Gay Pride at the Pentagon
My drill sergeant, SFC Jason Hurst, in the first little talk he gave us late at night in those old wooden barracks at Fort Polk back in 1974, included the statement that the only pigmentation that is recognized by the Army is green. I’ll mention that SFC Hurst is black.
Fast forward to 2010; We were told before the military repealed their Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that required gays to keep their sexual proclivities out of public view, that gays only wanted the opportunity to serve, that was their justification for repealing the old policy. That they couldn’t serve like the rest of us while hiding their sexual inclinations. And service was the overarching goal.
Fast forward to 2012; Well, since the successful repeal of the DADT policy, we’ve found that service isn’t the overarching goal because the goal posts have been steadily moving up the field. Now, for some reason, the Pentagon, according to the Washington Post, thinks that they need to recognize all of the people who violated the DADT policy;
For the first time, the Pentagon will mark gay pride month just as it marks other events honoring racial or ethnic groups, Defense Department officials said.
Officials declined to give details about the event but said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes it’s important to recognize the service of gays in the armed forces.
How about recognizing the service of male service members who perform cunnilingus? Don’t they deserve recognition for their service? Or female service members who perform fellatio? ANd, of course, service isn’t what’s important, according to reportage at the Associated Press;
That’s a reference to the fact that same-sex couples aren’t afforded spousal health care, assignments to the same location when they transfer to another job, and other benefits. There was no immediate change to eligibility standards for military benefits in September. All service members already were entitled to certain things, such as designating a partner as one’s life insurance beneficiary or as designated caregiver in the Wounded Warrior program.
As for other benefits still not approved, the department began a review after repeal with an eye toward possibly extending eligibility, consistent with the federal Defense of Marriage Act and other applicable laws, to the same-sex partners of military personnel.
Because “service” actually means “benefits”. So at a time when the Department of Defense is complaining that they can’t afford to live up to their commitments to retirees, who have already fulfilled their commitment to the DoD, in the interests of political correctness, the DoD trying to encumber the system by adding even more beneficiaries who largely didn’t fulfill their commitments.
So if this really was about providing gays solely with an opportunity to serve, we wouldn’t be having this whole discussion about gay pride days at the Pentagon and benefits.
If I were single and had a room mate who was either male or female and I wanted to get them benefits, and I’m not gay, I wouldn’t be able to get them military benefits – is that’s what’s next because I chose to be single and celibate?
Yeah, I’m not a “homophobe”, whatever that means, and I have nothing against gays serving openly, I’m just ashamed that too many people fell for the disingenuous “service” thing and that we’re not talking about service anymore.
Category: Big Army, Military issues
“Follow the money.” Amazing how that often leads to discovery of the truth, isn’t it?
Take it up with the people who started the ethnic heritage and gender acknowledgement months.
What CI said. Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, Black History, Women’s months.
I care not a whit about those things. Good soldier? Bad soldier? That, I care about.
The folks who keep telling US we’re too cognizant of the ethnic/cultural/sexual differences between us are the very ones forcing these “celebrations” of the differences on us.
It makes my head hurt.
Next will be promotion and placement preferences to ensure equal representation. For some reason, none of this surprises me.
Next will be promotion and placement preferences to ensure equal representation.
What do you mean, “next?” It’s been happening for decades now.
I wonder how long before the predominantly non-white male EEO representatives are replaced by non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual EEO representatives?
If those serving at the Pentagon, and anywhere else, for that matter, have enough time to plan special events to celebrate diversity-of-the-week there are obviously too many of them assigned there.
Want military cuts? Fire all those folks who perport to be serving but instead are planning “special” events. They need to go and leave the rest to do things like war planning.
Sparky: I was specifically referring in this case to preferences based upon “orientation,” but I acknowledge the truth in your statement.
“Homophobe” is a bullshit term made-up to label people who criticize homosexuals, kind of like “racist”. My question is thus: If I dislike onions, does that make me an “onionphobe”? Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? Just like saying someone is “afraid” if they dislike homosexuals…
I’m waiting till they celebrate furry pride day at the pentagon, as well as granny day, the winner of a raffle gets a trip to Thailand.
