Posted on 04/07/2005 2:31:08 PM PDT by Crackingham
An Army sergeant who was wounded in Iraq wants a chance to remain in the military as an openly gay soldier, a desire that's bringing him into conflict with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Sgt. Robert Stout, 23, says he has not encountered trouble from fellow soldiers and would like to stay if not for the policy that permits gay men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret.
"I know a ton of gay men that would be more than willing to stay in the Army if they could just be open," Stout said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But if we have to stay here and hide our lives all the time, it's just not worth it."
Stout, of Utica, Ohio, was awarded the Purple Heart after a grenade sent pieces of shrapnel into his arm, face and legs while he was operating a machine gun on an armored Humvee last May.
He is believed to be the first gay soldier wounded in Iraq to publicly discuss his sexuality, said Aaron Belkin, director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California-Santa Barbara.
"We can't keep hiding the fact that there's gay people in the military and they aren't causing any harm," said Stout, who says he is openly gay among most of his 26-member platoon, which is part of the 9th Engineer Battalion based in Schweinfurt, Germany. Stout, who served in Iraq for more than a year as a combat engineer, said by acknowledging he is gay, he could be jailed and probably will be discharged before his scheduled release date of May 31.
"The old armchair thought that gay people destroy unit camaraderie and cohesion is just wrong," Stout said. "They said the same things when they tried to integrate African-Americans and women into the military."
Before the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, enacted in 1993 under the Clinton administration, the Pentagon had explicitly barred gays from military service. At least 24 countries, including Great Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Canada and Israel, allow gays to serve openly.
In an e-mail following the AP interview, Stout said he had been ordered not to speak to the media. "I guess they found out somehow that I was talking to the press and now they are having a fit. I will try to get everything straightened out," Stout wrote.
Martha Rudd, a spokeswoman for the Army at the Pentagon, said soldiers who are discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" typically receive honorable discharges, although the timing would be up to the individual's commanding officer. She declined to comment about Stout, saying the Army doesn't comment on specific cases.
The issue of whether gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military has received increased attention in recent months as the Army has struggled to meet its recruiting goals. Twelve gays expelled from the military sued the government in December, citing a Supreme Court ruling that declared unconstitutional state laws against homosexual sex. The Bush administration has asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit.
Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey has said he opposes changing the policy, although Pentagon figures show a sharp decline in the number of U.S. military members discharged for making it known they are homosexual, falling from 1,227 in 2001 to 653 last year.
Bet they would find something hard in the shower with other naked men or a foxhole with a young tender private they outrank!
Would a gay man in the military want to be a tailgunner or a rear admiral?
The secret he is keeping is ,Maam-- He LIED when he enlisted. And he has LIED everytime he has been asked.
As a Liar he is NOT trustworthy -and in a military that has
court martialed an Army Medic for a mercy killing-- it
would seem to me a Liar ought not get any re-up bonus.
If he lies about who he's having sex with -What else is he lieing about? --Being wounded in service to his country?
Do believe I read something about some joyboy who wanted
the military to fund his HIV/AIDs treatments claiming it
was service connected. IF they are allowed to serve any more
openly than they already do -it would increas the number of such claims exponentially. Better to let the squishy civillians handle it.
Yeah-right and every reprobate knows it was Adam and Steve
right?
You can't make this stuff up!
The fallacy here is that you think all gays would have to be on the make 100% of the time BEFORE it becomes a problem. If we ran everything in life with that kind of thinking, the human race would have been long ago extinct.
Let's try it another way. Just because he's a convicted pedophile he must be on the make. Why else would we even consider prohibiting him from running the nursery? It does not require 100% of pedophiles to be "on the make" at the nursery or coaching the Little League team to make prohibiting them from such positions a sound policy.
Does every child that tries to cross the street have to get hit by a car before we hire a crossing guard? Bad things don't have to happen 100% of the time before it becomes the wise course of action to start thinking of ways to prevent them from happening.
The military cannot operate effectively if even small percentages of its soldiers/sailors/marines have the hots for each other. The job is difficult, dangerous and terrifying enough without the extra problems and distractions that romantic entanglements inevitably create, whether between same or opposite sex: Pregnancy, STD's, jealousy, arguing, harassment, the aftermath of break-ups, playing favorites, etc.
The military is about defending the country as effectively as humanly as possible. Helping people to "self-actualize" is not now, never has been, and never should be anywhere on its agenda.
The question is as simple as is the answer is obvious:
Q: Do we want soldiers humping each other and the inevitable complications that result?
I remember back in the 70's the homosexuals saying that all they wanted was to be left alone. LOL
How would the average female feel about showering with men and why?
How is that different from straight men showing with gays?
Gays have spent all this time and energy trying to convince the rest of us they have the same feelings as straights, they just have them about the same sex instead of the opposite.
Well....I'm convinced. And because I'm convinced, I'll never shower with a gay man or get undressed in front of one: because he might be looking at me the exactly same way I'd look at some little hot 20 year old chick if she were in the shower with me.
She'd never be comfortable with me, and rightly so. And I wouldn't be comfortable with a gay guy for the same reason.
And that's why you don't let gays openly serve: elementary human dynamics.
You thilly gooth, that was just another propaganda line lie from the left. The end justifies the means fella.
They just want to force acceptance of their immorality and perversion-culture upon everyone else.
Indoctrination of the children in the gubmint schools is just part of their plan; they also need those lawless-leftist courts.
Not funny, homosexuality is an abomination.
Then WHY THE HELL did you enlist?
If you want fags in your military move to Europe.
Simply put, it WILL never happen.
Hey heterosexuals cannot have public display of affection so why would another group think they are above the other's demanding to serve openely.
Hell, build all new barricks, build all new shower's and baths, make sure all the fox holes are identified, gay or not gay and perhaps we will have something to talk about. That I as a chick will not have to wonder if there is someone google eyes over me. OK, might have a bit of an ego but one never knows. There is a point where you just have to say NO and move on.
It is about the morale and unit cohesion, nothing more nothing less.
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.