US generals, admiral come out of the closet - flag fag officers

theage.com.au via g2mil.com ^ | December 11, 2003 | John Files

[Destro]

US generals, admiral come out of the closet - flag fag officers

By John Files

Washington

December 11, 2003

Alan Steinman, Keith Kerr, and Virgil Richard. Picture: New York Times

Three retired US military officers - two generals and an admiral - who had been among the most senior officers to criticise the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for homosexuals in the military, have revealed that they are gay.

The three - army Brigadier-Generals Keith Kerr and Virgil Richard, and Rear-Admiral Alan Steinman of the Coast Guard - said the policy had been ineffective and undermined the military's core values - truth, honour, dignity, respect and integrity.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

It wasn't a slight it just a fact. the Coast Guard is not a par of the military. When we have a full on war they are absorbed by the military. They are a quasi military force with some overlapping similiar duties, such as the ASW capabilities you mentioned, but they are not a branch of the military.

It's no jab at the Coast Guard. It's just fact. All the things you mentioned, combat deaths etc. are all correct as far as I know. It still doesn't change the truth.

Here is a question maybe you can answer for me. Does the Coast Guard fall under the UCMJ during peace time? I have no idea.

[RinaseaofDs]

And I wasn't really offended by your post.

For the record, we are under the UCMJ regardless. We carry the green military ID card, we have the same clearances, we go to REFTRA, we have the same crypto, etc.

The reason why we aren't under DOD is because of Posse Comitatus. If we were under DOD, we couldn't board US flag vessels to enforce applicable laws (read drug law enforcement).

Mostly a legal trick.

[Devil_Anse]

Lots of hetero couples can't reproduce naturally either.

SOMEBODY is out there reproducing. And they are doing it by means of hetero sex. If they weren't, there wouldn't be any babies for homosexual couples to adopt.

Let's suppose we make all reproduction into something like cattle sperm farms--the men leave their you-know-what, and highly-intelligent scientists place that you-know-what in the women who line up to be fertilized. Um, is this the Orwellian world we want to live in? No more unions, no more families. Mr. A wants to have a baby with Mrs. A; he can't just go to bed with her, even though they are married, but must put in the proper paperwork with the State, and get it approved, and then he goes and gives the State his you-know-what, and Mrs. A goes and makes her body available for the State's scientists to impregnate?

Are you seriously contending that mass artificial insemination is a better way than what nature has decreed, for the human population to renew itself?

Homosexuals can't get along without heterosexuals. W/O what heteros do, there would be no new people. That's the contribution of heterosexuality to the world. And what exactly is the contribution of homosexuality to the world......? Does it produce babies? How does it make the world a better place?

[Lucky Dog]

<<<< I do not read the Bible. I make my own decisions based on what I know and have learned. You should be thanking God these men served in defense of YOU, so you could say they are sinners. >>>

It quite obvious that “what you know and have learned” is sorely inadequate. Bragging about one’s lack of education and apparent unwillingness to acquire it is hubris in the extreme. Some of the most learned people in our history read scripture, to include our founding fathers, Einstein and many others. If you feel you are smarter than these individuals collectively, I suggest you consider a visit to a psychiatrist.

As to thanking “God,” do you know to which one are you referring without consulting the Bible?

These men’s service, if, in fact, they were practicing homosexuals during that time as they imply, did not improve the defense of my country. Quite the contrary, such dishonorable service weakened it. They made themselves and any classified information to which they had access vulnerable to comprise through blackmail by foreign intelligence officers.

[merry10]

excuse me that was, thanking god - as in the universal sense.

Who do you think you are criticizing me? I work for the armed forces, and none of the men or women with whom I work give a rat's behind if the person working alongside them is black, white, gay or straight. The key words are "with whom I work". The military I work with just want everyone to do their job and protect the country. The gay men this article refers to would not have made it as far as they did if they compromised any of our government's secretsm, so you argument is bunk. You know it, I know it and the GODS know it! Because I do not subscribe to the teachings of the Bible, or to various religious groups interpretation of it - meaning they twist it and spin it to suit their purpose and agenda, does not mean that I am not as intelligent as you.

[Jeff Gordon]

Rear-Admiral Alan Steinman of the Coast Guard

This brings a whole new persepective to the rank of "Rear-Admiral." :-)

[Lucky Dog]

<<< Who do you think you are criticizing me? >>>

Indeed, I have served honorably in the Armed Forces of my country for more than a quarter century, through two wars and eight years of overseas postings, commanded men and women in a combat zone and personally buried a number of my friends who died in the service of their country. Beyond my service, I am a fully enfranchised, voting American citizen and I believe that qualifies me to criticize whomever I please, including you.

