A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
I just came back from vacation and I’ve been a writing fool this morning, one of the posts being about the DADT repeal debate. I am putting an edited version of my post up here because I think I have valid questions that need to be addressed. (The editing is cuz, you know, I cuss a lot and I try to be a Good Girl here on ASP. You can get the full effect on my blog, but the pertinent parts are here, so don’t feel obligated to go over to see the f-bomb dropped. haha)
—————————
See, I keep thinking about the legal ramifications of what happens if DADT is repealed. Everyone talks about how gays are serving in the military already (and I personally know this to be true because as an Army wife years ago, I have met some gay men and women who served). Yes, gays absolutely do serve and serve honorably. But currently, in the nation overall, gays have limited rights. I am not saying I agree or disagree with those limitations, I’m stating a fact. In some states they are allowed to marry. In some states they are allowed “civil unions.” In some states, there are state constitutional amendments that prevent them from being married. Which in turn is causing problems with them getting divorced.
I’ve told this story before but I think it is somewhat relevant as an example of legal issues. My ex and I got married in Denmark. The way Danish law is, you have to be a resident to get married and you only have to be in the country for 3 days to be considered a resident, so you get your passport stamped at the border, stay in a hotel 3 days, get married, get your passport stamped on the way out of the country and BAM! You’re now husband and wife. I submitted my marriage certificate (the English version) to the government through the Army, got my ID card changed with my new name, social security card changed, passport changed. But I’m still not too sure how “legal” that was. We came back stateside and asked at the local courthouse if we needed to register our marriage here or what? No clue. So when it came divorce time…..ummmm, are we even legally and technically MARRIED? I mean, what if we just wanted to annul? Would we have been able? No clue. We just went about business as if we were married cuz in a backwards way, we were governmentally and legally sanctioned cuz they changed all my documents, right? I assumed (rightly or wrongly) that federal sanctioning made it legal in all 50 states.
So I had all these rights as a military wife. I could go to the military hospitals, if my ex had gotten killed I would have gotten the military widow benefits, etc.
But what happens in the big picture with gays? There are problems popping up, most notably in Texas, where gay couples who traveled to other states to get married now want a divorce sanctioned by the state. And yet the state constitution says a marriage is between a man and a woman, so the state cannot grant a legal declaration for something that does not exist in the first place within that state.
Hmmmmm.
People say we have better things to worry about than repealing the DADT. I say that there are many more complications than accepting a man or woman who says they are gay and allowing them to serve. Susan Katz Keating said (in comments on my blog linking CJ’s statement post below):
Meh. I think this is all a huge fuss over nuthin.’ The gays already are in the military. People seem to be afraid of the whole drag queen, full-out flaunting it scenario; but I doubt that the DQs will be racing to join the Army…
She ignores the actuality of the gay rights agenda that is being pushed within certain quarters. What if a flaming drag queen DOES join to prove a point? How many straight men are you willing to let go out of the military who are disgusted by serving with someone like that? Are you willing to open up the military to discrimination lawsuits if they try to crack down on a queen because that queen has an agenda to prove a point? Are you so willing to turn a blind eye to the potential activism? I mean, it’s not like they don’t HANDCUFF THEMSELVES TO THE WHITE HOUSE FENCE!! What makes you think that some won’t be willing to push those boundaries, sue for housing, sue for medical rights for partners cuz their home state denies marriage but they’ve been together long enough that they should be considered “married” and therefore should have rights?
There are so many legal issues involved with the repeal and pretending to be an ostrich with your head in the ground is not going to make them go away. It is not going to prevent activists from trying to push for “federal sanctioning” that will outstrip state sanctioning.
Those are some of my thoughts that have rattled around since this topic flared up during the past several years. The discussion is mostly about personal ability to serve along side each other. But even those ties can be strained by a few who would like to prove a point and those who would like to change the whole fabric of how the 10th amendment works for each state’s rights.
