delenda est...
Posted on 12/18/2010 3:11:51 PM PST by jazusamo
Complete title: Military Should ‘Expressly Prohibit’ Heterosexuals from Using Separate Showers from Homosexuals After Repeal of DADT, Says DOD Working Group
A special Defense Department working group appointed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended that the military should “expressly prohibit” heterosexuals from using separate showers, bathrooms and bunking facilities from homosexuals when the repeal of the law banning homosexuals from the military goes into effect.
The working group has also recommended that commanding officers be left with the authority to exempt individuals from using the same showers, bathrooms and living facilities as homosexuals, but only on a “case-by-case” basis.
The House voted earlier this week and the Senate voted this afternoon to repeal the military ban on homosexuals, which has often been referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The working group’s Nov. 30 report—“Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’”--concluded that permitting heterosexuals to use separate showers, bathrooms and bunking facilities from homosexuals of the same gender would “stigmatize” homosexuals and be “reminiscent of ‘separate but equal’ facilities for blacks prior to the 1960s.” The working group was co-chaired by Jeh Charles Johnson, the Defense Department’s general counsel, and U.S. Army Gen. Carter F. Ham.
“In the course of our review we heard from a very large number of Service members about their discomfort with sharing bathroom facilities or living quarters with those they know to be gay or lesbian,” said the report. “Some went so far to suggest that a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may even require separate bathroom and shower facilities for gay men and lesbians. We disagree, and recommend against separate facilities. Though many regard the very discussion of this topic as offensive, given the number of Service members who raised it, we are obliged to address it.”
The working group said that having homosexuals use different bathrooms and living facilities from heterosexuals would not only create a “logistical nightmare” but would be discriminatory.
“The creation of a third and possibly fourth category of bathroom facilities and living quarters, whether at bases or forward deployed areas, would be a logistical nightmare, expensive, and impossible to administer,” said the report.
“And, even if it could be achieved and administered, separate facilities would, in our view, stigmatize gay and lesbian Service members in a manner reminiscent of ‘separate but equal; facilities for blacks prior to the 1960s,” said the report.
“Accordingly,” the report concluded, “we recommend that the Department of Defense expressly prohibit berthing or billeting assignments or the designation of bathroom facilities based on sexual orientation. At the same time, commanders would retain the authority they currently have to alter berthing or billeting assignments or accommodate privacy concerns on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interests of morale, good order and discipline, and consistent with performance of mission.30 It should also be recognized that commanders already have the tools—from counseling, to non-judicial punishment, to UCMJ prosecution—to deal with misbehavior in either living quarters or showers, whether the person who engages in the misconduct is gay or straight.”
The report also said a survey of more than 115,000 active duty service members indicated only 29.4 percent would “take no action” if they were assigned to share an “open bay shower” with a homosexual.
The other 70 percent of service members answered this way when asked what they would do if assigned to an “open bay shower” with someone they believed to be a homosexual: 25.8 percent said they would use the shower at a different time than the homosexual, 17.7 percent said they would talk to a superior to see if they had a different option, 11.1 percent said they would have a discussion with the other person to see how they would handle the situation, 7.9 percent said they did not know how they would handle the situation, 7.0 percent said they would do “something else,” and 1.3 percent said they would talk to a chaplain, mentor or leader about how to deal with it.
The report acknowledged that in focus groups conducted for the working group “a frequent concern expressed by some Service members was personal privacy in settings where they may be partially or fully unclothed in the presence of another Service member they know to be gay or lesbian—for instance, shared showering facilities or locker rooms.”
However, the report concluded that the concerns that heterosexual service members in this regard were based on “stereotypes” about homosexuals and stated that homosexuals have “learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or threatened in situation [sic] such as this.”
The report argued that heterosexuals and homosexuals shower together “every day” in college and high school gyms and “in professional sports locker rooms” and that it should be no different in the military.
“Here again, we are convinced that separate bathroom facilities would do more harm than good to unit cohesion and would be impracticable to administer and enforce,” said the report. “Concerns about showers and bathrooms are based on a stereotype—that gay men and lesbians will behave in an inappropriate or predatory manner in these situations. As one gay former Service member told us, to fit in, co-exist, and conform to social norms, gay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or threatened in situation [sic] such as this. The reality is that people of different sexual orientation use shower and bathroom facilities together every day in hundreds of thousands of college dorms, college and high school gyms, professional sports locker rooms, police and fire stations, and athletic clubs.”