<<< …none of the men or women with whom I work give a rat's behind if the person working alongside them is black, white, gay or straight. >>>

If you and none of the people you work with care if the person with you is homosexual, I suggest you read Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). You will find that it is illegal to be engaging in homosexual acts while you are a serving member of the Armed Forces. Further, if you have direct knowledge of a crime under the UCMJ and you fail to bring it to the attention of your superiors, then you become an accessory after the fact and are personally subject to discipline under the UCMJ as well.

<<< The gay men this article refers to would not have made it as far as they did if they compromised any of our government's secrets, so you argument is bunk. >>>

As for the “gay men in this article,” they violated the UCMJ and, just as I said, created a potential blackmail situation. I don’t care how “far they made it” they still dishonored themselves and created a potential security hazard. Additionally, it appears from your statement that your ignorance of history is hurting you. I suggest you read about someone named Alger Hiss and something called the “Verona Project.” You might find that no matter “how far” someone makes it, they can still damage their country through compromising intelligence.

<<< Because I do not subscribe to the teachings of the Bible, or to various religious groups interpretation of it - meaning they twist it and spin it to suit their purpose and agenda, does not mean that I am not as intelligent as you. >>>

I did not criticize you for being less “intelligent” than me or anyone else. I said you were uneducated. There is a tremendous difference. A lack of education and is a curable condition, lack of intelligence is not. I suspect that you are very intelligent. You have it within your power to educate yourself. It is a matter of choice.

In your earlier post, you said that you did not read the Bible. That statement indicates an ignorance of what is contained in that book. In your most recent post, you stated that you “do not subscribe to the teachings of the Bible.” One statement “begs” the other. It is obvious that you cannot “subscribe to teachings of which you are unaware.” You further accuse “various religious groups” of “twisting” the Bible to suit their “purpose and agenda.” If you do not read it, how do you know they are twisting it? Further, if it is the “twisting” to which you are objecting, then it is not the Bible’s teachings. Perhaps, it is what you perceive as hypocrisy that causes you to object. However, once again, if you do not know what the Bible teaches, how can you identify such hypocrisy?

You would do well to rely on the wisdom of our Founding Fathers expressed in our Declaration of Independence. In that document our founders assert that we are endowed by our “Creator” with certain inalienable rights. That “Creator” to which they refer is the God of the Bible. If you have any doubt, then call up the speeches of George Washington or John Adams from Internet sources and read a few.

By the way, you swore an oath to the Constitution. You would do well to read it and all of the documents which lead to the founding of our country such as the Declaration, the Federalist Papers, the Mayflower Compact and the Bible among others. Your service to our nation is appreciated but it would be improved with education.

[merry10]

Blah, blah blah.

By the way, I didn't say I was IN the military. I said I worked for the military. I serve my country in any way I can. Whether you like it or not, today's military is much different than the one you were in. These men didn't come out of the closet until way after they served. While they were in, they acted honorably. Yep, maybe I am uneducated about the Bible, but guess what...I don't care. All I can do is live my life well, which I do, and take care of my children, which I do. Maybe it would do you well to go and meet these gay men who served HONORABLY in our nation's service and open your eyes.

[nmh]

"Because gays and lesbians are required to serve in silence and in celibacy, the policy is almost impossible to follow," said Admiral Steinman. "It has been effectively a ban."

The officers were reluctant to discuss their personal relationships for fear of the consequences to themselves and loved ones. "I was denied the opportunity to share my life with a loved one, to have a family, to do all the things that heterosexual Americans take for granted," Admiral Steinman said. "That's the sacrifice I made to serve my country."

General Richard, who retired in 1991 after 32 years' service, including in Vietnam and the Pentagon, said: "No one knew I was gay when I was in the military. I suppressed my desires, and didn't allow myself to be who I am because there was too much at stake."

---

Yeah, they remained celibate. Today they are NOT celibate and after same sex lovers. At least they had the sense to keep it in the closet.

[nmh]

NO one is born "gay".

A person born black, white, tan or beige etc. was made that way.

A BIG difference. These folks are sexually perverted BY CHOICE.

[Lucky Dog]

<<< Blah, blah blah. >>>

An incredibly clever and intellectual response! Is your logic always this stunning or is this just your unbelievably mature and exceptional rhetoric?


<<< Whether you like it or not, today's military is much different than the one you were in. >>>

Last I checked, the Uniform Code of Military Justice has not changed. Last I checked, the principles of leadership that involve integrity and leadership by example have not changed. Last I checked, the concept of honor has not changed. Oh, by the way, I haven’t been out that long and my son, my nephew and my sister are still serving so I think I have pretty good idea of what “today’s military” is like, in any case.