You’re welcome to address these thoughts and how you see the legality of what will happen, but try to stay on topic. I am not talking about the moral issue of homosexuality, which I don’t have a problem with. I’m talking about the military, financial, and legal obligations that will fall out of any repeal and how they will be somehow integrated into the military as a whole.
(50) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
[UPDATE] The "Face" of Military Dating Scams - The Wall of Shame
Please, put a fraud on the list. He abused the name of Vice Admiral Ch
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
Lisa: I also met him on Are You Interested... and got the poems :-) If
K.J. Hinton
I’ve never understood this:
“In some states they are allowed “civil unions.” In some states, there are state constitutional amendments that prevent them from being married. Which in turn is causing problems with them getting divorced.”
Gays have exactly and precisely the same rights non-gays have. No more. No less.
Gays in any state have precisely and exactly the same right to marry that I have; that is, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, if that person will have them.
Just. Like. Me.
Gays have the right to enlist in the military knowing the restrictions that enlistment places upon them the same way I did back in the day.
EVERYONE enlisting puts certain rights and activities aside as a condition of enlistment. We all know what they are, so I won’t replay them.
But no one forces anyone to enlist. Don’t like the rules?
Then don’t join.
How hard can that be?
Let’s remember, the military discriminates against people every day for a wide variety of reasons. No one seems upset about that.
So here we have an absolutely level playing field, and gays complain?
Talk to the hand, ladies and gentlemen. In the words of my old platoon sergeant back in the Recon days. “if you’re looking for sympathy, it’s in the dictionary between s&*t and syphilis.”
LL
That is a red herring fallacy. That is not precisely the same right as non-gays to marry who they love and want to marry. A similar analogy is the restriction in some states disallowing close relatives of opposite genders to marry (ie brother/sister or first cousins). The “right” to marry is not universal in any sense; it is regulated by law in each state according to that state’s civil code.
But that doesn’t go to the benefits and allowances that are given to married couples, which is the point of this post. There are a lot of legal ramifications that those milbloggers who support the repeal of DADT didn’t address. Maybe I’ll poke Uncle Jimbo, who drafted the statement of the pro-repeal side, to think about these things.
J
“EVERYONE enlisting puts certain rights and activities aside as a condition of enlistment. We all know what they are, so I won’t replay them.”
So if straight people enlist they have to hide their sexuality? I don’t think so. How level a playing field is it that when deployed you can call your loved one/partner on the phone and be comforted, but a gay soldier cannot under threat of discharge. You can openly say you are in love, while a gay person cannot. Your point IS a red herring.
Back on track to the reality of the question posed: family law is all over the place. Different states have different rules and regs. Straight people take it for granted that they can get married and divorced in one place and it counts in all others. This is only true after decades of legal fights. Gay relationships will largely have to conform to precedent. That being said the military is Federal so it will have to conform to Federal Law. Your questions about gay marriage have no relevance under DOMA. Once DOMA is lifted and once a same-sex marriage is legally accepted in all states then the military will have to respect it as it does any other marriage.
As far as drag queens, how much pushing will one be able to do if they have to live under the regs? Drag queens dress up for shows and wear mens clothes during the day. I don’t see any issues.
Haleiakala
‘So if straight people enlist they have to hide their sexuality? I don’t think so. How level a playing field is it that when deployed you can call your loved one/partner on the phone and be comforted, but a gay soldier cannot under threat of discharge. You can openly say you are in love, while a gay person cannot.’
How do you level a playing field between hetero and homo? Hetero is perfectly natural and normal. Homo is not. It is not normal for a species to have partners of the same sex. We were not designed to continue on as a species in such a way that we cannot reproduce…therefore making homosexuality unnatural. So why treat homo the same as hetero? We are a country based on Christianity, and in the bible homo’s were not accepted either.
CJ
He just can’t do it in the military. I see no problems here.
