Pentagon surveys troops on DADT (again)
 

OK this is probably :dedhors2: but Sec Gates was just on TV talking about his new scientific survey

I am astounded by Gates saying he insisted on doubling the number of troops to survey to 400,000, as if he believed this would improve the statistical results of the survey.

For a military that supposedly can calculate the statistical outcomes of multi-faceted battles, taking into account numbers of troops, equipment, climate, geography, I am dismayed that the military leadership can not come to a legitimate recommendation on DADT. They have already done the studies

It strikes me that this is just a cloy-ploy by the military leadership to convince the pubic that they have to keep DADT or some form of it.

Let see, during the Truman administration should we have surveyed the "white troops" to see if African Americans / Blacks / Negros / ... should be treated equally in the military ? Or should we survey the "male troops" to see if women should be treated equally ? Or the "Christian troops" to see is Muslims should be treated equally ?

Maybe a survey of the non-com's to see if the commissioned officers should be subjected to DADT ?

Gad, all this homophobia makes me sick... So I'm taking the liberty of quoting another Dweller (without permission) on another thread because I can't say it any better:

Again, I just heard on TV... that a Federal Court judge has ruled in favor of the State of Massachusetts with respect to the Federal law known as the "Defense of Marriage Act - DOMA" as being unconstitutional.

The talking-heads are saying this means that Massachusetts does NOT have to treat same-sex marriages differently than traditional marriages with respect to any/all federal benefits. For example, federal veterans benefits will be available in Massachusetts to all married vets. The judge ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional with respect to the 10th Amendment.

They also are saying that since this summary judgement was not "stayed", the decision is effective immediately.

Cheers Ll. You don't need permission on this forum to quote anything anyone says.... for any reason.

.....

On the bright side, there has been so many discussions about it pertaining to several aspects of their role in society, it's forced people to actually think about it, instead of just pushing out of their mind. I think this is a good thing.

Most of the public opinion polls show a definite increasing in the number of people accepting queers deserve equality. I think this is a direct result of all these debates going on. Sure there are still rabid opponents, but rational people that might not have examined their inherited prejudices/fears, until they had to debate the issue, have changed their minds.

Gay marriage has been a much talked about element of this election in Oz. Both sides are sticking with the line that marriage is between a man and a woman so therefore there will be no changes to the legislation at this point in time. Even one of the Cabinet Ministers who does not hide the fact that she is gay is going with the party line.

Here's what one of the comedy programs had to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGtemB28Vo&NR=1

Not to thread-jack, but I would like to add that this issue also affects transgenders. Most gay issues do, including the right to marry.

Here in Texas, we have the case of Nikki Arraguz, a transgender woman who married a firefighter who was killed in the line of duty on July 4. His family is contesting her right to inherit her husband's estate and is suing for as much as they can get to include custody of his two children from a previous marriage. Nikki had been barred from spending any money from the estate and even prevented from living in their home until the 16th, when she was given $58,000 that was specifically designated to her and thus was not subject to the probate proceeding.

This case promises to define marriage for all Texas transgendered people, whether male or female. Much as gay persons, transgendered people are not permitted to marry as they are still legally male (or female) even after a surgical sex change under Texas law and since Texas does not permit gay marriage, every transgendered person married to a member of the opposite sex is in a gay marriage and thus the union is void. The status of transgendered people who are married to a person of the same sex is still unclear.

To me, equal rights are just that...equal. Marriage has been defined as a basic right time and again by the SCOTUS, with no mention of gender at all. So, a person who has a sex change (who is no longer a member of their birth gender IMO) should be able to marry a person of their choosing. Gays should be able to do the same. Without state interference.

The same applies to serving in the military. Gays are qualified to serve. It has been shown that sexual orientation has little effect on unit morale or ability to perform their duty. Transgendered persons can do the same. As long as the soldier (or sailor or airman) is able to do their job, they ought to be allowed to do so.