The report quoted the adverse sentiments of a number of service members who participated in focus groups where they indicated they did not want to have to shower, use the bathroom or roommate with homosexuals.
“I live in the barracks and I don’t think that it would go over well in that kind of environment,” one service member told a DOD focus group. “I’m concerned about how people would treat that individual.”
“In the privacy side of the thing, they’ll have to make some changes to the current infrastructure, [for example] privacy stalls in the bathrooms,” said another service member.
“I do not have to shower or sleep in a room with men so I do not want to shower or sleep in the same room as a woman who is homosexual,” said a female service member. “I would feel
uncomfortable changing and sleeping as I would if it was a man in the room. I should not have to accept this.”
“Tell him if he hits on me I will kick his - - -!” said another service member who participated in a DOD focus group.
Submarines will be the worst.
And Fragging on a sub is tough to do.
Yes, Anita Bryant was right, she told it like she saw it.
This whole LGBT agenda and the way they’ve forced themselves on society gives new meaning to the old saying, “give an inch and they’ll take a mile.” Very sad!
just what an army in combat needs to be dealing with.
This is beyond ignorant...it is grossly immoral.
Of course, forcing homosexuals to shower with heterosexuals doesn't have the same effect on the homosexuals, because the homosexuals know the men aren't leering at them, like the homosexuals are leering at the men. It's a one-way attraction, which makes it precisely the kind of unbalanced interaction that "don't ask, don't tell" minimized.
So now, not only to homosexuals get to openly declare their sexual proclivities, but the heterosexuals will be forced to parade naked in front of the homosexuals. The gays will say that this is only fair -- but where are those same people arguing that the female soldiers should be forced to parade naked in front of the men?
Correct.
delenda est...
Yuck, gag, SPIT.
It’s discrimination to separate? BS
It’s discrimination to let some peter-gazer gaze away.
I fully agree, but then it has been said that “...stupid is as stupid does” and they are proving this beyond any doubt in my mind.
Well said! Unfortunately the ignorant and immoral people in the chain of command from Obama to Gates to Mullen do not give a whit, just as do not the Senators and Representatives that shoved this down the peoples throats.
So at the base gym, is there going to be 4 shower rooms? The 2 extra being one for lesbians and the other for gay men? Or do they throw the lesbians and gay males together?
And 4 public restrooms too?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The army came out in style this weekend when it launched a recruitment drive aimed at tempting more gays, lesbians, transvestites and even transsexuals into the ranks.
Style, indeed, the old Poofter Army Drill of Monty Python comes true ... funny, though, they don't give any information on how many are serving or how many or what type of problems there have beeen.
They created another victim class that will run crying to the CO every time they get their fellings hurt. I am glad I no longer have to serve in the military our politicians have made it a joke.
They don’t have to build seperate facilities. Gay men can shower with women and lesbians can shower with men. The same with bunks.
They’ve just taken CF to a whole new level.
Agreed. This is insane.
Roger that!
The equal protection clause should ensure the visual stimulation of one and all. /sarc
First, the language of the amendment is confusing; it was clearly slapped together, so it’s not readily apparent what it does.
It does clearly state that “NO BENEFITS” go with this bill: “Benefits- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage’ and `spouse’ and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act’).”
It also clearly states that nobody can SUE because of this bill: “No Private Cause of Action- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to create a private cause of action.”
The actions it takes relative to codes appears to be only two:
1: TITLE 10- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended (A) by striking section 654; and (B) in the table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, by striking the item relating to section 654.
2: CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note) is amended by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d).
Title 10 section 654 must be the section that says no gays in the military, and section 571 of 1994 authorization is clearly the “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” provision.
So it certainly doesn’t appear that they did anything about the UCMJ. Although that is not governed by law, right?
Normally, it wouldn’t matter since the supreme court struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional. BUT, the court has ruled that the military doesn’t have to follow the same constitutional restrictions, so the sodomy rules could well still apply.
Buy my guess is Obama will simply re-write that part of the code, so unless someone passes a law dictating that section of the code, we are probably out of luck.
But what if they are bi-sexual?
That is not their plan.
They all think they’re so much smarter than the fly-over population.
But, why don’t they force males and females to use the same showers?
Would different equipment make that much difference if there weren’t attraction?
I walked into a unit shower in Germany years ago. It was late in the evening...10 PM or so....this was during my enlisted days.
And some freak must have just taken in Extenz. It grossed me out. I just turned and left. I assumed he’d been whupping up on his meat. I wasn’t gonna stay and ask.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.