KTS
I would agree with you to every extend. Being a homosexual, the issues that are at hand do not prevent me from communicating with my partner while i was overseas. Honestly, the US goverment paid for him to fly to Germany when I got shot. My unit commander and other officers made it their business to take care of their soilders the best way they could durning the 19 mo my unit was in Iraq. in the 13 years i have been in the service, this was the first time that their personal belifes was put aside and they looked at the bigger picture. i am a leader and in order for me to be a leader need to place my persona lpreferances aside and deal with the current issue at hand. Bringing all my soilders back to their loved ones. Homosexuals have loved ones to and are attached to American society just as hetrosexuals.
J
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/26/the_sorrow_of_life_under_dadt#commentspace
“I am also not able to talk about my relationships as others are free to discuss their husbands/wives/girl/boyfriends. Could you heterosexuals imagine not being able to say anything about your partner? What if the policy said no one discusses their relationships, period? I bet the suicide rate would skyrocket. Don’t discuss your wife’s new attitude or husband’s infidelity. Don’t talk about your girlfriend getting pregnant or boyfriend proposing. Imagine going throughout your entire career not being able to discuss your relationships and not being able to bring your loved one to any military function. I bet you couldn’t. “
Steve
Forget about protecting the institution of marriage from homosexuals, we need to protect the institution from people such as you. I am shocked by your cavalier attitude concerning marriage and divorce.
You write, “So when it came divorce time” as if it is a normal part of every marriage. When exactly is divorce time? What about your sacred vows?
LL
Dude, you know nothing about me, my life, the agony I went through. If you’re that interested in my “cavalier attitude,” go through and read 6 years worth of blog posts scattered throughout my site to find the tears, misery, and anguish. I write the way I write and I won’t apologize for it. And that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Get over yourself.
Steve
Dude, I don’t need to read the six years of blog posts to know you. If it has nothing to do with the topic at hand why did you bring it up? I commented on something in your post so it’s relevant. You’re the one who insisted on airing your dirty linen in a public forum. I don’t even support gay marriage but I take issue with self righteous prig’s who bloviate about what’s proper for everyone else. Don’t remove the speck from my eye when there is a log in your own.
LL
So basically your position on the legal and financial ramifications of repealing the DADT policy in the military is that you take issue with the fact that I used one phrase in an example of how legalities can get complicated and therefore you know me and my life and I’m a prig and that invalidates my whole point? My suggestion to you is that you go back and take Debate 101 again.
Steve
Well, you are correct in regards to being a writing fool.
SSgtJ
LL, you bring up some interesting points. I don’t see anyone on here actually talking about the legal and financial ramifications.
Lance Hemmert
Perhaps we should treat people as we would like to be treated? You know… Golden Rule… Everyone should be equal.
CJ
Lance, we’re not all equal, that’s the problem.
Steve
CJ, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We not all be able to run a mile in 4 minutes, so in that regard you’re right we are not all equally gifted at running, but we do have equal rights under the law. That’s one of the things that makes America great.
Let’s look to the past to guide the present. During the Civil War we Irish Brigades. In WWII there were units composed of African Americans or Japanese Americans. Let’s have units of voluntary association this time. If homosexuals want to serve let them volunteer to be in a segregated unit. Then we look at the performance of the unit and the individuals. If it works out, then we know whether to disband the unit as a failed experiment or to reintegrate the soldiers.
SSgtJ
Steve, Interesting point about volunary segregated units of homosexuals versus heteralsexuals. Not sure where I stand on that right now (I had been brainwashed into thinking segregation was wrong), but it is certainly an interesting idea.
Steve
If it’s voluntary it should be OK. I went to an all boys high school, so that was segregated by gender. There are still some all female colleges. Segregation still exists so let’s use it for a social experiment.
Steve
Have you ever read this anywhere….
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,”
Are you saying the Declaration of Independence is wrong?
Lance Hemmert
Hi CJ,
The idea that we would rid ourselves of talent simply because someone has a same-sex attraction is bizarre to me. The idea that someone might feel uncomfortable because a gay woman or man is serving in his or her unit silly. Women have to deal with male sexuality at a mind boggling level, especially if they’re deployed. But they generally do it, and they generally serve with distinction. Bottom line, women get eye-fucked every_single_day CONUS and OCONUS, but we would NEVER prevent men from serving because they are attracted to women. What a ridiculous notion. If some men are that sensitive to the idea of homosexuality then THEY are the one’s who need some self-reflection. Are they bigots? Are the prejudiced? Are these traits we want in soldiers?