When I was in the service, it was illegal to be gay but now it’s optional. I am glad that I retired before they make it mandatory. With the advent of the Pentagon’s Gay Pride Month, there is now only one group of servicemembers that is not officially sanctioned by the DoD. Hint, it rhymes with straight white male.
And the Army was defeated without a shot being fired.
It never was about service, Jonn. It was about affirmation, which is what homosexuals so desperately desire.
ben, you’re right. it’s all about confirmation and affirmation.
Call me when it’s “Straight Pride” month.
As long as it remains optional, I am grudgingly indifferent.
What a bunch of fucking bull shit!! I could care less about gays in the military, they have always been there… What I have issue with is the fucking idiocy going on this country where we identify everyone by race, gender, sexual orientat…ion, etc… This insanity has got to stop. “Diversity” doesn’t mean we fucking are more special because we are different, it means get pat you fucking differences and work together. I am not special because I am a White Male of extremely mixed heritage. You are no more special than I am oh Asian/African/Mexican/Gay/Bi/Transgender… etc… American. Hell you are American just like me. Start acting like it. Then you will have my respect if you earn it. As I just heard Obama is now giving blanket amnesty to illegals under 35 and over the ge of 16… regardless of their backgrounds.
Obama’s (Muslim, all the same) main goal was, is, and ALWAYS will be to destroy from the foundation up. The strength of our military has always been the deterrant to outside aggression. Period. He has basically sabotaged the economy, sacked all of the rules to keep the military at fighting readiness, and is now destroying our right to protect our shores from foreign invasion by adopting a measure that was defeated by Congress in 2010. Dictators do those things, you know. I could give a rat’s ass less if he is black, green, purple or yellow with pink polka dots. He is a traitor and should be dealt with as such.
Whatever happened to the Military being a place to join so we can have superior personel to fight ?, it seems today it’s turned into another Political pawn for social experiments and no longer for the defense of our nation.
rb325th and Monroe seem to fully think the way I do! After 20+ years in the Army and ARNG, I can say that I have served beside extrodinary soldiers (found to be gay after working with them) and absolute shitbags that were obviously, and on personal time, openly gay. My concern was not who they were scrogging, but, could I go to war with them. I do not give a flying rats ass about sexual preference as long as they pull their weight and do it without forcing me to bow down to their “uniqueness”. Hell, I’m unique! I want a WASP Hill Billy recognition Day and a damned parade too! For the outstanding soldiers that I have served with, black,hispanic, asian gay and straight, I salute you and am proud to have known you. to the powers making these idiotic decissions, I am so glad that I am no longer under your control!!!
Well, since the promotion mantra has been ‘it’s not what you know, but who you blow,’ I suspect the flag ranks will soon be changing their flags from red to rainbow.
#19–Thanks, DaveO. Frickin’ coffee all over the place.
Its just sad and incredibly disheartening to think that Service equals Benefits and its all these shitbags care about. They could give fuckall for the Servicemen that they’re supposed to be working for as long as their girlboyfriend or boygirlfriend gets the benefits. Don’t ever mistake their constant bitching about “equality”, its the same kind of equality as in Orwell’s Animal Farm:
“All Animals Are Equal, but some animals are more equal than others”
I really haven’t seen anyone travel down the logic trail, explaining how gays didn’t want to serve equally, but rather are in it for ‘affirmation’ or some such.
That hasn’t stopped heterosexuals from carping madly about what the alleged homosexual agenda is.
What Bobert said in #15 – Hammer, meet nail. Obsessing on differences instead of focusing on commonalities and objectives only serves to weaken and divide.
I’m so happy the rest of the world is privy to our dear leaders acting like adolescent demagogues.
Pretty freakin’ amazing for 2% of the population and who knows what that small % is for the military.
CI: and I haven’t seen anyone give a valid explanation as to why DADT didn’t allow gays to serve equally within existing law. So a gay/lesbian had to be discreet? BFD. Being discreet in one’s personal affairs (no pun intended) is a good thing.
How about recognizing the service of male service members who perform cunnilingus? Don’t they deserve recognition for their service? Or female service members who perform fellatio? . Priceless, simply priceless Jonn! Reminds me of a night patrol shift at Gordon, *cough*….hahaha!
