The San Diego Gay Pride servicemembers
Apparently, winning the repeal of the Clinton era Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy towards gays is more important than winning any war against terror, at least in San Diego this weekend. From the Associated Press;
Dozens of soldiers, sailors, and Marines marched alongside an old Army truck decorated with a “Freedom to Serve” banner and a rainbow flag. They were joined by dozens more military personnel in civilian clothes, but the uniforms stood out among the flower-bedecked floats and scantily clad revelers.
Spectators waved signs reading, “Thank you for your service.” A woman held a placard that said: “My gay son is a Naval officer.”
“Today is so important,” said Navy Lt. Brian McKinney, who marched with his civilian partner, Hunter Hammonds. “It’s about putting on my uniform and taking pride in my service, my fellow service-members, my family and myself. It’s something I’m incredibly thankful for.”
Category: Military issues
I take pride in being a soldier. That above all else defines me as a person. Everything else is secondary. The pride I take in being gay is the fact that I can finally live up to ALL 7 of the Army’s core values. It is pride in serving honestly not openly.
As I have stated, this parade WAS a MISTAKE. No special treatment should be given, FOR ANY REASON.
@47 – “CI seriously? you wonder what party a gay pride parade supports? Have you spent the last 30 years in an ice cave or was it solitary confinement?”
Nope. Civil libertarians come in all flavors, Conservative and Liberal. This is an issue of individual liberty.
Perhaps if a certain party decided to finally own that issue, instead of paying it lip service, they could lock in a semi permanent majority…instead of tilting the teeter-totter every few years.
Quote CI: “Because prior to DADT repeal, homosexuals could not do likewise under the UCMJ.”
Actually, they could. And did. There has not been (in our culture) proof of heterosexuality required to marry. So, yes indeedy, homosexuals did marry persons not of their gender and probably will continue to do so. They may or may not marry their sex partner, but let’s face it – failing to have exclusive (or any) sex with your marriage partner is nothing new.
@Melle – “Furthermore I don’t know why you take pride in something that y’all say is genetic anyways.. but that is just me.”
Concur completely. I never understood the ‘pride’ angle…always chalked it up to ill thought backlash at being denied basic privileges under the law. But I think it’s been counter-productive.
And I didn’t say that lascivious embraces happened ‘all the time’…but they certainly happened often. What can I say…Grunts are sexy and their women know it!
If marriage wasn’t a representation of sexuality then gay marriage would not have been barred under DADT. The military expects marriage to be about two people in love – which IS a sign of sexuality- hence fraud prosecutions for people who get BHA based on marriage when they aren’t actual couples (which happened to both gay and straight people). When you get married you are telling people that you are in a loving, sexual relationship. That is broadcasting sexuality. It doesn’t matter if you are actually straight, it is a broadcast of straightness if the couple is a man and a woman. Further proof- lack of sexual relations is a ground for divorce. It is legally expected that sex is part of marriage (although these days, thankfully, forcing your partner is considered rape). It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that a man and a woman getting married isn’t an outward expression of straight sexuality. Of course a gay person can get married a straight person, but unless you know that tidbit of information you assume they are straight. Can some of you not see that you ignore straight broadcasts of sexuality because they don’t stand out to you? You confuse your lack of perception with lack of existence.
It is also intellectually dishonest to equate a marriage based on love with one based on something else. I can’t imagine you consider your own marriages to be so worthless as to be comparable to a marriage of convenience or for legal benefits alone.
–It is also intellectually dishonest to equate a marriage based on love with one based on something else. I can’t imagine you consider your own marriages to be so worthless as to be comparable to a marriage of convenience or for legal benefits alone.
You are talking about why people make a committment. State marriage is strictly about benefits and isn’t about who you love or have sex with. The state could care less if you loooove your partner. In fact, the state nowadays prefers if you don’t hence why the state encourages divorce via no-fault. Love is why you commit and has nothing to do with a piece of paper from the state. State marriage and military recognition of it is solely based on benefits awarded. It is intellectually dishonest to link “state marriage” with love..
-It doesn’t matter if you are actually straight, it is a broadcast of straightness if the couple is a man and a woman.
No that is the ASSUMPTION, but isn’t even remotely true as exampled by Jim McGreevy and many others who have married the other sex and not been straight.
Just as there has never been a test for sexuality required for marriage in this country, there has never been a requirement for “love,” whatever one’s definition of that might be. In reality there are, and always have been, a hugely significant number of marriages of conveninece of one sort or another. Could be a merger of families for property, a guy gets him a trophy wife, or a host of other reasons good enough for the participants but none of my business.