I have no problem serving with homosexuals. Apparently there are a myriad of countries who allow homosexual to serve openly, and frankly… As Americans who value liberty and the right to self-determination we shouldn’t discriminate against homosexuals. That’s disturbing.
As long as an American is willing to defend our Constitution I have no problem with them. None whatsoever.
V/R
Lance
Janaina
Lance, i make your words mine, if you allow me. Beautiful!
i dont see what sexual tendency has to do with being a patriot and able to serve the country!
sorry…. I have met a person that actually has been thrown out off the military for being an homosexual, and i am sure that the military doesnt see what an amazing doctor they lost.
Jana
SSgtJ
How did they get “outed”?
J
” SSgtJ says:
20 May 2010 at 2:21 pm
How did they get “outed”?
There are multiple ways to be outed, either by their own choice (unable to continue lying and unable to live under the pressure of hiding every aspect of their personal lives) or they get outed by someone else either finding out or assuming.
What is your point?
SSgtJ
J, I asked “How did “THEY” get outed?” I asked about that specific person that Janaina said was “outed”. I didn’t ask how they COULD get “outed”.
KTS
In all honesty those servicemen and woman are really not conserned with homosexuality when they are geeting fired upon form the enamy. They could careless. I know I did. Just because i am attracted to men do not or has it ever ment that i am not a professional or a leader .. My soilders did not care about my sexuality; although many of them knew . Their main consern was how is this SOB going to make sure we all is comming back . The Don’t Ask , Dont Tell is nothing but a political issue form some homophobic SOB that was mostlikely tuched when they was young or undecover … . Protecting a country that refuse to see them as equals is my issue.. They did the same thing to Blacks back durning the Civil war … AS the Worrld Truns .. Homosexuality is the hot topic right now because America has talked about everything else and beat the S*** out of that deas horse about it .. Move on an alow Americans to be American .. Home of the FREE and the Brave. That is what Our nation was founded on…
CJ
KTS, this is a tired argument. “When the bullets are flying….blah blah blah.” I wouldn’t care if the person next to me is flaming racist, nazi sympathizing, bigotted arse monkey as long he’s shooting at the same people I am – and hitting them. So, unless you are advocating that we simply send all the homosexuals to war until they either die or the war is over, you completely gloss over the rest of Army life where homosexuality is incompatible.
SSgtJ
No one is actually talking about the point of this post … legal and finanacial issues.
As far as the “social issues” … we are talking about a major social change for our troops. All of you that have served know that our troops MUST be “programmed” differently then most civilians just so they can do their job in that HELL we call war.
LL
Ideologically, I’m actually for equal rights. I’m a libertarian and it offends me mightily any legislations that try to impose moral strictures on citizens (from the federal level. I’m a firm believer in the Constitution and 10th amendment and each community needs to decide for itself what is best for its residents at the local level) and on the other side of the spectrum, I’m also opposed to those that impose financial obligations upon the country out of some misplaced “morality” of taking care of those who refuse to take care of themselves. So basically, both parties make me sick. That being said, this was an exercise in long term thinking and taking the bigger view of what the fallout will be if the DADT is repealed forthwith. The SOFA agreements, the benefits issues, the federal versus states sanctioning of marriage as a property right issue.
Apparently though, people prefer to look at the pretty and simple “yay, we will all just get along and everything will sort itself out by magic” philosophy. Hope it works out that simply, but I’m a realist, and I suspect it’s going to be a little more complicated than a dictate from On High that all is well in the universe when one policy is declared null & void.
dusgalanOne of MT
First, being gay in my opinion is kind of wierd. I would think that since I am heterosexual. But that don’t make you bad or evil. Jesus still loves you. You still have the capacity for loving and relationships. However, we can use you in our combat mission and related duties as we can any other true patriot. Don’t let your “orientation” distract you. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart for your service. The nation and I appreciates it, really. Please just keep it to yourself and with whomever you are “involved” with. If you were attracted to me, then I’d tell you–”get the hell off my ass” as I would say to any person whom I didn’t see any interest in. Being queer has nothing to do with it–goes for males or females. I’m in a monogomous relationship (called marriage) and that’s the way it is. You people have a tough road ahead and I wish you all the best! Don’t give up!