STR8 PRIDE! HETERO POWER! (Hey, fair’s fair. Or is that too “racist” or something to even entertain now?)
@Hondo – It’s difficult to serve equally [to the extent where you can be forced from service] when you’re denied the ability to have the family support unit that straights are afforded.
Discretion is admirable by all parties, but you can’t honestly say that things were equal on that front.
So Whens the ACU assless chaps parade around the “E’ Ring scheduled to make it a real pride parade?
Honestly, how many people gave a shit when they would have any ethnic festival? Sounds like a mandatory fun time. I am one of the weirdo people that doesn’t really care. I am actually more comfortable with a same sex couple who are in a committed relationship than Col. Johnson. I have a nephew who if he wants to he can now serve. I don’t have to look him in the eye and say sorry I don’t think it would be good for you because you would have to lie about who you are. The gay man that was in my unit in Iraq won’t have to keep the open secret any more. Shit how many years were women allowed to be gay unless it came down to a promotion? Hell this isn’t coming from some general or the army its some civilian behind some desk or in a cubicle going, hey wouldn’t it be fun if… Its an excuse to have cake and drink pop to them. The people who are wearing the uniform who are actually working and might be gay aren’t at the pentagon dreaming up stupid parties.
First came the anonymous survey, which required signing in with your ID card, to “get a pulse of the Troops” which they later admitted was actually to identify the indoctrination campaign tactics. We were told that we couldn’t afford the loss of 15,000 kicked out under the old policy, over 20 years. Between 2011 and 2015, this Administration will throw 49,000 combat veterans in the Army into the unemployment lines, and wants to make it 100,000.
Then came the powerpoints, which said there would not be a new protected class created, and that there would be no change in benefits packages.
Then came the policy to reinstate those individuals that had been thrown out of the military for failure to follow lawful orders. Simultaneously, this year 5-10,000 senior NCO’s in the Army will face a separation board.
Then came the lawsuit to change housing and benefits packages, which the Administration ordered its lawyers to not defend against.
And simultaneously, this Administration is attempting to put women in Infantry, Armor, Ranger, and Special Forces teams/squads.
The excuse is “equality” and a “right to serve” without regard for effects on National Defense, or combat realities. The Administration has demonstrated they will say whatever they think they must, regardless of their plans, to get it pushed through.
Should the military also lift restrictions against the mentally handicapped, felons, diabetics, parapalegics, and other groups that have a “right to serve,” er, collect the benefits of serving in a capacity they can’t complete?
More social experimentation. What is the military’s mission now? Fight to win? Keep it simple and stick to it.
This is a “feel good” move by a bunch of careerists who are clueless. It will look good on the front page of the NYT and other news outlets. As for gays…we ALL know that they’ve been with us and served honorably. One of the finest SF Weapons Sergeants I had ever the opportunity to serve with, was deep, deep, deep in the closet. He never said/did a thing regarding the lifestyle… did his job and more. An incredible soldier. We all wondered, but then… the one who should of cared was us, and the way he performed as a soldier, we didn’t have to worry or care!
One has a right to serve – if one qualifies for service. But right to serve does not equate to “I get whatever I want”. Needs of the service outweigh individual desires.
Military service also obligates one to follow lawful orders and regulations. Army regulations for years proscribed homosexuality outright, then changed in the early 1990s to a ban on overt conduct. The latter has always seemed to me the proper balance between individual rights and military discipline in this area. Private conduct was neither investigated nor barred, provided it remained private. Go public, different story.
Yes – some commands abused policy and conducted “witch hunts”. Name any controversial policy where that hasn’t occurred. When that happens, higher chain of command steps in and corrects things.
Belief cannot be lawfully (or effectively) controlled by law or regulation. But behavior certainly can be, especially within the military.
Steel on target, Hondo. It’s never been about “equal treatment” when it comes to gay “rights.” Ever.
@34 – Respectfully Sparky, I don’t know why people waste their time with statements like this. It simply has no intellectual heft behind it. It has as much weight as you would give [assuming at least hypothetically that you’re a practicing Christian] to an Atheist telling you about the Christian ‘agenda’.
