Posted on 05/31/2005 8:29:52 PM PDT by SmithL
CINCINNATI -- An Army sergeant from Ohio who was wounded in Iraq and wanted to remain in the military as an openly gay soldier was officially discharged Tuesday, according to an advocacy group.
Sgt. Robert Stout, 23, was awarded the Purple Heart after a grenade sent shrapnel into his arm, face and legs while he was using a machine gun on a Humvee in May 2004.
Stout, of Utica in central Ohio, told The Associated Press in April that he wanted to remain in the military and be openly gay, but that would conflict with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
That's not necessarily what they mean by "open;" it means if they show up on base on Monday and someone asks them how their weekend was they can say "I went to the lake with my boyfriend" and not risk getting kicked out.
Having been around a lot of gay men for a fairly long period during college I'm a bit mystified about the idea that they're constantly accosting or molesting straight men; or making out in public. I've never seen or experienced either.
I still don't understand the humor. Would you explain it please?
Very well stated. My favorite is "we're just like you, and deserve the same respect, blah..blah...blah..." These parades completely wipe out that argument.
Yep. My father was in WWII, and there was a queer in the group. The queer was with the USO show. He stayed with the soldiers. He wouldn't leave the real men alone. He was always getting the crap beat out of him (Get it? Crap? Homo? LOL).
He'd crawl into the mens beds, and the guys couldn't get a good nights sleep because they had to keep beating him up. That's a bad thing, because those guys had to go out to fight the next day.
This is an obvious twofer.
He gets to skate from further danger and make a queer political statement at the same time.
It is true that the gay rights crowd shares the agenda of those who are hostile to American policy about a widerange of issues,
Then again there are those of us who do these things. Besides, you have those who consciously set themselves apart from "straight" people. It can be a kind of rejection of normal relationships, a culture that excludes those who are "different." It is this culture that is a threat to the cohesion of the unit.
While I applaud his service... I agree it's time to go home. Maybe he needs to learn to choose which lifestyle is more important for him.
Why is it always reported as the 'Pentagon's policy'? A little biased reporting?
No, it conflicts with federal law passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. And you can't just say, I'm gay and get discharged [see "Rule of Construction", section (e)].
10 USC Sec. 654
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART II - PERSONNEL
CHAPTER 37 - GENERAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
STATUTE-
(a) Findings. - Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
[snip]
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(b) Policy. - A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that -
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.
[snip]
(e) Rule of Construction. - Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that -
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.
-SOURCE- (Added Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V, Sec. 571(a)(1), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1670.)
That's because you've probably only been around those who understand they made a choice to live counter to mainstream culture and they respect the culture as it is. But when you come face to face with a homosexual activist or someone who wants only to shock, or get attention, you have a different circumstance all together.
I too was around several gay men during college. They stayed away from the normal venues, created there own little cliques and were for the most part happy. They did not attempt to force others to accept them. They did not tell others they had to like it. They did not try to convince everyone else that their choice was something other than disgusting to 9% of the culture.
The military CANNOT tolerate cliques or counter-cultures. They cannot tolerate even having the CHANCE that somrthing like that might happen. And finally, they cannot spend time on the battlefield worrying about the rights of gays versus straights. WE DO NOT HAVE TIME TO DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES IN A TIME OF WAR.
And in the military, any minute of any day could e the start of a war. It's not possible and it's not right to the 98% of the men who abhore the practice. These are by design callous, hard-hearted, blunt men. I don't think we want our military investigating claims of being called a "Fag" or a "Fruitcake" on the battlefield.
You may want to be nice and think that gays fight just as hard as straight men, and perhaps they do. But the damage of them being there mitigates the benfits.
Editor's note: kindly eschew the use of "gay soldier" and "discharge" in same headline. Thanks.
He shouldn't have been there in the first place.
I'm curious about the rule of construction, subsection 2. It states that separation should not be pursued when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces." If the risk associated with gays is so strong and homosexuality is truly incompatible with military service, when would it NOT be in the best interest of the armed forces?
I worked briefly in a military hospital with a unit under stop-loss orders, and several of the "openly" gay members used to point this out as a bit of hipocracy on the part of Congress. I thought they had a point.
Just a guess, because I have no first hand knowledge how it would work. And like everything in even non military, may not be uniformity in how reg's are carried out or enforced. But .....
(1) and (2) go together and refer back to subsection (b) (policy) and (1) ends with "and". Someone says they are gay or performs a homosexual act to get out [not sure you would want to keep them], but it's determined [back to policy in section (b)]
(b) ....... unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that -
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
But like I said, just a guess, not sure how it would work in the 'real military world'.
Interesting. You've got a point with the "and" in there. I do know that during stop-loss orders there were several gays who were held past their enlistments and considered trying to get discharged. However, their commander told them not to even think about starting the process because she wouldn't let them out (in the military hospitals, sexual orientation is apparently often an "open" secret because most skilled medical personnel are pretty indispensable right now).
perfect stranger wrote:
I still don't understand the humor. Would you explain it please?
---I don't remember anymore, i was reading through and i'm trying to understand too :) I haven't been on in a few days.
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.