J
“Please just keep it to yourself and with whomever you are “involved” with. ”
So gay people have to “keep it to themselves” but you get to tell us you are married? What if that simple statement you just made was illegal and you could lose your job or home for it? If you wish gays all the best don’t support the ideas that force them to second class citizenship.
Joshua
But it isn’t illegal and he is allowed to announce he/shes married, unlike gays because stuff like that is unethical and humanly not right according to the bible. On top of that gay rights isn’t fully legal….just saying…
usmc_e4
Repealing DADT would be a logistical nightmare. In the short: The organization would have to establish strict individual privacy in certain situations. In a controlled environment is not a potential problem. However in an uncontrolled environment (e.g. conflict), this becomes an strategic burden.
Currently the military goes to great lengths to do this now for men and women. Example: Men and women do not room together, do not use the same head, do not shower together. This is done for more than obvious reasons. Namely sexual harassment, e.o. issues, etc… However this segregation is easily accomplished do to the strict boundaries regarding these two groups: a man, a woman.
Now how will this be effectively implemented with homosexuals? Just as men are not permitted to be roomed with women, the same would apply to a gay man or woman. This is where the logistical issues arise- what becomes of this individual? They cannot be placed with ANY gender, heterosexual or homosexual, because of a potential liability of unwanted sexual advances stemming from either sex or orientation.
The repeal will force the DoD to acknowledge and to create provisions for it. So to potentially avoid the aforementioned EO issues, what was 2 groups, now has become 4. The size of this group would be extremely small vs. the cost to accommodate it. See: Cost benefit analysis. (Cost not necessarily referring to money). Its in my opinion that the money required to implement and maintain such a radical change could be better spent elsewhere, rather than bending over backwards for a few people.
No one has any issues with homosexual patriotism, or their skill in service. The real issues lie where the boundaries become blurred and the logistical problems that would arise because of it. In today’s PC society the minority has the largest voice; selflessness has been replaced with selfishness.
The infrastructure will collapse trying to accommodate everyone. End of story. The sad thing is no one will understand until they truly need it (too late).
b
Quartermaster
The gay rights activists, and their useful ideiots, give no consideration to the problems repealing the ban on homosexual activity will cause.
The stuff about “loving relationships” really are red herrings (as LL claims for the opposition above).
Add the fact that homsexuality is a mental illness and is still widely recognized as such, inspite of it being removed from the DSM in the early 70s for political reasons, complicates the facts for those who want repeal.
DADT has had a corrosive influence, just as placing women in combat roles and on ships has had. Our Military has become progressively weaker as PC and “diversity” has become stronger.
The people who are behind this really have no love for the military or for country. David Horowitz has said that the left was out to destroy the military and the way to do it was to get women into combat and open homosexuality in the military. Those knowing Horowitz know he was a wheel in the new left in the 60s and early 70s.
Repeal of DADT is not about giving anyone “equal” rights, but about destruction. The Milbloggers who signed onto the DADT repeal, as well as LL, are simply useful idiots.
Christian
Quartermaster, has rightly summed up the issue here! This is not about preventing a group from exercising/displaying thier patriotism, this is purely trying to use this platform to promote and lagitimize homosexuality. It is and always will be a perversion of nature and an abomanation to God, no matter how many people wanting to be politically correct, sign on to it.
J
“Add the fact that homsexuality is a mental illness and is still widely recognized as such, inspite of it being removed from the DSM in the early 70s for political reasons, complicates the facts for those who want repeal.”
Did you ever think it was ADDED for political reasons? You assume removing it is wrong as if its initial inclusion HAS to be right.
