Cheney supports repealing 'Don't ask, don't tell'(Open Gays in the Military)

The Hill ^ | 2/14/2010 | Eric Zimmermann -

[Brices Crossroads]

Former Vice President Dick Cheney came out in favor of repealing "Don't ask, don't tell," (DADT) today.

Cheney said that the support of military leaders had convinced him that it was time for a change.

"Twenty years ago the military were strong advocates of 'Don't ask, don't tell.' I think things have change significantly since then," Cheney said on ABC's "This Week."

I think that society has moved on. It's partly a generational question," he continued. "When the [Joint] Chiefs come forward and say 'we think we can do it,' is strikes me that it's time to reconsider the policy."

[The Shrew]

Outstanding article. Thanks for posting it.

Semper Fi,

TS

[Polybius]

Oh, and who says they’re going to advertise their “availability” to the whole squad? You still might not know.

Then it would be absolutely the same as it is right now under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" right now, wouldn't it?

When I was on active duty, the military policy was, and this is a direct quote of 1982 Department of Defense Directive 1332.14: "homosexuality is incompatible with military service".

That crystal clear policy says what it means and means what it says.

Then comes Bill Clinton.

Clinton changed the policy to say, in effect, "homosexuality IS COMPATIBLE with military service ..... just as long as everybody plays the three monkey game and doesn't know anything for certain".

If I were back on active duty in the post-Clinton military, personally, I would like to know.

I will leave it to others to prefer to wonder if the monkey with his hand on their shoulder or the monkey with the big grin on his face is the gay monkey that is legally serving in their squad under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

[ivyleaguebrat]

So, if we enforce the rules against anyone acting out sexually( male or female) and throw out anyone who does NOT act appropriately. how would this be different than what we have now?

It is very different. Currently, when a gay (male) soldier, airman or Marine is asked "hey, do you have a girlfriend," the mere act of saying "no, but I have a boyfriend" could see them investigated and discharged.

Some here see only two alternatives: gays stay in the closet, or else we'll have rainbow flags and pride parades on-base and gay orgies in the barracks..

Why can't the laws/regulations be: "OK, you won't be discharged merely for being gay" but still subject all service members to the usual restrictions on fraternization, harassment, conformity in dress and appearance, personal decorum, etc?

[Sister_T]

Just think of the AIDS overload the VA will have.

You hit the nail on the head. This is the issue that should be the main focus of this whole debate. Forget homosexuals "serving honestly" or "times are changing" or any of that other emotional, "tug-at-the-heartstrings" tripe.

Homosexuals are far more likely to have HIV, AIDS and other STDs, some of which most heterosexuals probably never heard of because they don't engage in the kinds of behaviors homosexuals do to acquire them. To allow homosexuals to serve openly will definitely put others in the armed forces at risk for diseases that they should not be placed in, all for the sole purpose of scoring political points with some special-interest group who, in my opinion, isn't the least bit interested in "serving honestly" in the military.

[CSM]

From your profile, “Hi all I’m a 23 year old girl...”

From your comment, “don’t ask don’t tell don’t matter.Ones sexual preference should not be a issue for military service.”

Hello 23 year old young hottie, let me know the next time you are going to take a shower and this old perv will come on over and hop in it with you. What? That wouldn’t be appropriate? Then why would you want to subject heterosexuals males to the same experience?

As long as the living, including the showering and over all personal hygene, environment exists in its current form in the military, then quit supporting giving the homosexuals the opportunity to oggle those that they find sexually attractive.

[CSM]

“how about asking the men and wmen who actually serve and who woul;d have to put up wiht this law instead of asking generals who will never have ot share a shower with homosexuals or put up wioth homosexual parties in your room”

I agree and would add that any supporter of this change in policy better also support no longer seperating male and female soldiers. We should completely mix the barracks’ and shower facilities, at all levels. If that is not acceptable, then their position is wrong.

[CSM]

Secondly, it would be very dangerous for homosexuals to be openly gay. When you push, young testeterone filled males to the brink of their aggressiveness, you would end up with many homosexuals falling down the stairs....

Only the activists, unwilling to take such risks, are pushing this dangerous agenda.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Oh, and who says they’re going to advertise their “availability” to the whole squad? You still might not know.

—

Then it would be absolutely the same as it is right now under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” right now, wouldn’t it?

—

You’re hopping to a different claim from the one you made, namely that “gay OK” would give you fair warning about who else in the locker room was gay. I’m saying, no it won’t and there is a trivial reason why.

The only way this could possibly be made to work is if they give gays and don’t-cares the opportunity to self identify during enlistment. “Black sheep squadrons” would be created solely from these. All others would be treated as “cares” and would have to abide by DADT, or else either leave or transfer to a black sheep squadron.

[AmishDude]

Although the sex orientation segregation is currently present, this does not stop females from being harrassed or assaulted.

Certainly nothing would, but sex segregation comes with assumptions about how fraternization takes place which would be shattered with outed homosexuals being present.

