Let gay Americans serve their country
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Army fired 11 soldiers in January for violating the military’s policy that gay service members must keep their sexuality hidden, according to a Virginia congressman. Democratic Rep. Jim Moran said he has requested monthly updates from the Pentagon on the impact of the policy until it is repealed.
In a statement released on Thursday, Moran said the discharged soldiers included an intelligence collector, a military police officer, four infantry personnel, a health care specialist, a motor-transport operator and a water-treatment specialist.
“How many more good soldiers are we willing to lose due to a bad policy that makes us less safe and secure?” asked Moran, a member of the House panel that oversees military spending.
The military discharged nearly 10,000 service members under the policy in a 10-year period, from 1997 to 2007. The number fired each year dropped sharply after the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, when forces were stretched thin. Whereas more than 1,200 were dismissed in 2000 and again in 2001 for violating the policy, about half as many – 627 – were fired in 2007.
The Pentagon has not released its 2008 figures.
During the campaign, President Obama supported ending the ban, and the administration says that remains his intention. “Not everything will get done in the beginning, but he’s committed to following through,” spokesman Robert Gibbs says.
From Obama’s point of view, I suppose that’s understandable. Overturning the ban would require an act of Congress, and he’s asking a lot from Congress at the moment. But it’s important it be done. Recent polls show 75-80 percent support for ending the ban, and discharge statistics suggest the military itself is coming to an accommodation with its gay soldiers. While the January numbers may be an anomaly, stretched out over a year they suggest an annual discharge of around 130, much fewer than a few years ago.
Please conduct your discussion respectfully.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
300 comments Add your comment
DB, Gwinnettian
March 13th, 2009
7:16 am
I have to wonder how many people, when polled, said “holy crap, we still ban gays from serving? WTF is up with that?”
I Report/ You Whine
March 13th, 2009
7:24 am
And to think I expected a Michael Steele column.
By the way, cement your legacy as a radical extremist liberal OneTerm, open the military to social experimentation.
I dare you.
Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
March 13th, 2009
7:28 am
This policy, of course, is a reminant from the years of Clinton duplicity.
Nonetheless, it is equally duplicitous to indicate that a member of the “fairer same sex” can’t serve his/her country when, in fact, the Peace Corps, Vista, other Americorps programs, local and state police forces, and numerous other entities offer service opportunitites to serve. The issue of military sevice (and homo marriage, too) does not represent an “ends”, rather it represents a “means” through which activists hope to establish homosexuality as a normative behaviour.
While homosexuals have the right to live their lives as they see fit, homosexuality is not a normative behaviour. Even as I do not support letting Hmos into the military, it is a matter truly best left to military leadership. If military leadership believes that letting them in makes the military stronger, get rid of “don’t ask – don’t tell” and let the homos in; if leadership believes that it would weaken the military get rid of “don’t ask – don’t tell” and keep them out.
catlady
March 13th, 2009
7:31 am
What kind of an institution basically requires you to proclaim your sexuality at the front door?
Heterosexual soldiers get us into trouble raping the local girls.
I agree with DB on this one.
It ain’t anyone’s business unless I misuse it.
I Report/ You Whine
March 13th, 2009
7:32 am
Polling data show that Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama’s net presidential approval rating — which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve — is just six, his lowest rating to date.-WSJ
Repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” or whatever wormy policy Klintoon put in place, would wipe the remaining six percent off the board.
Sounds like America has had it with radical socialism, don’t it?
DB, Gwinnettian
March 13th, 2009
7:37 am
So Jay, are you saying this should be a higher priority, have a higher profile than it does now? Do you believe that Obama is either dodging this, or is unlikely to effect any change in policy within (say) the next six months?
Is it possible that there is a well-crafted piece of legislation to overturn this that the Administration is sitting on, realizing that, politically, it would make more sense to have a more cohesive Afghanistan policy in place prior to pushing for this?
Not saying that would excuse the delay, in fact I think that’s a crummy reason for it, but it’s the best one I can imagine this early in the morning.