Maybe being a bigot is a mental illness?
J
Your points on the shower and head are moot. Gays are already in the shower and head. Men and women are not already sharing the shower and head.
The correct analogy to your example would be if men and women were already sharing it and then were expected to have separate showers and heads, just as gays and straights (by gender) are already sharing showers and heads and you are asking they now be separated.
SSgtJ
J, I am not arguing for or against gay’s in the military. Just trying to get past the politics and emotions on this.
Why do we bother to separate people by gender into different bathrooms right now?
Geo
I have a few questions with regard to the debate of permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the military:
United States Code: Title 10: Subtitle A: Part II: Chapter 37: §654 covers the policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces. It bans homosexual conduct and people who identify themselves as a homosexual. DADT was a policy formed under former President Clinton regarding which homosexual acts could get a service member disciplined or discharged and how investigations could be conducted into alleged homosexual acts. Given this, what good would the repeal of DADT do for homosexuals if there’s still a Congressional decision banning homosexual acts in the military?
Also how are the UCMJ laws concerning cohabitation and sodomy going to be rewritten? How are openly serving homosexuals going to be accommodated in regards to living quarters? Are openly serving homosexuals going to be allowed to serve on ships or subs (two places which produce extremely unique living conditions)? Will it be a requirement to declare sexual preference before entering the military or will that be considered optional? Can service members who declare themselves homo- or heterosexual change their minds? If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly, what about transvestites, bisexuals, bi-curious people, cross-dressers, etc. being able to serve openly (who is considered…just heterosexuals and homosexuals then)?
What about gay couples with regards to military benefits? Will the military recognize gay marriage or gay couples? Will the significant other of a homosexual serving in the military receive military benefits? What effect will this have on various states having different laws regarding gay marriage?
I have more questions but these are the ones that just came to mind while reading various blogs and debates on the matter. I’ve tried to answer these questions but any solution I come up with just doesn’t seem to work.
Lance Hemmert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben
JeremyWestenn
This entire post is very disparaging- and downright homophobic. Let me tell you something, draq queens will most certainly not join the military- you are not going to get Ru Paul or Elton John gay folks, your going to get Brokeback Mountain gay. Furthermore wild hypotheticals aren’t even worthy of consideration. If a soldier is doing something disruptive and untoward then he or she will be stopped by the commander.
Furthermore, the military is going to set forth a comprehensive policy when the time comes to deal with this repeal. I am sure that policy is going to contain some sort of military recognition of partnerships- the military equivalent of domestic partnerships, do that gay couples and families aren’t left out to dry financially. Please also note that having a domestic partnership system or a civil union system in the military is not in conflict with DOMA.
Running on the possibility of an extreme stereotype joining the military, and then flagrantly acting in disgust and freaking out over it is an illegitimate argument from someone whose essentially a bigot and not trying to sound like it.
Furthermore, I have no idea what your talking about when you describe the legal maze you went through in getting married in Denmark. There is no system in this country that recognizes same-gender marriages from other countries unless your taking that marriage to a state or district that all ready recognizes it. Your making up a fake argument and arguing that some sort of catastrophic conclusion could come from this. Domestic partnership system does not equate to marrying in Denmark. Your all over the place.
DADT is going to be repealed, and just like Argentina, Canada, England, Germany, France, Israel, and essentially every country in Europe with an armed forces- we are going to find a way to do this that is going to be good for the military, and good for our personnel. The time of screwing our soldiers out of a family, a respectable career, and common human decency is coming to an end.
LL
Jeremy, the Denmark example has to do with SOFAs. Those are Status of Forces Agreements that govern civil and criminal matters having to do with US forces stationed overseas. Some foreign countries that have US forces stationed at bases allow gay marriage. My point about the Denmark marriage example is that there are greater things to think about such as renegotiating those governing international agreements, in addition to what needs to be done at the state department level because the United States does not recognize gay marriage at the federal level. Bringing home a foreign spouse is complicated between a man and a woman. A gay couple would be doubly so because SOFA does not cover those issues and neither does immigration laws for spouses of US military.
