be selectively enforced.

"One of the things we're looking at is, is there flexibility in how we apply this law?" Gates said.

The defense chief, a holdover from the Republican administration of former President George W. Bush, told reporters traveling with him in Europe that the Clinton-era ban was written without much wiggle room. The Pentagon general counsel is looking at potential avenues around full enforcement as a stopgap, Gates said.

For example, Gates said, the military might not have to expel someone whose sexual orientation was revealed by a third party out of vindictiveness or suspect motives. That would include, Gates said, someone who was "jilted" by the gay service member.

"That's the kind of thing we're looking at to see if there's at least a more humane way to apply the law until the law gets changed," Gates said, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon.

Gay rights activists and others have criticized the Obama administration for not quickly following through on a pledge to lift the ban on openly gay military service.

President Barack Obama and his spokesmen say he remains committed to repealing the Clinton-era law known as "don't ask, don't tell," but neither the White House nor congressional leadership has moved swiftly to do so.

There is no timetable for the pending bill to repeal the 1993 law, which was intended as a compromise to get around a full ban on gay military service. Gay rights leaders, however, have said it is an insult.

Obama says he wants to build support for the change among military commanders before urging Congress to move ahead.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff and others have cautioned that repeal of the law must be done carefully so as not to disrupt military cohesion in wartime or to place an additional burden on an already overstretched uniformed force.

Gates said he discussed repeal of the no-gays policy with Obama last week, but he did not detail the conversation.

"We were talking about how do we move forward on this to achieve his objective, which is changing the policy, and the issue that we face is that how do we begin to do preparations and simultaneously the administration move forward in terms of asking the Congress to change the law," Gates said.

Several liberal legal experts and outside groups have urged Obama to issue an executive order that would make the law unenforceable, but Gates appeared to be considering measures short of that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/...ys_in_military

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Richard

The issue that came to dinner...and stayed.

Richard's $.02

Gates Says He Wants To Soften Gay Expulsion Rules
Anne Gearan, AP, 30 Jun 2009

For example, Gates said, the military might not have to expel someone whose sexual orientation was revealed by a third party out of vindictiveness or suspect motives. That would include, Gates said, someone who was "jilted" by the gay service member.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/...ys_in_military

the policy is Don't ask Don't tell NOT Don't ask Don't Get Ratted out

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

the policy is Don't ask Don't tell NOT Don't ask Don't Get Ratted out

The problem once again is not the "solution" but the problem the solution causes.

If the policy becomes "Don't ask, don't tell but if you're ratted out it's OK" then open service of gays becomes "OK". Everybody who wants to be open and serve just gets somebody to "rat them out." Safe.

Then anything you do to a gay is "Because I'm gay, I'm going to see my lawyer" - and away we go.

[bailaviborita]

The gay groups seem to on the one hand say that the majority of Americans support gays serving openly, but at the same time they don't want Congress to address this- they just want the President to sign an executive order (although I'm not sure how that would trump a law...).

Why the two seemingly contradictory stances? The only explanation I've seen is that they say that Representatives might not strike down the law because they are fearful of being attacked in the next election for doing so- even though supposedly the majority of Americans would support the change.

I tend to think that reality is that the polls are just that- polls- and can say whatever the pollsters want them to say- and that Congressional reps would not want to vote to change the law because they know the majority don't really favor changing it.

I also think that most gay groups don't really care about gay people serving openly- this is just another plank in their quest to get special group privileges and to have their lifestyle get de jure approval. And many groups I've seen that support this kind of stuff don't even want to stop there- they are aiming at bigger things in the end- wholesale change to the American way of life: do away with free market capitalism, traditional families, gender norms, scientific-method-based research, and republican democracy. I know that sounds conspiratorialist- but if you go to their websites and see the other stuff these groups advocate- it seems like that is what they want. Anyone else see anything different?