Because there are so many reasons for any marriage, assuming anything about what motivated the partners within any marriage is rather prejudiced, isn’t it?
@51 nobody asked you to lie. You were just told to not talk. DADT applied to any and all sexual orientation.
Nobody ordered you to go along with jokes or a line of conversation that made you feel uncomfortable…..you “went along jokingly” of your own accord. DADT actually protected you in those moments but YOU choose to lie and decieve instead of saying anything to change the manner of conversation or topic. YOU violated the core values of your own free will and admission.
While some units are more relaxed than others there still is the old line unit mentality of march in sing the army song go get your gear and leave. If you don’t know of any soldier punished for performing a little scene with his wife maybe you didn’t go to enough homecomings.
I don’t care what type of gender people prefer, I honestly didn’t care for DADT one way or the other. Supposed to be a soldier or marine etc first.
I still don’t know how people were stopped from naming whoever they want on their death benefits. That really is a failed talking point.
CI: “Nope. Civil libertarians come in all flavors, Conservative and Liberal. This is an issue of individual liberty.”
Yes, individual liberty is a great thing in the US. However, as a servicemember, you are not looked at, especially in uniform, as an “individual.” You represent the military. When I go to my chain of command and say, “I’d like to go to a strip club in my uniform so I can celebrate being heterosexual,” they’ll tell me Hell No. And from the pictures I’ve seen and news reports, some gay pride parades are worse than strip clubs in their nudity and activity.
CI: “Perhaps if a certain party decided to finally own that issue, instead of paying it lip service, they could lock in a semi permanent majority…instead of tilting the teeter-totter every few years.”
You’re right, those bloody democrats need to get a spine and walk it like they talk it…
@59, when I was in the Navy, sailors on shore leave and soldiers/Marines, etc., went to bars and strip clubs in their uniforms all the time. No one told them they couldn’t, but it was the ’60s and things were a lot less annoying then. So when did that change?
When Romney is elected hopefully he’ll put an end to all this foolishness like he promised, then we can get back to business.
At the least I imagine Romney will stop trying to “balance the budget on the backs of veterans” like Obama is doing, though that was one of his campaign promises not to do, along with 500+ other campaign promises…
@58 During DADT a good number of investigations of homosexual soldiers began when they spoke out against these actions.
And your deluding yourself saying it protected me. Your right it was my choice to lie, the other option being discharge.
@33: Unfortunately, your motivations, and those of abs @13, aren’t what this discussion is about. This discussion is about those that want to be identified as gay first and soldier, sailor, airman, or marine second. That is exactly why I had my own personal reservations about the repeal of DADT. Not because I cared who you hugged and kissed after coming home from deployment, but because the person was more interested in identifying their sexual preference ahead of everything else. Just as the whole “celebrate diversity” bullshit has done more to advance willful segregation, this, too, is about willful segregation. No one is an American, anymore, you are an African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, gay-American, etc. Well, I never heard my fellow black, Asian, Hispanic, etc. soldiers ever identify themselves as anything hyphenated when saying they were a soldier. Now, some want to be a hyphenated soldier, because no one would be able to tell if they were gay just by looking at the person in uniform, so they want to proudly proclaim such while in uniform, which, in my opinion, detracts from the reason they signed up and the mission.
Others, like Choi-boy, made the lame excuse that he was thrown out of the military for being gay. No; he was thrown out of the military for being a sub-par leader and a douche.
@58 – “DADT applied to any and all sexual orientation.”
Not according to the policy debate and the regulation regarding DADT.
@59 – Of course I was speaking of the other party….
I remember Ft. Campbell in ,I believe, 1998 when PFC Winchell got beat to death in the barracks. He got killed because he whooped another Soldier at a keg party and the Soldier that got beat wanted payback. They didn’t know it at the time but it came out later that he was gay. Gay rights groups were protesting at the front gate demanding the CG be relieved. After that all you had to do was say “I’m gay” and you were out of the Army in 3 days. Within a week my Brigade had 19 people say that they were gay. I’m sure out of the 19 there were a few that said it just to get out.
@ #13 abs, I agree. The idea behind a uniform is simple: uniformity, and not “standing out.” It’s kind of like that Family Guy episode where Peter Griffin goes to war in a clown outfit. And just to be clear, I’m not saying what those service members are doing is clownish. I’m bi and I’m not ashamed of who I am either. But I don’t find any sense or desire to wear my military uniform while advocating for gay rights.
