Is the military out of step? / 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL' (12 troops, discharged for being gay, suing)

WASHINGTON — At first, it seemed to Army Spc. Tommy Cook to be just another hateful comment. "A soldier we all knew was gay had walked by our truck," said Cook, who at the time was about to be deployed to Iraq. "My sergeant said, `If I ever find out anyone in my crew is gay, I would kill him.' "

But when Cook, 22, thought more about it, he decided it was time to come out of the closet after working for three years under the military's controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.

Cook, from Angleton, reported the incident to his company commander at Fort Hood in late 2003, saying he feared for his life.

Now he and former Houstonian Stacy Vasquez, a 12-year Army veteran who worked as a paralegal at posts around the world and as a recruiter in Dallas, have joined 10 other ousted gay military members in suing the Department of Defense to get their jobs back.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. district court in Boston, is the first challenge to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2003 Houston sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas, that gay adults have the same constitutional right to privacy as heterosexuals.

The government is expected to file its response to the lawsuit this week. The case eventually could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, setting up another landmark decision that would further define the rights of gay and lesbian Americans.

Sharon Alexander, an attorney with the Washington-based Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is representing the plaintiffs, said her group challenged "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" several times during the 1990s and lost.

"Now we believe we have a very good shot," she said. "This is an outdated law based on bigotry, and the Supreme Court has made very clear that bigotry cannot be a rationale for a law in this country."

The organization said it filed the case in Boston, the hometown of one of the plaintiffs, aiming for a fresh view from the appellate courts. The federal circuit court for Massachusetts is the only one covering states where the plaintiffs live that has not considered a case about the military policy on gays, the group explained.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," signed into law in 1993, was billed as a compromise between President Clinton, who wanted to remove an all-out ban on gays serving in the military, and congressional and military leaders determined to preserve it.

The law says the military should not ask the troops about their sexual orientation, and gay members should neither volunteer the information nor engage in sex with partners of the same gender.

Soldiers who disclose their homosexuality — or are outed by others — must be discharged under the law. More than 10,000 military men and women have been discharged because they are gay since the law went into effect.

Cook said he didn't think his sergeant's threat was directed specifically at him. But the more time he spent in war training with the man, the more he feared becoming a target of friendly fire in Iraq.

"You never know what's going to happen when they have live ammo in their hands as opposed to blanks," he said."I was sitting there in the truck with him and every day eating with him and living with him. I started thinking, `This could really happen.' "

The Justice Department, which is defending the government in the Boston case, Cook v. Rumsfeld, declined to comment on the litigation.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Joe Richard, also declined to discuss the case, which involves plaintiffs from every branch of the military.

But Richard said the Defense Department continues to believe the law "serves the good order and discipline of the armed services."

Even if it didn't, he said, the department would have no choice but to enforce it.

"Therefore, we believe those who have objections and concerns with respect to this should perhaps turn their attention to Congress," he said.

Military leaders and some lawmakers have justified "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by saying openly gay and lesbian soldiers would disrupt the cohesion and effectiveness of units, especially during wartime. However, Pentagon records show that discharges under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" have dropped 36 percent since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began.

First, there is a growing acceptance of gays serving in the military, she said, and some commanders, especially the younger ones, are reluctant to enforce a law they believe to be unfair.

She pointed out that in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. troops serve alongside allies from other countries that allow gay soldiers to serve openly. U.S. soldiers also interact daily with gay and lesbian employees of U.S. contractors, many of whom are protected by their companies' anti-discrimination policies.

It could also be the case, Alexander said, that with a war on, commanders in the field either don't want to lose any able-bodied soldiers or they simply don't have time to worry about enforcing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Richard dismissed those explanations as a "fanciful analysis" by opponents of the law.

There's never been a concerted effort to go on witch hunts to identify gay soldiers, he said. "It is only when they declare themselves or openly practice their sexual preference that we have no alternative but to begin the investigative process and make a determination as to whether or not they themselves are homosexual."

If there's a drop in discharges, he said, it's not because of lack of enforcement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but simply because fewer gay soldiers are telling.

"I'm not denying the drop," he said. "But the only thing those numbers show is that there have been fewer service members found to be in violation of the policy."