Name one issue of contention that gays in service have advocated for, that straights don’t currently enjoy.
@Hondo – “One has a right to serve – if one qualifies for service. But right to serve does not equate to “I get whatever I want”. Needs of the service outweigh individual desires.”
Nothing untrue about that statement, but you will note that not only has homosexuality been successfully argued to show that it is not incompatible with military service, but I haven’t seen instances within the group that violates your tenet….anymore so than where straight Soldiers violate the UCMJ.
The key flaw in your argument, I believe, is that homosexuality is no more about ‘behavior’ or the sexual act than is heterosexuality.
And again, CI: the flaw in your argument is that it denies the fact that the military has full authority to regulate all sexual behavior if and when required. Don’t believe me? Just ask all the folks who’ve been nailed for adultery and/or heterosexual fornication under proscribed circumstances – like shipboard and/or while deployed.
Hell, it wasn’t that long ago that even married couples deployed in-theater in CENTCOM and stationed together were technically not allowed to sleep together. Seriously. Thankfully theater leadership finally figured out how stupid that was circa 2007 and changed that idiotic policy.
You join, you abide by the regulations in place. Can’t do that? Fine. Then don’t join – or if you’re serving, get out.
I don’t personally give a hoot in hell who sticks what, where, or in whom on their own time. (I do have a philosophical problem with being asked to support it financially, whether for heterosexuals or homosexuals.) But when sexual conduct starts to affect military effectiveness and/or discipline, that’s a different story. And you can bet your butt that unpunished willful disregard for regulations affects military discipline. That’s true whether you’re talking about homosexual or heterosexual conduct.
Don’t like a particular policy or regulation? Fine. Work to get it changed. But you’re still bound by the policy until it’s changed. Don’t deliberately violate a regulation you feel is stupid and expect not to suffer the consequences.
@Hondo – “And again, CI: the flaw in your argument is that it denies the fact that the military has full authority to regulate all sexual behavior if and when required.”
This cannot be a flaw in my argument, because 1) I haven’t argued that DoD CANNOT regulate behavior…..and 2) DoD has ruled that it WILL not regulate this behavior.
Your trying to frame the argument outside of what I have said or advocated. Your premise would seem to assume that DADT was still in existence.
Not so, amigo. I clearly stated earlier that IMO DADT was the best compromise between individual rights and military necessity. You were arguing against that position – or seemed to be, anyway.
And, for the record: the military has NEVER said that it will not “regulate this behavior”. They have merely said that overt homosexual behavior will no longer be considered “incompatible with military service”. It can still be proscribed, as can heterosexual behavior, when military necessity requires.
I’d guess “buggery on the high seas” will remain illegal due to its effect on morale and discipline – just as heterosexual conduct while shipboard or while deployed is generally proscribed today. And if gay marriage ever becomes Federally recognized, I can foresee cases of homosexual adultery being prosecuted as well. As well as homosexual EEO complaints – from both homosexual and heterosexual troops.
IMO, DADT worked. We’ll make the new policy work too – just like we made the introduction of women into the general military population work in the 1970s. But I fear we’ll do so at the cost of some degree of reduced overall efficiency and/or effectiveness due to a number of problems that don’t exist today. And I’m not sure we have a clue as to whether that reduction will be major or minor, particularly in combat arms units.
“Not so, amigo. I clearly stated earlier that IMO DADT was the best compromise between individual rights and military necessity. You were arguing against that position – or seemed to be, anyway.”
I am/was arguing on the merits of gays serving openly and equally. While DADT was in force, I both respected the right of DoD to prosecute offenders.
“And, for the record: the military has NEVER said that it will not “regulate this behavior”. They have merely said homosexual behavior will no longer be considered “incompatible with military service””
Point taken, I wasn’t trying to argue this specific verbiage.
And my point, CI, was that we had a working solution that was forcibly changed for what appears to be political reasons unrelated to military efficiency or effectiveness. When it comes to matters military, efficiency and effectiveness are paramount; all else is secondary.
It does none of us any good to have a military that’s almost good enough, regardless of how politically “up to date” it may be.