So basically, this “parade” shows me once and for all.
It was never, is not, never will be about “equal rights.” No, you don’t want to be equal, gheys–you want to be “SPECIAL!”
Wish granted.
@60…30 years at least.
@69: Sparky, it’s been at least that, because when I was in, it was a huge no-no to go into any establishment of questionable morality or good order while in uniform. As for bars, it depended on the bar, because I saw people in uniform in airport bars all the time, while travelling, however, it wasn’t common to see military folk travelling in uniform. I saw it at Christmas time at O’Hare in Chi-town with a bunch of Navy types from Great Lakes. There were the “off limits” establishments, that were defined by the CO at every military installation, also, and you were briefed on those all the time.
I only said 30 years because that’s about when I came in. I was one of those kids fresh out of boot or A school at Christmas at O’Hare.
And after the “Great Snipe Riot” back in the early 80’s, you pretty much either didn’t go out to 22nd Street in civvies (Helm Club was okay) or changed clothes in your/buddy’s car on the way to Milwaukee (if 18) or Chicago (if 21).
@63 “And your deluding yourself saying it protected me. Your right it was my choice to lie, the other option being discharge.” Or, you could have just kept your yap shut like most of us did about our personal lives and drove on. When I finally got my 5’s, I stopped those inappropriate jokes when I heard them, whether they were disparaging to homosexuals or women. Otherwise, I treated all my soldiers equal and expected them to do the same. @65, “Not according to the policy debate and the regulation regarding DADT.” Okay, the debate of DADT only hit the talking points of its strongest detractors. It is similar to what seems more important to the President, talking about the good things he has done or the bad things his opponent has done. Of course the debate will be about the homosexual aspect of DADT. As for the regulation, it was actually four parts. “Don’t Ask” meant that it was mandated that no personnel ask a service member to reveal their sexual orientation. “Don’t Tell” meant that you could be discharged for revealing your sexuality, whether your were homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. The third part, “Don’t Pursue,” detailed exactly what was necessary for a command to begin an investigation into the information revealed. Finally, “Don’t Harass” made it illegal to harass any member for anything regarding sexual orientation or gender. Sure, about 13,650 homosexuals were discharged from the military, but it wasn’t because of DADT. DADT is only the initiating factor. The military’s anti-sodomy laws were the primary reason for the discharge. And before you go saying that it was targeting homosexuals, it was first used in the Revolutionary war and included such things as oral sex. Many more straight SMs were discharged for this and other reasons. Remember the story of the female bomber pilot who committed adultery? DADT was responsible for that because she was bragging about it to her flight crew. Many other SMs were booted for the same and similar reasons. But, because of the “debate” all the public has ever heard about was the homosexual… Read more »
@Flagwaver – “Of course the debate will be about the homosexual aspect of DADT.”
Again…no. Unless you have something that specifies heterosexuality being covered under DADT, I invite you read the original DADT bill [as well as he repeal bill].
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr2401enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr2401enr.pdf
You are correct regarding sodomy laws….thankfully those are disappearing.
“I guess you have your equality now.”
I presume you mean ‘you’ in the general sense….I’ve had my equality in this regard since birth.
@ 68 Sparky. Amen! I remember the old adage, “Beware what you wish for, you just may get it.” They got it.
@71 – Sparky, that’s weird. I worked in downtown Chicago from 1975 until I retired in 2008. Up until the fall of 2001, I regularly saw sailors coming from Great Lakes on boot liberty in summer whites or blues if it was fall thru spring. And I have also seen women on weekends in uniform at local restaurants. They may be in the service schools at GLakes.
But then my niece, who was a surgical nurse at Walter Reed when the planes were hijacked, told me that all military personnel were instructed to not wear their uniforms when traveling or going on liberty until further notice. She was later deployed to Iraq.
This is sickening and an embarrassment to the uniform, plain and simple. Furthermore, I do not support homosexuals. I do not care to know that they are indeed gay. Their sexual choice needs to be kept private and out of the “uniform” also. What you choose to do with your life however fucked up it maybe is your choice! Same goes for straight folks who are so, keep it to yourself and do your damned job!
PH2–those were the Ricks on graduation weekend, more likely than not. As soon as you left RTC, you found your civvies, or bought a set that you snuck past the quarterdeck at NTC barracks (no civvies for first 8 weeks for E-3 and below) and stashed them.