ByteMe
March 13th, 2009
7:37 am
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220291&title=Nathaniel-Frank
Hilarious comment about how one person tried to explain to Clinton why “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy wouldn’t work….
catlady
March 13th, 2009
7:38 am
This is a sincere question: why is the military threatened by gay members? Do they think gay soldiers will want to change the camoflage to pink? That they will want to wear cute little Manolo’s instead of boots? That they won’t be “manly” enough to fight? That they can be enticed into surrendering by promise of a wild evening with a bearded, turban-wearing Iraqi?
I am sure there is something I am missing.
DB, Gwinnettian
March 13th, 2009
7:39 am
Deep Thought:
How long would it take for me to get banned for, say, three days, from a WSJ columnist’s blog if I were to post there as “FascistWSJ”?
DB, Gwinnettian
March 13th, 2009
7:41 am
“why is the military threatened by gay members? Do they think gay soldiers will want to change the camoflage to pink?”
Serious answer: back when the stupid DADT policy was put in place (thank you again so VERY much, Sam Nunn, for your role in this), the brass had convinced themselves that they were nobly serving the principle of “unit cohesion,” i.e., there’d be none if you had any of those scary gay fellas who were open about who they were.
They had nothing to base this on, but “unit cohesion” sounded all high-minded, so they ran with it. Pretty pathetic, in retrospect.
G
March 13th, 2009
7:43 am
Repeal of this ban should be a priority.
It not only mandates discrimination, it teaches prejudice to thousands of Americans, not only in the military, but in the general population as well. Studies as well as the experience of many of our allies, have already proven it is unnecessary.
It is really only about perpetuating the stigmatization of gay people while indulging the prejudice of some.
There will never be a convenient time for those who would deny equality to grant it.
Redneck Convert
March 13th, 2009
7:49 am
Well, Bookman couldn’t be more wrong. I want to ask the women on this blog, how would you like to be in a shower buck-nekkid with a bunch of men leering at your body? It’s the same thing with a man being in a shower with a homo. You got no privacy in the army. It ain’t like you got a private room and shower. Even the army don’t let men and women sleep in the same space on a base.
And what are you going to do when you’re fighting the enema to stay alive and some homo beside you gets the hots for you?
I say get rid of this don’t ask and don’t tell and keep the homos from getting in. There must be some test they can use. Like putting a nekkid body builder in a room with recruits and seeing which ones start to drool.
That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good day everybody.
DB, Gwinnettian
March 13th, 2009
7:51 am
G, “It not only mandates discrimination, it teaches prejudice to thousands of Americans, not only in the military, but in the general population as well”; furthermore…
to put gays on the back of the bus, so to speak, teaches not thousands but millions of Americans that the concept of protecting civil rights based on sexual orientation is separate but equal.
I’ve said before that I, frankly, do not believe Obama when he claims to be opposed to equal marriage rights for gays. I think he is cynically accepting the limits of how much he can accomplish in his early years–I suspect this is something he’d have a change of heart about pursuing and wait until a second term to establish such rights nationally, being content to head off at the pass any efforts by stupid people to ban it outright, nationally, through a constitutional amendment.
And I get that; I get political expediency, and I get how he has to (let’s call it what it is) lie about his beliefs, just as he has to lie about believing in the death penalty when I feel pretty sure he thinks it’s a crock.
But that ought to be the limit to how much dishonesty we tolerate; that cynicism about marriage rights surely ought to be the limit that my gay brothers and sisters should have to withstand from our President. He should make it clear, as soon as is practical, that he will end this policy and in the meantime, if he can find a legal manner in which to do so, temporarly suspend any further service discharges based on sexual orientation.
Yeah, I know, get off my duff and write to the man, rather than spewing it here. I will when I can. Y’all should too.
Later, all.
Joey
March 13th, 2009
7:52 am
We should try to be realistic about what we want and need from our military and the impact of this change on those wants and needs.