Vasquez said she managed not to "tell" for 12 years and had a spotless service record until the wife of a colleague reported to Vasquez's commander that she had seen Vasquez kissing a woman in a bar. The Army then gave Vasquez an impossible choice: She could either write a statement declaring her homosexuality, paving the way for her discharge, or face criminal charges and a court martial for "conduct unbecoming."

"I was mortified," said Vasquez, a 32-year-old Dallas native who was discharged in 2003 after reaching the rank of sergeant first class and being tapped for recruiting duty. "I saw my entire career flash in front of my face. It's a very scary feeling to be closeted for so long in your career and then to have someone out of the blue to call you in and ask you about such a personal thing."

After consulting two lawyers — one a civilian and one from the military — she wrote a letter to her commander.

"It was a very simple statement that I'm a homosexual, and that I would never do anything to bring discredit upon the service, and that I would be glad to serve my country as long as I could do so openly and with integrity," she said.

"I had never been in any trouble ever in my career," Vasquez said. "It was very important to me, if I was going to leave the military, to leave with a good record that reflected my 12 years of service, not something that could possibly reflect one minute of one day that someone reported about my life."

Once she signed the letter, she was honorably discharged. And she finally told her parents she is gay.

"I had to go to my family and tell them what was going on," she said. "Some people just have a job, and they just go to it every day. I had really given my entire adult life to the Army, and for me to lose my job was absolutely devastating. My family was completely supportive."

Vasquez used the G.I. Bill to earn a degree in political science and women's studies at the University of Houston.

She taught high school social studies in Houston for a semester before moving to Washington early this year to work as a paralegal with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Alexander, herself an Army veteran, said that attitude is shared by all 12 plaintiffs in the lawsuit, as well as by many gays and lesbians determined to remain in the armed forces.

U.S. Census data from 2000 suggests there are at least 65,000 homosexuals serving.

"The Army so many of us know and love shouldn't have this policy. It doesn't fit at all with all the values of honesty and integrity and diversity that are taught in the Army," she said.

But while there might be a growing sentiment in the ranks that the policy is a dinosaur that needs to go, it's up to Congress or the courts to change it, she said. "It can't change because somebody in the Army decides it's a bad idea. It's a federal law."

Military personnel who do not acknowledge their homosexuality can still be removed from the armed forces.

A commander who receives what he considers to be credible information about the homosexuality of a serviceman or servicewoman can launch an investigation into whether the person is gay.

If an investigation proves the allegation, a homosexual in the military could face dishonorable or a general discharge or could be prosecuted in military court for committing an "indecent act" or "conduct unbecoming."

"They never taught me to be ugly or mean or to discriminate against anyone. They always taught me the best of values: loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage," she said. "I carry those into my adult life as a civilian as well, and they work. This just happens to be an isolated policy that does not work."

Cook also has told his family and friends he is gay, and he's tried to restart his life as a civilian. He is working at a Lake Jackson restaurant and plans to go back to college to get a nursing or a premed degree — unless the Army takes him back. Like Vasquez, he misses the work, the camaraderie of military life and the sense of belonging to something.

He had served one tour of duty in Kuwait and had been looking forward to going to Iraq. He was devastated, he said, when a battalion commander suggested he might be using "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to avoid the war.

Cook's company commander stood up for him, saying he deserved an honorable discharge, which he eventually got.

"I was trying to serve my country and make a career out of it. That was my job. That was my life. Those were my friends — and those still are my friends," he said. " ... Why should I have to settle for second best because I am gay?"

I feel like the guy on ABC and I am saying "Give me a break."

It is an volunteer military, if you do not like the rules do not join. I cannot see the help this will have on troops moral if they have to wonder about the guy next to them eyeing them. Frankly the reason why men and women have seperate bunks and showers.

So, find another profession where you will not cost the tax payers money == this is getting really REALLY OLD.

The idea I have always thought would be brilliant would be to create an all-female division of the Army, put them in platoons based on when they get PMS, and then send them out to shoot men for that exact week each month. Brilliant, don't you think? Wars would be very short I think. And can you imagine the anger of the Muslim fighters upon learning of the death of a comrade at the hands of a hormonal female infidel? Priceless I tell you!