Assault isn't the only problem, of course. Good order and discipline requires self-discipline and we have seen what happens when the sexes are mixed in close quarters. Female sailors are medivaced because of pregnancy.

The notion of a “protected class” is troublesome and I see your point.

And, again, not without precedent. The second that officers come out of the closet will be charges of discrimination and a not insignificant proportion will be frivolous. Simply making the charges, however, will be an assertion of authority and will provide the accuser an aura of protection.

I still maintain that IF prosecution for behavior unbecomming to the conduct of a military person were across the board ( as in the case of fraternization currently) this could be dealt with.

I can't disagree. Because of sex segregation, however, the standards for same-sex fraternization would have to be much stricter and we know that that cannot happen because of PC. Even the mildest social pressures against such things will be prosecuted as bigotry.

But you do make valid points for consideration.

Thank you. What I found interesting was that DADT applies to the Coast Guard as well. I thought that they might be exempt, not being a combat organization. In any case, DADT will fall with conscription, when men are perfectly willing to assert that they are gay to get out of service. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few DADT discharges are false.

[Lauren BaRecall]

what if and anyone who has served in a fighting unit knows this then there is always fights between friends so what if I get into a fight wiht a homosexual and then he states that I beat him because he is queer, will I now face hate crimes and lose my job and pension because of his lies ?

The thought I had: if this goes through, it won't be long before the first article comes out about a soldier who had a visceral reaction, and is facing a court marshall as a result.

The homosexuals cry that they can't live "open and honestly," but someone sometime somewhere will use this against some poor soldier who just wants to do his job. I'm sure there will be vicious queens who'll prance, dance and flaunt, and keep on the lookout for anyone who doesn't like it.

I'm just so sick of these homosexuals' overwhelming need to gut-spew their TMI. I spend *my* life "being who I am," and never had the necessity of telling anyone that I'm a heterosexual.

I'm not in the military, but anyway, don't tell me, and I won't ask, because I don't want to know.

[CSM]

“Well, seems to me this is talk, not of repealing don’t-ask-don’t-tell, which would take us back to gays not being allowed to serve, but rather overriding with a new policy.”

Great point. That soes seems to get lost in the discussion.

“Personally, if you repeal back to gays not serving, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Can gays be patriotic and want to serve? You betcha. So can severe asthmatics, visually impaired, those with food allergies. Sorry. Serving is not a right. It’s serious business.”

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Albion Wilde]

If anything we should repeal Don't Ask/Don't Tell and ban all homosexuals from the military, it is a dangerous situation with ZERO advantages.

Bears repeating, and serious consideration in a time of economic cutbacks. Does the added costs of accommodating open homosexuality offset the losses of personnel with specialized skills, such as the Middle Eastern language translators who were dismissed because they were gay? I think DADT has a few advantages in cases like that.

But open homosexual behavior and accommodations? No advantage to the vast majority of troops; certain downsides to a significant percentage of troops required to "tolerate" unwanted interfacing with in-your-facism; and significant operational costs.

[Tired of Taxes]

Cheney is a great guy and remember his daughter is lesbian so I find no fault here since I'm one to~~~~

I don't understand that statement. Did you mean to say, "I'm one, too?" Or, did you just leave off the end of the sentence?

[EternalVigilance]

[jpsb]

I thought don’t ask don’t tell was a bad idea. But repealing it is a terrible idea, IMHO. Open homosexuals in the AF? Women in combat? WTF!

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

We are on the same page.

Acting out behavior and aggressive/assaultive behavior is punished now...that’s what I meant. I agree these are not just black and white issues. I could be wrong, but I don’t see a whole lot of gays wearing rainbow flags on their uniforms.

Your final paragraph is stated very well...there may be a lot of gays in the military now also who are conflicted about their sexuality( as in the general society) and are not about to declare themselves.

As for orgies...can you say “Tailhook”?

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Excellant points in your discussion.

We do need to discuss all possibilities as the “pretend they aren’t there’ is just denial of a reality. Short of San Francisco society as a whole deals with “minorities” of all types who are ridiculous in their demands for acceptance on their own terms completely and those who are quite willing to be appropriate, depending on the situation.
I am sure, much as many coporations are very conservative in their expectations of behavior, so is the military.

The whole PC thing when it gets out of hand is a problem and many “minorties” take advantage of this. With the economy tanking, we will see less of this.

[manc]

you say you’re queer and yet refer to yourself as a homo.

that’s a first,

[manc]

homosexuals tell us all these years that their sexual life is private .

so in agreement then queers then say OK we’;ll agree with don’t ask etc and we’ll all be happy in that.

years later and now they the queers want more again and now say that their life is not private, their sexual perverted lifestyle is not private and they want all to know they’re a homosexual.

don’t ask gives them that privacy and they do not want that

[little jeremiah]

She means “I am one too.”

Just illiterate.