Top uniformed officer: Gay ban should be lifted [CJCS Mike Mullen ]

WaPo ^ | February 2, 2010; 1:36 PM | ANNE FLAHERTY and ANNE GEARAN

[Red Steel]

WASHINGTON -- The military's top uniformed officer on Tuesday made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

The comments by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set the stage for the military's yearlong study into how the ban can repealed without causing a major upheaval to the fighting forces.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appearing with Mullen before the Armed Services Committee, announced plans to loosen enforcement rules involving the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has been in effect since 1993.

President Barack Obama has called for a repeal of the policy, a move that require congressional action. If he succeeds, it would mark the biggest shake up to military personnel policies since President Harry S. Truman's 1948 executive order integrating the services.

"No matter how I look at the issue," Mullen said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." Noting that he was speaking for himself and not for the other service chiefs, Mullen added: "For me, it comes down to integrity - theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the panel, publicly bristled at the Pentagon's decision to the study, saying he is "deeply disappointed" and calling the assessment "clearly biased" because it presumes the law should be changed.

Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not," McCain said. "But it has been effective."

Several other Republicans

[ConservativeWarrior]

My uncle, a retired Navy captain, agrees that there is a place for homosexuals in the military.

“The front lines.”

[Constitutions Grandchild]

So long as the armed forces can prevent from happening what happened in seminaries in the Catholic Church, then I don't have a particular problem with it. Better to open your mouth and confirm that you're gay, than to keep it shut and have everyone “think” you're gay. If it becomes a haven and a hierarchy of gays protecting the criminal acts of gays, then I'd say we have a problem.

When the seminaries became bath houses for priests who had absolutely no intention of conducting themselves with chastity or morally, then it became a mess. Straight priests were treated poorly and finally retreated to being single or taking a wife, instead of serving the Body of Christ through the Mass.

Let's see how this goes, but somehow I can't imagine the military would enforce moral and ethical guidelines more successfully if the ratio of gays to straights becomes unbalanced. I don't care HOW disciplined they think they are. A few bad apples placed in the wrong rank, or the wrong guy has a pass made and this could go amazingly awry. Whether you want to proudly state you're gay...whatever.

[montag813]

Got it. But he is an Admiral - correct? From the Navy - correct? But it is his opinion only? Got it.

He is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, dammit! How can you possibly minimize this?

Mullen is a sniveling worm. God help us all.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

That's exactly what will happen, if the wrong person has a pass made at him or her. That will cause the PC crowd to rain bullets around the heads of straights and, eventually, the ratio may become unbalanced, and the next thing you know, we will have a military in fuchsia with feather boas -- and that's just the guys. The women will go for black tuxedos.

[itsahoot]

So the Navy wants homos - and this is a surprise? Semper Fi

Only if they are really good swimmers. Besides they have girls aboard now, why would they need poofters?

[Condor51]

It figures a Squid would say this, especially an 'Admiral'.

Now, since Admiral Mullen wants open Homos in the military -- and the Navy Included -- I assume he will also lift the BAN on women serving in SUBMARINES, right?

Huh? What's that Admiral? The quarters are too close on Subs and that's why women are and will stay banned from serving on them. Uh-huh, okay, I see. Subs have closer quarters than in a Foxhole. Yeah, riiiiiiiiiight.

This confirms my opinion that an Admiral should NEVER be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Army or Marine Corps General and that's it (sorry Jet Jockeys).

(Where is General Peter Pace when we need him? That MAN had gonads of Titanium!)

[OldGoatCPO]

Dont ask Don’t tell already accomplishes what you are suggesting. Unlike Catholic priest we are subject to the UCMJ which until now has criminialized such activity.

[manc]

maybe this idiot should share a room, shower, bathroom etc with a couple of them .

ah no he’s a general who doesn’t have to do that .

PC has proved it kills fellow servicemen and women and now they want open homos to serve, what’s next a homo pride parade on base or a homo party where they can all have their sexual sickness on display/

[EAHovind]

Now, since Admiral Mullen wants open Homos in the military -- and the Navy Included -- I assume he will also lift the BAN on women serving in SUBMARINES, right?

September of last year:
Report: Mullen Backs Women Serving on Submarines
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/report-mullen-backs-women-serving-submarines/

[manc]

merry10 seems to disagree with you on that even though she has never served and I have.
I know of not one person who wants this and who has served or is serving.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2439713/posts

[CoastWatcher]

These morons will not be happy until they turn aircraft carriers into floating bath houses.

[wintertime]

The comments by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This man is an Obama suck up. We can not depend on him to honor his oath to defend the Constitution.

[massmike]

http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/CMRPolicyAnalysis(WEB)-January2010.pdf

Center for Military Readiness
— Policy Analysis —
January 2010

Consequences of the Proposed
New “LGBT Law” for the Military

[ConservativeWarrior]

Good point. I hadn’t considered that.

Before you know it, we’ll have equality officers to ensure the battlefields are descrimination-free zones.

The descrimination will work both ways. Wait until your homosexual CO finds out you’re a conservative.

[vpintheak]

Must be the butt-pirate in chief huh?

[voicereason]

So the Navy wants homos - and this is a surprise? Semper Fi

LOL...I was in the Air Force and was going to make a similar comment.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

Any lawyers familiar with the “Judge Hand” ruling (at least that's what I think I remember)? A guy made a pass at a woman on the street who promptly brought him up on charges. The judge ruled “There's no harm in asking.” (i.e. No harm, no foul.)

It's not the men or women who WILL take no for an answer that I worry about, it's the one who's inebriated who thinks he can make a convert. After that, payback could be a bitch. I'm not certain that all gays are necessarily fit to serve, any more than I am that all straights are. I keep hearing people say how much the military can change lives, but it has been my observation that if you go in with problems, you'll come out with them and have superior warrior training, to boot.

If a superior sexually harasses a subordinate -- I guess UCMJ will take it up. It isn't all one way or the other — it's what I've been saying all along — character does matter whether you're gay or straight.

[edge10]

Not in My Navy!

The CJCS is a climber and is just doing the will of his master.

[Theophilus]

character does matter whether you're gay or straight.

Oh it matters infinitely more if you are gay because you are already running such a massive deficit that I don't think you can compensate. Sodomy is sadistic and evil. It should still be illegal everywhere. The reason that liberals want it in the military so badly is because they want to stick their perversion in the face of our servicemen just as the denizens of Sodom wanted to molest the angels of the Lord.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

That link pretty much sums it up. Society (especially the military) isn't ready to accept the challenges of gay service members. With all the challenges those serving encounter, it would seem prudent not to lay any other burdens on their shoulders.

I encountered it in college, but she didn't have any trouble understanding that no meant no, unlike some of the frat boys I went out with. Never occurred to me that walking around in my panties and bra could be a turn-on for her. I never gave it another thought. Of course, if she'd groped me, I'd have decked her, scratched her eyes out and basically left her for dead. I guess I never thought it would be any different for guys. I CAN be wrong. ;-) Who knew?