Just one of the issues: After implementing a plan to permit openly Gay/Lesbians/Bi’s to serve in our military, how many of our current servicemen and women would end their military careers?
After carefully and openly reviewing all of the positive and negative impacts of this change, our Commander-in-Chief should announce his decision. It is his decision just like it was Clinton’s. With just the swipe of a pen.
Copyleft
March 13th, 2009
7:58 am
WyldBull is 100% correct: “is a matter truly best left to military leadership.”
Yep… and President Obama is supreme commander of the military, just as President Truman was when he ordered the military to be racially integrated.
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
8:04 am
I Report/ You Whine
March 13th, 2009
7:24 am
Yeah, like Harry S. Truman.
BDAtlanta
March 13th, 2009
8:08 am
But they don’t shoot straight!
Just kidding…
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
8:09 am
catlady
March 13th, 2009
7:31 am
That’s only the tip of the iceberg. You’re right, it’s the heteros that are the real problem.
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
8:10 am
I Report/ You Whine
March 13th, 2009
7:32 am
You ain’t seen nothing yet!
Goldie
March 13th, 2009
8:13 am
It’s way past time for banishing homophobia in America — why support what the Taliban and other religious freaks believe???
BDAtlanta
March 13th, 2009
8:14 am
This is off topic:
Even if you hate Jon Stewart you have to see his interview with Jim Cramer where Stewart stands up for all the individual investors and tells Cramer, essentially:
Look, this isn’t a game. This is our retirement money you guys are playing with.
This is old-school journalism. Revealing and ugly but it serves us well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/12/jim-cramer-on-daily-show-_n_174503.html
Joey
March 13th, 2009
8:19 am
catlady (7:38): To me this post of yours shows almost no sincerity. I believe that you could come up with some reasonable concerns if you gave it some honest thought. Maybe you could rewrite part of your 7:31 post. Say, homosexual soldiers raping local boys.
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
8:19 am
ByteMe
March 13th, 2009
7:37 am
Great clip, thanks. Let’s hope ALL the homophobes take the time to watch it.
Observer
March 13th, 2009
8:20 am
Catlady – Nobody is requiring military personnel to declare their sexuality at the door. In fact, just the opposite is true. One doesn’t find himself in trouble until he does declare. Remember, it’s, “DON’T ask, DON’T tell.”
The problem is not one of the military feeling threatened by homosexuality but rather, one of the threat of degrading morale amongst the soldiers on the front line. Those soldiers need to be focused on one thing – the enemy. They don’t need to be concerned with the perceived sexual intensions of their neighbor in the trench.
Should we live in a society where sexual orientation is not an issue? Absolutely. Do we? Absolutely not. That reality is what makes this a necessary policy in today’s armed forces.
Times are changing in the military, albeit slowly. One day this issue will probably cease to exist but we’re not there yet.
BDAtlanta
March 13th, 2009
8:23 am
I feel more comfortable with a gay person around than a closeted gay person around. At least I know their frame of mind up front.
What sickens me are the Larry Craig’s and the Priests. People who talk one way and then reveal themselves to be totally different.
It takes a pair to tell people you are gay and those people hiding it while sneaking around doing it are the only ones who are creepy. They’re the ones who worry me.
Observer
March 13th, 2009
8:24 am
According to the article, 75% of those polled favor abolishing this policy. I wonder how many of those polled were active-duty military. My guess is none. That is the ONLY valid group to poll on this issue. They are the only ones with a dog on the fight (so to speak).
Observer
March 13th, 2009
8:25 am
Oops – should have said, “dog IN the fight”. Sorry.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
March 13th, 2009
8:29 am
It’ll just be another excuse for the chickenhawks to stay out of the military.
Right up there with anal cysts, the blacks took all the spots, and I’m too busy.
Just one more thing for them to be afraid of.
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
8:29 am
Redneck Convert
March 13th, 2009
7:49 am
In today’s army there is much more privacy for most. In the heat of battle I’m sure they would be more interested in staying alive than having a sexual encounter. I’m sure I served with them and showered with them but never felt more uncomfortable than I did showering with anybody else. It should be based on an individual basis. Sexual misconduct of any kind by anyone should be treated equally. Adultery is also banned, but rarely enforced. Maybe Jay or someone else could provide us with those figures.