Heck, sexual preference has NO bearing on that at all! I know a lot of guys that preferred their hands to living people, which seems like a preference to me. I happened to like a lot of leather to be involved in MY sex when I was younger and that didn't affect my ability to serve either. It was just a preference. I see no difference.

DADT needs to go, along with any regulations dealing with who is fucking whom.

Generational views are having an impact as well as the issue's exposure. While I would not view the current 18-25 year olds as not homophobic, they are largely homophobic, but they are also accepting and largely pro-gay marriage.

I am guessing that in 25 to 30 years, the gay marriage debate will be looked at as we now view woman's and civil rights.

Fixed it for ya.

Nope. I really didn't mean Roe versus Wade. I believe abortion will be a very controversial topic for decades because there are sound logical arguments supporting both sides. Thanks for trying though.

You obviously haven't seen what happened to the What is Love thread.

Want a biscuit, casi?

Do you mean a biscuit or a cookie?

A packet of Tim Tams to the person who guesses correctly first. Milk Arrowroots for second place.

Well, your thinking a biscuit, but your really mean a cookie, 'cause you're upside down. :p:

Oh, and I'm female, so I couldn't possibly be capable of saying what I actually think or want.:rolleyes:

Nay, nay, females are highly adept at saying demanding what they want. :haha:

Nay, sir Bruce, yon fair ladies are highly adept at expecting us valiant fools to already know what they require.

I've not met many valiant fools who are in favour of plain speaking.

That's 'cause you've been hanging out with ZenGum & company. :lol: :p:

Valient fools aside, the general approach to plain speaking seems to be: Plain speaking that comes from the person expressing the opinion is good/well deserved/clears the air etc... The person who is being "plain spoken to" usually feels that it was unnecessary/overly agressive/could have been dealt with differently etc...My theory is that if you're going to dish it out, then you have to be able to take it yourself.

However, this may be cultural (see Hall's theory of high context and low context culture-I can summarise in my next post if needed). Plain speaking seems to be a central cultural tenet for Germans-fine when a person is German and surrounded by Germans, but seen as rude by other cultures. Thoughts?

OMG, its almost always backfired on me. In fact its my biggest fault. Im too blunt.

Harry Truman was the ultimate "plain speaker."

His famous quote:

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.”

He also was the president who integrated the military. A bold move at the time (1948).

N.B. Correct 'valient' to 'valiant'.

At last a judge and the ACLU get it and make it right !

Washington Post article

Judge orders military to reinstate gay nurse
By Robert Barnes
Saturday, September 25, 2010

The thing that really sucks? The 1 republican is in FAVOR of the repeal, but thought it was "unfair" that repubs were told no more amendments to the bill. Yeah, thats soooo unfair, I'm sure the all the troops fired under this ridiculous unfair policy will agree that repubs getting their way with amendments is more important.
C'mon! Why do these fuckers have to be so polarized? What is so hard about it? Over 80% of troops want it repealed, over 60% of US citizens want it repealed...that's a majority. Why are the fringes getting their way on this?

Because the system has been bastardized so that we can be divided and controlled.

Because the guys at the top come from a generation that associated 'fags with niggers'. These guys are having trouble undoing their personal biases. And therefore do not realize there is no problem in the ranks.

Eventually it will work out. Either they will finally comprehend their illogical fear of gays is just another example of racism. Or they will be replaced in time by the next generation that ignored such widespread hatred.

This issue is not based in anything logical. It is completely about the mindset of a older generation that was told how to be biased - and remained so.

Rather amazing how much attitudes have changed in only fifteen years.

I think TW's pretty much spot on, but I'd add that it's more about politics, than content, with these bills.

Politics more driven by personal biases rather than by hard facts.

Politics driven by party line, and fear on appearing to side with the guys across the aisle... on anything.

The generals who are a large part of the problem do not vote a party line.

During the State of the Union address, as both sides of the aisle got up to applaud a resolution of this, all the joint chiefs sat on their hands in stern silence. That is where leadership on this issue must come from – and is not. As many reporters suggest, the chiefs do not understand that the soldiers have no problem. The chiefs come from another generation where the bias was widespread. It is suggested that Adm Mullen is trying to get his peers to start accepting reality – apparently without success.