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article. I., Section. 8., [Congress shall have the power to] Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

As enacted by the United States Congress:

Uniform Code of Military Justice

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

What is so difficult for homosexuals to understand about the above legal citations?

have joined 10 other ousted gay military members in suing the Department of Defense to get their jobs back.

Well waa boo hoo. Nobody expects preferential treatment because of their sexual orientation but gays. Not one person has ever inquired of me what I prefer in that area. Nobody ever hired me because I preferred the opposite sex, nobody ever fired me because I preferred the opposite sex. Whatever I've done has been based on my merit. I never even had to talk about my private life. For some reason thse people think they can blab about their sex life and they get some kinda brownie points.

The "don't ask don't tell" was to their benefit, the morons! Nobody asks about people's sex lives so why do you want to blab about yours.

for anyone interested http://www.pentagonchannel.mil has live streaming of the pentagon channel.

You don't need cable or satelite to watch. It is better than the history channel in many regards. (shows old non-PC documentaries, why we serve)

does anyone have a military ping list for getting the word out about this?

Not exactly on topic but it does concern the military.

As for these twelve characters, the sooner the little enclaves of sexual deviance are purged from the military (ala abugrab) the better.

said Cook, who at the time was about to be deployed to Iraq. "My sergeant said, `If I ever find out anyone in my crew is gay, I would kill him.' "

But when Cook, 22, thought more about it, he decided it was time to come out of the closet after working for three years under the military's controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.

He's about to be deployed to Iraq...all of a sudden he is afraid of his sergeant "possibly" finding out he's a queer. His sudden urge to tell the dirty truth about himself couldn't have anything to do with his being on his way to Iraq, could it? He knew if he told he was a homo he wouldn't have to go. This guy is not just a queer, he's a lying chicken sh*t as well.

My brother's in the military. He's got no problem serving with men or women of different races, religions, ethnic backgrounds, educational levels, etc. But he would be disturbed to serve with men who are openly gay. If a guy isn't open about it then it's likely that no one will ever know - but if someone is openly, flamingly queer it will lead to awkwardness at the very least.

I have not known any military vets or those currently serving who would be in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly. Perhaps it's "intolerant" but no one wants to wonder if the gay guy at the next shower is checking out your package...

It is certainly about time that homosexual and lesbian individuals began taking responsibility for their own feelings.

Just because someone "feels” hated doesn’t mean that we hate him/her; just because he/she "feels” excluded, doesn’t mean that we have been exclusive.

In fact, it has been my observation in several Army units during my 24 years of service that gays and lesbians have been as equally treated as anyone else.

So, if they continue, serving in the military to "feel” hated, then, quite honestly, that is "their” problem. Some of us are getting more than a little weary of being asked to play the mea culpa game for wrongs we have not committed.

It is evident that "they" are searching to find someone else to blame for the lack of perfection in their own narrow lives. Maybe it’s time for homosexuals and lesbians who "feel” so hated to act grown up and do what other adults do when they "feel” bad. Look at yourself first.

If homosexuals and lesbians are so miserable as some seem to describe in these MSM articles, one would think that it might occur to them to ask if maybe they need to make some changes in their own lives.

However,who can believe that if the Army changes, homosexuals and lesbians will suddenly "feel” better? I doubt that. You cannot be at peace with others until you are at peace with yourself.

Perhaps some homosexuals and lesbians are not so happy with their lifestyles as they have been told that they should be. And, for those homosexuals and lesbians who are not at ease with their own choice, no law or civil action will ever make them "feel” better.

Here is an interesting tidbit I learned from a JAG.

Don't ask don't tell is not part of the UCMJ, according to the legal types.

It was a "window dressing" policy that the Clintons pushed hard.

But it seems that it may not be part of the actual military law.

I spoke with a SGT who retired recently and he said it causes a problem. They tell them to instruct recruits and soldiers that don't ask don't tell is a solid policy. And it looks that it is not.

So if the judge gives merit to the suit......the judge may deal with an appeal.

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.