Copyleft
March 13th, 2009
8:32 am
“That is the ONLY valid group to poll on this issue.”
Really, Observer? Because they military are working in OUR name, to protect OUR country, according to OUR policies and principles. If they don’t like the rules we set down for how we choose to run our military, they don’t have to sign up.
You seem to be forgetting who’s in charge here; We, the People are. And our (popularly elected) Commander-in-Chief TELLS the military how they’re going to operate.
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
8:33 am
Copyleft
March 13th, 2009
7:58 am
I started from the top and didn’t realize you had already used Truman. What a coincidence they were together.
Eric
March 13th, 2009
8:34 am
All this irrational fear of homosexuals is ridiculous. And the presumtuousness of some is down right laughable. Most gay people I know are very particular and would have little or no romantic interest in the rank and file or our current military. As far as any type of sexual harassment is concerned it’s pretty well documented that heterosexuals are for more likely to be the perps. This is a silly argument that should have been settled years ago. Bill Clinton was misguided, but he truly thought he was making progress. Now is the time for real progress and I think it will happen soon. It’s about time.
AmVet
March 13th, 2009
8:35 am
I remember clearly the self-righteous firestorm from the homophobes, the pious defenders of the faith, the bigots and ignoramuses when Clinton and Powell implemented “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
I thought the policy was brilliant, and a wonderful compromise to slowly bring the US military into the 20th century. (Before that, of course, homosexuals were outright banned from military service.) But predictably, the intolerant right-wing fringe when ballistic.
Now in the next logical step of the progression to end the charade and acknowledge modern realities, we will see the closet doors fully opened.
And the “conservative” gum-gnashing will only escalate.
IMHO, the people who serve in uniform are performing the greatest single act of service to this nation possible. There is NONE greater.
And everyone of those people should be reviewed and compensated according to their abilities and performance, not based on some prudish outdated sense of sensibilities.
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
8:37 am
Observer
March 13th, 2009
8:25 am
Would you believe I read it as in the fight? I wonder how many others did.
Joe Matarotz
March 13th, 2009
8:38 am
And your point is, Jay?
AmVet
March 13th, 2009
8:38 am
Goldie, great point.
Perhaps the homophobes should think about “relocating” to Iran where, of course, there are no sodomites…/sarc/
Observer
March 13th, 2009
8:39 am
Copyleft writes, “If they don’t like the rules we set down for how we choose to run our military, they don’t have to sign up.”
Shouldn’t that same statement apply to gays currently? If it did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
BDAtlanta
March 13th, 2009
8:39 am
I agree with CopyLeft. You don’t poll anyone. You can’t run a military on polls. It’s not a Democracy.
Tell em how to operate, end of story.
Observer
March 13th, 2009
8:42 am
TnGelding – Yeah, “spell check” didn’t get that one.
Mrs. Godzilla
March 13th, 2009
8:43 am
Gays in the military! FABULOUS!
No kidding folks, I absolutely support letting gays serve openly in the military. In fact, I’d completely reverse the program. If Intolerant, Don’t Tell. Let’s reject the homophobes.
T
March 13th, 2009
8:46 am
This should be a non-issue.
However, our current military refleacts the laws of the civillian world. Firing a homo is not discrimination. Should it be? Yes. According to EEOC, homo’s being fired for their personal lifestyle, are not protected by law.
Interestingly, you can not beat the cr@p out of a gay person, because he is gay. That is a hate crime. (that made my head hurt)
Perhaps, it is time to address all of these things.