I think you are pretty much spot on.

While you may be right about the attitudes of upper echelon military, morethanpretty's comment/example was about the way congress is working. More correctly, not working.

I wish more than anything that people in this country would just grow the fuck up, acknowledge that homosexuality is a normal human variant not worthy of hatred and that those who live it should have the same rights--all the same rights--as heteros. And then maybe we could focus on more important things.

Yeah, but if you hippies had your way, we wouldn't have anybody to look down on. :haha:

How's this?

I like that Bruce.

I heard a funny line last night on Bill Maher's Show.
Something to the effect of ...
Fine if you want to invade Iran next, go for it, but all the troops have to be gay. At least it'll be better choreographed than the last couple...

I can't agree more. And stop trying to change the Constitution to address the issue.

I love that poster, Bruce.

Wow, there's a dangerous ambiguity!

Frightening, isn't it?

I'm so used to signs using apostrophes incorrectly, that it almost looks wrong when they don't.

:lol:

God never uses contractions. Signs from god do not look wrong (ie Moses saw a burning Bush).

Obama administration appeals gay marriage ruling
Bold mine.
From here
Can someone clarify this for me?
Are they really "obligated" to appeal this. I understand that they normally do, but they aren't required to. On top of that it makes no sense when this administration has openly supported the repeal of it. What gives?

They're probably obligated to defend the initial case, but I doubt they're obligated to appeal.

When it comes down to it, Obama isn't particularly liberal, despite the conservative poutrage over everything he does. He says the same "I'm not prejudiced against gays, but they shouldn't get married" that your standard (ie non-mouth-frothing) anti-gay politician does. I doubt he'd oppose congressional action to remove DOMA, but I don't expect him to do anything that could be construed as HIM removing it.

It's the same with Don't Ask Don't Tell. He wants Congress to remove it. He could defang it pretty effectively through executive order, but he hasn't.

It's not an indefensible position; perhaps the impetus for congressional action would be removed if it happens through congressional or judicial action. There's also the people who don't consider judicial decisions to be as legitimate as congressional action. And anything done through executive order can be undone by the next president.

Of course, while we're waiting for this to be done "properly", the discrimination continues.

Point of order, HM.

The discrimination will continue long after this is done "properly". It will just be more fuel for someone's poutrage. Generations will have to pass for this to fade into the background noise.

nah - I think as the nest generation comes into control this will end very quickly.
I sincerely hope so anyway.

Indeed; I meant discrimination enshrined in law.

But, I'm optimistic about our youth. If we can get the discrimination out of our law, I think it will fade (not fade out, but fade) in society quickly.

Yup. Homophobia will alway linger around like racism and sexism and could easily be brought back under the right social conditions. I still see it all the time with my peers. My generation will end the discrimination against gay people from the state, not from our society.

In my OP, I essentially said that Sec Gates is a closeted homophobe.

Now, even though I understand (and predicted) that the Obama Administration
would be required to appeal Judge Phillips' decision and subsequent directive to stop
enforcing DADT, it is apparent that Gates is having his homophobic way.

First he requires a new study by the military with yet another another report due Dec 1st 2010.
Oh by coincidence, that will to be after the midterm elections when hopes there will be more homophobes in congress.

Now, Gates is working his ways to stall time
to create a whole new form of segregated military... so we can have:

Male Officers' quarters (straight)
Female Officers' quarters (straight)
Male Officers' quarters (G/L/T)
Female Officers' quarters (G/L/T)

Male Enlisted' quarters (straight)
Female Enlisted' quarters (straight)
Male Enlisted' quarters (G/L/T)
Female Enlisted' quarters (G/L/T)

Legally married Officers' quarters (both partners straight)
Legally married Officers' quarters (both partners G/L/T)
Legally married Officers' quarters (one partner G/L/T)
Legally married Enlisted' quarters (both partners straight)
Legally married Enlisted' quarters (both partners G/L/T)
Legally married Enlisted' quarters (one partner G/L/T)