The whole point of this post is that this is all a lot more complicated than just waving a magic wand and it’s good-to-go. Congress is the one who writes laws such as the UCMJ and all of the changes, ALL of them, would have to be by Congressional legislation.
Not such an easy-peasy endeavor.
JeremyWestenn
One of the above posters wrote about the UCMJ laws and sodomy and prohibitions on sexual conduct. It is high time those laws be updated. As I understand it essentially any non vaginal sexual conduct in the military is considered against the UCMJ. As long as it is safe, consensual, and between adults it really shouldn’t matter who puts what where or what they do it with in the privacy of their own home. That is again an illegitimate argument. Those restrictions on sexual conduct just need to be completely removed, period. Let adults do adult things together- and newsflash folks, heterosexual people have been doing those things forever.
Regarding people going through hormone therapy or gender reassingment- those folks most certainly are not going to be able to serve in the military. Just like you can’t have diabetes and be in the service(Unless you develop the disease during the service, but that’s just semantics) you are not going to be allowed to be on active duty and take hormonal supplements to change your body. That will lead to a medical discharge.
Either you guys make this more complicated on purpose in your minds or you just flat out shrug your soldiers at common sense and say ” I can’t find a way to make it work.
”
Folks, let’s get real.
Jinger
Since you were a wife and not actually a soldier, shouldn’t it say: “A Soldier’s Wife’s Perspective?”
I found this in the search engines, and I thought it was actually written by a soldier. It’s very misleading.
Since you’ve never served, what makes you an expert on the topic? You don’t know what it’s like.
I got married in Denmark to a fellow soldier when I was serving, and I had none of the problems getting married there that you’re talking about. When I got ready to get a divorce, it was no problem.
Instead of making the debate clearer, I think you just muddied the waters even more.
Since there are over 1100 former officers, 46 of them flag officers, who signed a statement against gays in the military, don’t you think they are more qualified to debate and decide this topic than you are?
I for one am sick of this issue simply because, like a lot of other things in the homosexual agenda, it has nothing to do with civil rights. It has everything to do with serving their agenda.
CJ
I have many authors on this site, and she was invited here by me. Nothing misleading about it unless you only look at one piece of information.
LL
Since you didn’t bother to confirm that this site used to belong to CJ Grisham, who is an active duty soldier, I’ll give you some leeway. Try reading comments that clarify my point about being married in Denmark before commenting. The POINT is that SOFA covers overseas marriages and those are federally negotiated international agreements between the United States and other nations. Since at the federal level, gay marriage is not recognized, first thing off the bat is the difficulty of bringing foreign national spouses into the country using marriage as a qualifier.
That’s the last time I am saying that. Ugh. What is with you people who want to “have a dialogue” but don’t actually LOOK at the website or dialogue first. *rolls eyes*
Oh, and FYI, I never once claimed to “be an expert” on this topic. I specifically say that “those are my thoughts…..”
Basically, what I’m saying is that I’m taking back that “leeway” and I’m telling you to get over yourself.