It is an arguable point though. DADT worked…if you were straight, or gay and didn’t desire the same family support structure as your straight counterparts [which DoD keeps telling us is so essential to military readiness and morale]. Or if you ever wanted some sort of personal relationship without fear of being Chaptered.
The controversy also speaks to the fundamental ways in which we treat patriotic American citizens who wish to serve their country.
For a bit of background, I honestly think DADT repeal should have been delayed a few more years, and I don’t necessarily agree with some manners in which is was repealed [within DoD]. But I cannot logically argue with the fundamentals behind it, especially when arguments about it impacting military readiness is largely defined by the reaction of DADT repeal by straight Soldiers.
I haven’t heard [even anecdotally] of any grave issues since the repeal. If none surface, would that alter your position any?
That depends on the time frame and how you define “grave issues”, CI. Ask me again in about 40 years, and I might be able to give you a better answer. Or maybe not. As I said previously, if allowing homosexuals to serve openly affects military efficiency and effectiveness, my answer would be “no”. I have no idea whether it will affect military effectiveness positively, negatively, or not at all. I suspect there will be a modest negative effect – but I don’t know that. There might be none. Or there might be a huge negative effect that manifests itself 10 or 20 years from now. My crystal ball is dirty today. I’m not avoiding the question or quibbling here. History leads me to believe that way. Here’s why. And let me put on my IBA, because I’m certain I’m about to draw fire. The major push for full integration of women into the military began 40 years ago. That was also driven primarily by politics (a combination of the manpower shortage created in some specialties by the political decision to end the Vietnam-era draft coupled with the women’s rights movement). That was made to work, too. But no one can deny that change brought a new set of problems and issues that didn’t previously exist. And the process is not yet complete today, so the final answer on how that whole process worked out overall is still pending. Yes, we got a large number of quality troops when the proportion of women in the military doubled or tripled; women who entered tended to have a higher GT score than their male counterparts. But there were also many new issues created by that change, some of which negatively affected efficiency and effectiveness. One obvious example: what fraction of male soldiers are ever temporarily non-deployable due to pregnancy – or get sent home from deployment for that reason? In contrast, we did not have the same number of problems with the racial integration of the military (there were some issues, particularly as Vietnam drew to a close, but nothing like what… Read more »
Sexual tension, period, is detrimental to combat operations. I have personally witnessed its detrimental effects more than once. The (BV) Zulu is an exception because he apparently did not exhibit it. It doesn’t matter if it is male-male, female-female, or male-female, when one becomes the object of sexual desire, even if un-requitted, but particularly if mutual, the individual extending that desire will act with emotional, not logical, decisions. And when that means they fail to do the right thing, in order to protect the one for which they lust, it puts others in danger. Even if it is only perceived that would occur, it undermines the requisite trust between Warriors on a team. And it seems inevitable that it occurs with regularity between junior enlisted and members of their chain of command. When it occurs between senior and junior troops, even if only perceived, it undermines the discipline of the unit. As detrimental is when that information or rumor reaches the homefront, and troops begin having “family” problems. The argument that counters this (most often) is that Our Troops are supposed to be “professionals,” and such things should not occur. They also happen to be humans, with natural sexual desires. They also happen to tend to be younger (18-21 yo’s) and not have a desire to ignore those desires. And those senior leaders have a tendency to fall to those temptations, that are NORMAL, for them as well. Sexual desire in the workplace may be a common occurence in the civilian workplace, but it can be a deadly occurence in the combat zone. It may be manageable in the rear, but combat operations have a much lower tolerance (life and death) for distracted Troops, or favortism. Emotion is purposely stifled, because it clouds the vision, physically and mentally. CI, I can attest to the detrimental effects, pre-DADT, and during DADT, though I doubt DoD will allow stories to escape its grasp post-DADT. Then again, they told the Troops that if their beliefs, personal or religious, prevent them from embracing their new openly homosexual colleagues, they would not have the option… Read more »
Hondo – Those are all valuable points, and all worthy of much needed discussion. I think the bottom line is where to strike the balance. We could have the most ruthlessly effective military in past and future history, by modeling it on a modern version of Sparta, but wee as a society have decided to establish a baseline for general entry requirements that allow for family support, and the admittance of generally any citizen who can meet these basic criteria.