Not legally married Officers' quarters (both partners straight)
Not legally married Officers' quarters (both partners G/L/T)
Not legally married Officers' quarters (one partner G/L/T)
Not legally married Enlisted' quarters (both partners straight)
Not legally married Enlisted' quarters (both partners G/L/T)
Not legally married Enlisted' quarters (one partner G/L/T)

There will also have to be studied whether or not G/L/T's must be segregated from one another. :eek:
And of course every battle plan will have to have separate orders issued because
these groups can not possibly fight together as that would be upsetting to the morale of the troops.

Obama was naive and got himself screwed when he kept Gates on as Sec of Defense as a gesture of reconciliation with GWB.

Times Editorial
Don’t Stay the ‘Don’t Ask’ Ruling
Published: October 16, 2010

Associated Press
Judge likely to deny gov't on gay troops order
By JULIE WATSON , 10.19.10, 09:14 AM EDT

New regulations? Hello... the only new regulation is to disregard previous regulations, and treat everyone the same. Duh! :rolleyes:

CNN


Military recruiters told they can accept openly gay applicants
From Adam Levine, CNN
October 19, 2010 4:05 p.m. EDT

And you base that assessment on what?

And you base that on what?

And you base that on what?

What you don't understand is that it is a huge system and change comes slowly and needs to institutionalized. This is not simply an order that needs to be given, although it is that, it is more. Change needs to be introduced with a plan in a systematic fashion. I think most of the younger troops can accept it, most of the older folks will have to struggle with it. I support it and I am from the older group. But I am not foolish enough to think that you can foist it on the system with an order and think all will be well. It will not.

Hi Merc,

Let's assume you're serious in asking on what do I base my opinions of Sec Robert Gates.
If not, I leave it to you to Google "Robert Gates DADT" and sort it out from there.

Let's also assume that Gates is an intelligent man with sufficient experience and competence to understand and lead organizational change in the federal government.
If Gates openly disagreed with the President-elect Obama about revoking DADT and could not affirmatively and honorably work towards it, he should have resigned in 2008.
If you don't buy that, it's yet another exhibit of GWB's shoddy performance by hiring an incompetent to lead the DOD.

Further, let's NOT assume I don't understand something of how management systems work, and I won't assume that you don't recognize when a manager is throwing up roadblocks to keep a change he/she opposes from occurring.

I refer you to my OP (post #1) about Gate's forcing an expansion of his study, and setting the date of the report after the midterm elections (12/1/10).
His doubling of the sample size was a bogus issue... ask a statistician the power of doubling the sample size in survey a large population... it smacks of political intrigue.
Should we really believe Gates was not aware of the balance of powers in the Senate, and the likely outcome of this November 2010 election.
Most everyone else was aware.

Here are some quotes regarding the Gates' DADT survey from the U.S. Department of Defense News

Merc, to continue...

Here are a few of Gates' comments and positions over the past 18 months:

St Petersburg Post
Obama's repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on the back burner
Updated: Monday, March 30th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

Politico
May 25, 2010

Gates 'can accept' 'Don't Ask' repeal plan


Washington Post

Gates says abrupt end to 'don't ask' would have 'enormous consequences'
By Craig Whitlock and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 13, 2010; 5:03 PM

With respect to Gates' current issues of "separate housing"
Should we believe that the military and/or Gates was not already aware of the existence of G / L in the military.
If he/they knew this and truly believed it to be harmful to morale, then alternative housing would have been created long ago.
The "benefits" issue is also bogus because, as Gates says, the military could simply follow the law... when legally married, partners get equal benefits.

None of that makes him queer, just an obstructionist.

Never called him queer !

Wall Street Journal
OCTOBER 20, 2010, 12:30 P.M. ET

U.S. Files Appeal to Restore 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

My bad, I misread your post. :blush:

But the more I think about it, that would explain a lot.