Pentagon DADT Report Published,

[Furlong]

As some of you may have heard recently, the Pentagon has released its report on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.  In a nutshell, it says that repealing DADT, and allowing Service members to serve openly, would not negatively impact the unit cohesion (shocking, I know *rolls eyes*)

Some highlights, taken directly from the report...

*When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he
or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of
Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.

*When asked “in your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a co-worker that you
believed to be homosexual,” 69% of Service members reported that they had.

*When asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a co-worker who they
believed was gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very
good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”

To be honest, I am not at all surprised by this.  The service members I know (to be fair, not a lot) have said that they think that DADT is a stupid policy, and should be done away with.

Here is the Pentagon Report, by the way. 

[Mooshi]

I never really understood the entire issue. You join the military to serve your country, not discuss your sex life. This goes both ways - the person who is homophobic and the person who says they are gay/lesbian. /Nobody/ needs to know what your sexual orientation, honestly. If you wanna gossip, watch one of those stupid hollywood gossip shows, not join the military.

[Avan]

I never really understood the entire issue.

People are idiots. That's... pretty much it.

[Arbutus]

I never really understood the entire issue.

People are idiots. That's... pretty much it.

More accurately, politicians are idiots when it comes to this. 70% of service members are perfectly logical about it, it seems. And according to Nate Silver's analysis of the polls, 75% of Americans think gay people should be allowed to serve openly; 17% think gay people should never be allowed to serve; and only 8% support the asinine compromise we have now.

[Mooshi]

I still ask why is there a need to discuss sexual preferences in the freakin' military?

[Avan]

I still ask why is there a need to discuss sexual preferences in the freakin' military?

...
Magic.






...
What? It's a perfectly valid explanation. Right?
Guys?
Hey guys! Where are you going?
*chases off after everyone*

[Mooshi]

But...it has absolutely nothing to do with the task at hand. D8 You don't go to the resturant and ask the waiter if he is gay after he brings rolls to your table...that's just weird.

[Arbutus]

I still ask why is there a need to discuss sexual preferences in the freakin' military?

You do realize that the military is not just a job, yes? It bears no resemblance whatsoever to being a waiter. It's your entire life when you're on duty. You spend months upon months living in a barracks with the same group of young, mostly straight men (most of whom are really pent up, I might add), and they talk and socialize and do all the things normal young straight men do. What do you think is going to come up?

So in other words, just like in every other moment of your life, there's no need to talk about sex. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the subject will come up.

[Mooshi]

If ya say so. One could make the argument that we don't do drafts anymore. If you already know this is going to be your life and if you're worried something bad might happen because you were gay/lesbian, no one forced you to join. There are other ways better your country. As stated before, you don't join the armed forces to gossip. Your number one priority is to serve.

[Fenny the Fox]

I still ask why is there a need to discuss sexual preferences in the freakin' military?

You do realize that the military is not just a job, yes? It bears no resemblance whatsoever to being a waiter. It's your entire life when you're on duty. You spend months upon months living in a barracks with the same group of young, mostly straight men (most of whom are really pent up, I might add), and they talk and socialize and do all the things normal young straight men do. What do you think is going to come up?

So in other words, just like in every other moment of your life, there's no need to talk about sex. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the subject will come up.

That.

Not to mention, if you come from a state where gay marriage or civil union is legal, your participation in such would immediately result in your discharge.
Any, even accidental, admission to a homosexual relationship in the present [and possibly past] is meant to result in discharge - though most officers will likely tell you to drop it, don't say it again, be more careful, etc. and go on about business as usual, so long as you do not give them hell.

[Mooshi]

Again, this whole entire issue is stupid. Who cares if someone is gay or lesbian? You join the armed forces to fight for your country. Nothing less, end of story. Everything else should be made trivial the moment you enlist. The only 2 reasons I can think of why this entire problem even exists is either someone was raised to hate gays or the gay individual was making obnoxious flirt attempts on straight soldiers. Maybe both. Either having no place in a military. I still fail to see the need for others to know your sexual preference, let alone a government body, if your duty is to protect. Seems like the whole thing is self inflicted drama. -.-

[Avan]

Seems like the whole thing is self inflicted drama. -.-

YES. THATS BECAUSE IT IS!

[furtopia02]

It's about time. Maybe some people will mellow out now rather than forcing "macho" behaviour to not be suspect from higher ups with a bone to pick (long story). As much as the military hates individualism, this is a great move toward being allowed to be yourself and in turn be more comfortable and allow more people to focus on the actual tasks at hand rather than worrying about if someone thinks they are gay or not (which before could land you without your job there). So.. thank goodness. I've been hoping the best for these results and it looks like they are finally taking place.