There are framing narratives however, that don’t lend themselves well to the debate. Nobody is compelled to ’embrace’ someone of a different racial, religious or sexual nature. They are required to do their job.
I too served during DADT and well before, and I believe that our military generally evolves [not using that as a necessary positive, just its base definition] along with society, and that our military is ready to not let reactions to sexual orientation compromise basic military readiness and moral.
Hondo, you label this as a political reason, and it absolutely is, for many on both sides of the argument.
I’d say this is very obviously a purely political decision, CI. Racial and gender integration at least had some degree of military justification (general manpower needs for the former, targeted manpower needs for the latter). I don’t see any such need justifying DADT repeal.
Yes, the political leadership has the authority to direct such a change. And yes, Clausewitz was correct: war is indeed merely a violent continuation of politics. Both are true – and irrelevant.
Ill-considered decisions can have far reaching effects, and often cannot be undone. So it’s best to think significant changes through carefully beforehand. And if a decision is based solely on politics unrelated to national security vice military needs, such a decision for change in the military should IMO be thought through extremely carefully – because it’s by definition not a necessary change.
Change for change’s sake does not guarantee nor imply beneficial change. See Carter, Jimmy.
Points well taken, though I would argue that both gender and racial integration came about for ‘political reasons’ as well; as neither occurred when manpower was in critically short supply.
The mere definition of political decision can as well be misused, as affirming that previous societal norms against treating certain classes with less than full stature of citizenship [i.e. being able to serve their nation in uniform] as obsolete, falls under this label.
I don’t put much stock in falling back on the use of ‘political’ without some serious foundation behind it.
But that said, I still concur with you that these decisions should not be taken lightly nor swiftly.
CI: au contraire re: both racial and gender integration, at least as regards the Army.
While Truman ordered racial integration of the military in 1948, the Army did not implement it until the Korean War and consequent massive personnel losses during the early stages thereof. Prior to then, black soldiers were excluded from combat units or served in separate, all-black combat units (24th Inf). This policy changed during the early part of the Korean War when combat units began accepting black soldiers as individual replacements. It wasn’t until 26 July 1951 that the Army formally adopted racial integration as policy. And it was in direct result of military necessity (lack of manpower) vice politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation
Similarly, the major push for gender integration came with the end of the Vietnam draft, which caused major manpower issues for the Army – particularly in technical branches. Over the next 6 years, the Women’s Army Corps was disestablished, and the proportion of female soldiers in the Army went up dramatically. It wasn’t really until the Carter-era economic hard times that the post-draft manpower “pinch” in the Army eased. There was obviously also a political component to the issue, but manpower shortages due to the termination of the draft was at least as important in forcing the change. See chapters 10 and 11 in
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wac/
@Hondo – “CI: au contraire re: both racial and gender integration, at least as regards the Army.”
And then you went on to prove the point I made. The ‘political’ decision was made in 1948; not during a period of critical manpower shortage. That DA dithered in it’s implementation is largely irrelevant.
It’s amazing how far afield we can go from the original issue, but I’ve enjoyed the discussion nonetheless.
Happy Fathers Day Hondo.
Virtually every contentious decision includes a political element, CI. So that’s a bit of a red herring on your part. And I won’t agree I made your point that the decision was “political” re: racial and gender integration.
Like DADT repeal, each did have a political element. But unlike DADT repeal, each also had sound operational realities arguing for implementation – e.g., manpower shortages. I simply don’t see such an operational reality driving DADT repeal.
Implementation within the Army of both racial and gender integration was driven at least partially if not primarily by manpower concerns in each case. In the case of racial integration that was the only reason the Army integrated blacks into combat units (regrettably, DA leadership appeared to be dragging their feet royally on that one). In the case of gender integration, it was a significant if not the dominant factor that caused gender integration.
DADT repeal has no such manpower justification, so I regard that as purely a political decision.
Have also enjoyed the discussion, CI – and I’m frankly shocked I didn’t catch a few rounds from other quarters on this one. A happy Father’s Day to you as well.
I have to ask, because I’m a single white female (and staying that way): when in the blue-eyed world do I get to see a Straight Pride parade?
Just asking.