Taxpayer
March 13th, 2009
8:49 am
Well, these are different times than in the past and different times call for different measures. Heck, we send entire families off to wars these days and with all the re-enlistment requirements imposed in order to keep the ranks populated, we’ll be having couples go off to wars and their grandchildren coming back stateside. Believe me, adequate housing is but one of their many problems. But, at least they got to be together, as a family unit. Now, what’s a military person with a different sort of desire, than that of a bi-sexually oriented family member, supposed to do in the military after being involuntarily re-enlisted year after year. Everyone has needs and the military needs to recognize this basic fact of humankind. Most people, as they get older, start having thoughts of settling down, enjoying the good life, with a companion. Now, as for basic family needs, I think the military should also consider setting up adoption services on these remote bases for those in need of other means of building up a family. I mean, we cannot be asking these folks to make a career out of fighting terrorists without some sort of stability on the war front and that stability starts at home, with partner, and child. They’ll also be in need of a wider range of bullet-proof vests for all ages of children, especially while they’re off base during the day in the local schools — just trying to get a decent education in the local customs, dontcha know. In short, our military needs to start thinking beyond their own short-term needs and start thinking of longer term needs of these fighting units and killing machines. It’s just the morally sound thing to do.
BDAtlanta
March 13th, 2009
8:54 am
Question,
So, if the head of the RNC is ok with abortion, what party are the ultra-righties going to go to next?
Create your own party?
Don’t even think about joining us in the Democrat Party! NO VACANCIES! Stay away! (Making a cross with my fingers…)
Goldie
March 13th, 2009
9:05 am
AmVet, Mrs. G. — here we are in the 21st Century, and it’s a shame that so many Americans base their homophobia solely on those prejudices and superstitions written about in “the Good Book” thousands of years ago…
Disgusted
March 13th, 2009
9:06 am
I dare say most of you who want to prescribe how our troops should live have never served a day in the military and would probably collapse if handed a uniform and a rifle.
I suppose I’m in the minority on this blog, but I find myself–appallingly, in this liberal’s case–in agreement with Observer. Morale is a huge issue in the ability of troops to fight effectively, and I firmly believe that open homosexuality in the military would lead to a degrading of morale. Many historians have cited the rampant homosexuality among French troops both in World War I and World War II as one of the reasons for the collapse of French forces in both wars.
This old, old Marine must dissent from the views of most of the people on this blog. It’s the troops themselves who would be the ones serving with gays, and my bet is that about 80% would be opposed. The military is no place to carry out social experiments or to pursue political agenda. If you had ever served with a platoon of randy late teenagers and early twenty-somethings, you might have a better understanding of what a Pandora’s box you’re opening.
The people I would want to decide the issue are the troops themselves, not their officers. Those officers live in comfortable, private quarters, far away from the everyday lives of their troops. Many of the troops in the enlisted ranks do not.
BDAtlanta
March 13th, 2009
9:07 am
The Good Book?
Anyone notice there weren’t any female apostles?
Hmmmmmm
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
9:07 am
Taxpayer
March 13th, 2009
8:49 am
That’s one of the benefits of allowing gays to serve. They don’t produce any dependents to support.
Paul
March 13th, 2009
9:07 am
Many of the objections I hear regarding letting gays serve openly have to do with possible detrimental conduct (leering, hitting upon, attempting to engage physically, disparaging comments) and the effect it would have upon unit cohesion (not many say, ‘heck, they can’t serve – they’re gay’ which was the argument many used to oppose women serving in certain career fields). Well, such conduct in the military, when done by heterosexual men towards women, is illegal and grounds for disciplinary action.
Gays would be held to the same standards of conduct as heterosexuals. Gays would face the same penalties for sexual harassment as heterosexuals. Gays would be given the same responsibilities and the same penalties for infractions, as heterosexuals.
Equality. What a concept.
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
9:11 am
Copyleft
March 13th, 2009
7:58 am
I wanted to use “invoked” Truman, but the word just wouldn’t come until later.
BDAtlanta
March 13th, 2009
9:11 am
Disgusted,
If we legalized prostitution we could set up brothels on the bases here and overseas with men and women to serve the troops depending on their preferences.
That way, everyone would have really good morale all the time. The straights wouldn’t be beating up the gays and vice versa.