Pingback: Interesting Conclusion | A Soldier's Perspective
Jonathan
I find it interesting when heterosexuals debate the “gay agenda” especially when they have no idea what the “gay agenda” is. Staying on topic of the legal ramifications of gay service members and their prospective “spouses”. I have been with my partner for eleven years. We met each other when we were both active duty. After we had been together three years, my partner and I were going to be separated because he was being stationed over seas and I was going to be stationed someplace stateside. So I decided to end my career just so we could stay together. While I was not able to travel with him over seas, we treated his two year assignment as a long deployment. Which meant he would come home for a month every six months for a visit and I would travel overseas every six months for a one month visit. This lasted the two years he was stationed in another country. Had I been afforded the same rights as a military spouse, I would have been able to travel with him, just as any other military spouse. What’s wrong with that? It would cost exactly the same to send my ass to another country as some dependent wife, actually less as we have no dependent children. As far as health care costs are concerned, why should I not be afforded proper health care or any other entitlements that a dependent wife is afforded. We talk about the cost of paying for “all of this” when we already do pay for the thousands of others entitled to these benefits. My relationship has been through the wringer, it has suffered years of separation, closeted existence, secret meetings that make the national security of our nation seem pre-school in comparison. I have been subjected to a non-person, non-existance, role for years, and I accepted these indignanties as the terms for my relationship with the man I love. Now that there is a possibility for me to actually exist, to declare my relationship is real, to walk into the command my “husband” works and bring him lunch, or go to lunch with him, attend a command function or have him hold my hand in the doctors office, or God forbid, accept the flag at his funeral I say thank you. For once in eleven years I feel there may be an end to this charade. And if this repeal doesn’t happen, just know, I will continue to serve, in silence, proudly. I don’t care about law suits. I am not interested in suing the united states for discrimination and as far as I can tell from the hundreds of others that I have met in the same situation as I, yes, there are hundreds if not thousands of us out here, they aren’t interested in that either. I am sure there are some, but I have not met them and don’t care to. Most of us only want the same treatment. The most recognizable of all American ideas and might I add the most respected, All Men are Created Equal.
Doug`
Are we all forgetting that the military is not life as we know it? Civil liberties don’t always apply. Are we agreeing that it would be perfectly normal for a guy to stare, ogle a woman in a shower when she could not get away from him? On a ship at sea? What happens when the law prevents the woman from from complaining or pressing charges when he makes advances while he is naked in the shower? Now make this a guy who is attracted to a guy. In the military you can’t always go out at night for a date.
Do you believe the gay lobby will stand by when the ogled guy threatens or punches the interested party? Will the Chaplain who believe the Bible, why else did he become a Chaplain is told change or leave? There have always been gays in the military, but they could not flaunt it. The number of gays who have used their get out of jail card, dadt, will be gone. No longer can they say, I’m gay and want an honorable discharge. They will be in for the duration.
Homophobe
After 22 years of service, I still stand firm on my beliefs that, if a man cannot conceive a baby in his ass, homosexuality IS NOT NORMAL. And whether homosexuals serve proudly or render greater patriotism that their fellow comrades is irrelevant. It is their lifestyle that creaste a potential for future issues now that the DADT policy has been repealead. While I understand “their” appeal for equal rights, they are not equal. To allow such polices caterin to homosexuals to openly serve is a significant leap for equality, it does not belong in the military so openly.
The challenges associated is the greater good over the minority demand. I for one, serve honorably, and proudly, and could care less about one’s sexual orientation as long a sit does NOT affect me. Now, if you are telling me I must accept “their” lifestyle and if not, I am a bigot, how stupid does that sound, that you force their beliefs onto me? You are missing the big picture. First of all, society doe snot ductate how the military functions, but it does pose considerations. And only to compensate the few hundreds or thousands whining about equality will not stop at the DADT repeal. That will not be good enough. They will demand equality in housing, BAH benefits, medical benefits, assignment preferences, etc. But how will that affect state laws who do not onor same sex marriages? So the military has to reconsider assignment selection to be in accordance with state or country laws? As for showers and latrines, yes, it is no issue under teh DADTpolicy, but when Soldiers know so-and-so is in fact a homosexual, it may affect unit morale or cohesion when it comes to individual comforts of openly showrring next to someone they know may be leering at them. If it is ok for a homosexual to stand next to me in the showers and not be viewed as inappropriate, why not allow heterosexual men shower with heterosexual women “as long as they do not make them feel uncomfortable”. This is a very delicate subject at hand, and as mentioned, I dont care what anyones preference is, just dont force their beliefs on me or anyone else.
Lance Hemmert
If, by your standards, that conception is required to marry then those who have opted to get “snipped” or older heterosexuals who experience menopause are second-class citizens. Your morality is simply a construct placed on you by bigots. I hope you would reconsider your stance since all Americans are entitled to rights afforded to them through the Constitution as long as they support the Constitution. I hope you see the value in that.
- Lance