<<< These men didn't come out of the closet until way after they served. While they were in, they acted honorably. >>>

I suggest you look up the definition of “honor,” in particular, the part of that concept about keeping sworn oaths and following lawful orders. That oath, that I mistakenly thought you had taken, specifies supporting and defending the Constitution. That very document gives Congress the power to regulate the armed forces of this county. The Congress has done so through the UCMJ which constitutes “standing orders” to all military personnel. These men might “have stayed in the closet,” their own words imply that they did not stay celibate as far as homosexual activity is concerned. Therefore, they did lied in swearing to uphold the Constitution, and they intentionally failed to follow “standing orders.” Exactly what part of that do you think is “honorable?”

<<< Yep, maybe I am uneducated about the Bible, but guess what...I don't care. >>>

Being proud of intentional ignorance says more about you and your values than any critic possibly could.

<<< Maybe it would do you well to go and meet these gay men who served HONORABLY in our nation's service and open your eyes >>>

I suggest you cure your ignorance of the word “honorably” in order to speak intelligently on the subject. Additionally, for your information, I have been in the very unpleasant position of being forced to administer discipline for violations of Article 125 of the UCMJ. I have met some of these people to whom you refer and, indeed, my “eyes were opened.” Any doubts in my mind about the lack of honor among “these people” was completely removed by the experience.

Can you offer an intelligent response or are you restricted to “Blah, blah, blah?”

[merry10]

Listen my dear, I am not going to continue this. If you wish to engage in a conversation, take it up with me privately (nobody else seems to care too much about this anyway). I respect that you served in our military, and if you were in Iraq or Afganistan right now, I'd be supporting you - gay or straight. Tell me, who would you trust more - a man who commited bigamy, had three wives and a bunch of kids all over the states, or a gay man who keeps to himself and serves his country well but has your back every time?

Unless you personally KNOW any gay service members, I dont' think you yourself can intelligently speak of them. If they are not screwing in the combat information center, then why would you care what they are up to sexually?

[Lucky Dog]

<<< I am not going to continue this. >>>

Your choice. The purpose of debate is to offer logical, convincing, factual arguments that are better than any posited counter arguments in order to sway the other party. If one makes decisions on the basis of emotion and prejudice rather than facts and logic, then it is impossible to sway that person in any case. Just let me know for sure.

<<< If you wish to engage in a conversation, take it up with me privately (nobody else seems to care too much about this anyway). >>>

The thread is probably too dated for new readers to find. However, I prefer to debate in public.

<<< I respect that you served in our military, and if you were in Iraq or Afghanistan right now, I'd be supporting you - gay or straight. >>>

Thank you. However, that support is irrelevant to the topic.

<<< Tell me, who would you trust more - a man who committed bigamy, had three wives and a bunch of kids all over the states, or a gay man who keeps to himself and serves his country well but has your back every time? >>>

The answer is neither. I would not knowingly trust my back, or anyone else’s, to either character you proposed in this scenario.

<<< Unless you personally KNOW any gay service members, I don’t' think you yourself can intelligently speak of them. >>>

Apparently, you did not read my last post. This question was addressed unequivocally.

<<< If they are not screwing in the combat information center, then why would you care what they are up to sexually? >>>

Again and again, this issue has been addressed. It is a question of a security hazard on one level and a question of duty and honor on another. People die unnecessarily when any of these qualities are ignored.

The military is a “calling” not a “job.” From medieval times (and before) there have been warrior codes, e.g., chivalry, bushido, etc., reflecting the fact that military service is unique among occupations. The demands of military service have been, and remain, strict, of necessity. For without discipline, a military force is doomed to failure and death.

[merry10]

But gay men and women also may have a calling to be in the Armed Forces. If they want to defend their country, so be it. My opinion - I don't care what their sexual preference is.

[merry10]

The answer is neither. I would not knowingly trust my back, or anyone else’s, to either character you proposed in this scenario.

The point is that you would not know.

[Lucky Dog]

The fact is that the majority of the American population do care [as to whether a serving member of the armed forces is engaging in homosexual activity] as do their elected representatives. Therefore, regardless of anyone's opinion, unless that opinion can carry a majority in Congress to change the UCMJ, that opinion is irrelevant.

[Lucky Dog]

<<< The point is that you would not know. >>>

As I noted in a previous post: "Again and again, this issue has been addressed. It is a question of a security hazard on one level and a question of duty and honor on another. People die unnecessarily when any of these qualities are ignored." Foreign intelligences agents are just as smart as private investigators and not bound by any legal restrictions that may hamper private investigators. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that they have the ability to find out about a service member's homosexual activity and use it to blackmail them into compromising classified information that could get someone killed. Additionally, if one is not going to "know about it," why do some (as in the beginning post) feel it necessary to call press conferences?

[TexasCajun]

I like and respect Hackworth.

What's up with that Johnny Cash fetish?

[RushLake]

I agree with everything you said. One question, who is this G-D character?