[animagusurreal]

From my just-closed thread about the defeat of the repeal over in the Debate forum:

Now that Senate Republicans have blocked a defense bill that included a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, gay rights advocates may have lost their last, best chance to end the 17-year-old ban anytime soon...Gay rights advocates vow to fight on to repeal the law that has led to the expulsion of more than 14,000 service members and keeps many more still serving in the closet.

(Bold mine)

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/after-senate-vote-whats-next-for-dont-ask-dont-tell/19753629?ncid=webmail

I'm in unusual territory posting on a "hot button" issue. I am almost totally apolitical. I'm not particularly enamored of politicians on either side of the aisle. I don't form strong opinions about what laws should be passed or policies adopted. HOWEVER - the only time I do muster some feelings is when it's a matter of equal rights, such as (IMHO) it is with this issue. There is no reason that gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military, other than that some people might have a problem with it, just as some people had a problem with integration and women serving in the military in the past. I'm no expert, but I'm assuming people are not required to hide their personal religious, political, and other potentially contraversial beleifs in order to keep their jobs in the military, so why should they have to hide their sexual orientation? Other people will not be "forced to accept it" (as one AOL commenter puts it). Nobody will reach into their brains and force them to change their minds. Gays simply will not be fired for it.

With regards to the question, "why are people discussing their sexual preferences in the military?"

Straight guy says, “I went out to dinner last night with my girlfriend.” No problem.

Gay guy says, “I went out to dinner last night with my boyfriend.” You're fired. That's a double standard.

[Yip]

Straight guy says, “I went out to dinner last night with my girlfriend.” No problem.

Gay guy says, “I went out to dinner last night with my boyfriend.” You're fired. That's a double standard.

I completely agree. And the excuse that removing the policy will somehow harm troop moral or their ability to work together... it's completely ridiculous as I think the study they did clearly shows.

[furtopia02]

With regards to the question, "why are people discussing their sexual preferences in the military?"

Straight guy says, “I went out to dinner last night with my girlfriend.” No problem.

Gay guy says, “I went out to dinner last night with my boyfriend.” You're fired. That's a double standard.

Exactly!  Exactly my thoughts.

[Avan]

Straight guy says, “I went out to dinner last night with my girlfriend.” No problem.

Gay guy says, “I went out to dinner last night with my boyfriend.” You're fired. That's a double standard.

I completely agree. And the excuse that removing the policy will somehow harm troop moral or their ability to work together... it's completely ridiculous as I think the study they did clearly shows.

In fact, I believe the effect was opposite, was it not?

[Narei Mooncatt]

With regards to the question, "why are people discussing their sexual preferences in the military?"

Straight guy says, “I went out to dinner last night with my girlfriend.” No problem.

Gay guy says, “I went out to dinner last night with my boyfriend.” You're fired. That's a double standard.

Exactly!  Exactly my thoughts.

Word. 

It's not like gays are going to be running around "flaming" (for lack of a better term) to show off being gay. When you live, yes LIVE with a group of people for months at a time, things will get socialized and topics of mates will come up in every day conversation just like it could sitting int he break room of your employer.

[Mooshi]

Oh, but good news! You can now legally gamble online! It's now regulated at the federal level, so as long as Uncle Sam gets his fair shair, you're good to go. Yep, you get legal online gambling, but being gay in the military is still zomg "immoral". Washington is quite the backwards place with mixed up priorities, no?

I have the perfect solution. If you are in a relationship with anyone, you shall not be allowed to serve. You'll probably die and your partner will be sad. Nobody wants that. Only asexuals should serve. No problems of that taboo gayness. Problem solved!

[furtopia02]

Oh, but good news! You can now legally gamble online! It's now regulated at the federal level, so as long as Uncle Sam gets his fair shair, you're good to go. Yep, you get legal online gambling, but being gay in the military is still zomg "immoral". Washington is quite the backwards place with mixed up priorities, no?

I have the perfect solution. If you are in a relationship with anyone, you shall not be allowed to serve. You'll probably die and your partner will be sad. Nobody wants that. Only asexuals should serve. No problems of that taboo gayness. Problem solved!

Instead  you have the opposite problem: if you are MARRIED in the military you get HIGHER PAY and MORE BENEFITS. Imagine that. I've always hated that because to me, two people can make more money than one person (especially if they don't have a child), so it seems overkill to pay them extra just because they are married. To the lonely, single person that couldn't even afford to have a place to live on his lower pay before he went up to E5 in rank, it seemed terribly unfair. The solution? MOVE IN WITH A MALE AND FORM A MUTUAL LIVING SITUATION. LOL What does THAT sound like now?? That's what I did though, and he is still one of my best friends even though we live apart now. I think I learned a lot about getting along in relationships and living with someone from all of that though, so those lessons I can take with me forever.

I do think that if it does become legal to serve openly gay.. and also becomes legal in the state of residence in which you are both registered and serving in, then I think it will be an additional struggle to receive BENEFITS of increased BAH pay, and receiving of BAH before E5 rank. That will be the next step after those other two events happen (which I think they eventually will, and hope they do). Because to receive BAH you have to APPLY for it and present all information and items need: either marriage certificates, or proof of E5+ rank. Btw, to get married you need to inform your chain of command already. You put in a request for it and may be pushed through some counseling, which according to my friends that got married while serving at my command, they first try to talk you OUT of it and explain why you shouldn't get married and how much more stressful it would be and how it might effect mission capability (which if they DO think it WILL effect mission readiness by YOU in particular being distracted you can be denied but that rarely happens). It is also beneficial to uncle sam of course that you are not married from the financial side of things since they DO have to pay you more, quite a bit more, sometimes more than double pay in the earliest of ranks compared to what a single sailor gets. If you still insist they can send you through to a marriage and financial counselor bid where they ask both of you if you are sure about things etc, and if you still are after all of that negativity then they counsel you about money management and hardships like deployment that couples will face. Then if you are still wanting to get married after that as well, weeks later you finally can and then a month or so later your pay and things will go through the system and switch with you being registered as married. Now you enjoy the extra benefits. It's actually become somewhat common for sailors to get married JUST to receive benefits because they are so good compared to single pay and benefits. I knew of several mutual marriage situations like that when I was in where it wasn't REALLY a relationship but they got married and were open in their relationship and were dating other people. Go figure. As well you have women (and sometimes men) out in military towns that will try everything they can to end up marrying a service member because they know they will be rather set and wont have to work to make the same amount of money if they were married to an average non-service member and both working.

[Serra Belvoule]

I still ask why is there a need to discuss sexual preferences in the freakin' military?

...
Magic.

Well that's more logical than the actual reason >>

[Furlong]

Good news, everyone. 

Reporting from Washington and Los Angeles —
The Senate was poised on Saturday to allow gays to openly serve in the military after supporters overcame a procedural hurdle to bring the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" to the Senate floor.

In a 63-33 vote, the Senate passed the cloture motion. A formal repeal vote still lies ahead, but the outcome seemed assured after six Republicans joined with Democrats to advance the bill, which required 60 votes.

The six Republican senators who voted with the majority were: Scott Brown, of Massachusetts; Susan M. Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine; Mark Kirk of Illinois; Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and George Voinovich of Ohio. Sen. Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, the only Democrat to oppose repeal, did not vote.

President Obama has made the repeal of the 1993 law one of his priorities in the lame-duck congressional session. The House passed the bill this week 250 to 174.

"The Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend," President Obama said in a prepared statement." By ending 'don't ask, don't tell," no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.

"It is time to close this chapter in our history," he stated."It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law."

When passed by the Senate and signed by the president, the repeal would allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military without fear of prosecution for their sexual orientation. More than 13,500 people have been dismissed from the military under the law.

"Don't ask, don't tell is wrong," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in his opening remarks Saturday morning. "I don't care who you love. If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you shouldn't have to hide who you are. You ought to be able to serve."

Many Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), opposed the repeal, arguing it should not be considered during the current time of war. That position is backed by chiefs of the Army and Marine Corps who have warned Congress that repeal could pose problems if the law is overturned.

Speaking on the floor before the procedural vote, McCain, the GOP's presidential candidate in 2008, acknowledged that Republicans didn't have the vote to block repeal. He derisively noted that liberals, who lacked military experience, would "high five" across America.

McCain and other Republicans argued that the repeal should not be pushed on troops during a time of war. "They will do what is asked of them," McCain said of the military, "but don't think there won't be a great cost."

Republicans also cited questions among some military leaders, particularly, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, who argued that repeal could cost lives.

"I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction," he told reporters this week.

But other military officials including, Adm. Mike Mullen and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the fear of disruption is overblown.

Proponents of the repeal made two basic arguments, one involving civil rights and the other military preparedness.

"This is a historic vote for equality, civil rights and a stronger America," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "This is a continuation of our nation's march toward full equality for all."

Democrats also cited a recently released Pentagon study that found that two-thirds of the military didn't think changing the law would have much of an effect.

Once the measure becomes law, Obama and military chiefs will have to certify that the change wouldn't hurt the ability of troops to fight and there would also be a 60-day waiting period. The actual elimination of "don't ask, don't tell," which dates back to the Clinton administration, could take as long as a year.

Still there was happiness among supporters, some of whom were in the Senate gallery to watch the vote.

"This has been a long fought battle, but this failed and discriminatory law will now be history," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

The Senate began its rare weekend session Saturday morning poised to battle over two of the most contentious social issues in this lame-duck session, "don't ask, don't tell" and immigration. Earlier, the Senate voted down an effort to bring the Dream Act to the floor.

(Emphasis mine)

So, DADT is on it's way to the dustbin of history.  Good riddance, I say.  It's about time that anyone who wants to serve their country be allowed to do so openly and without fear of persecution.