As I understand it, back in saner times, being queer would block security clearance.
I don’t place any merit in another phony government study that says allowing gays to serve openly will not cause problems for the military.
Question:
Is a gay just more likely to be a leaker? ;^) . . . I think I know the answer to that one . . .
“Is a gay just more likely to be a leaker? ;^) .”
As the World’s preeminent Meta-Proctologist, I can confirm this, without a doubt. Click on my name for confirmation.
Yes. Getting a security clearance WAS once a serious matter. You WOULD actually be investigated by someone who knew what they were doing, and if you had issues, there was a reasonable chance they would be revealed.
Since the Clintons took over the White House in 1993, the security process went into the dumpster and never came out. It was as if the floodgates had opened. (See Gary Aldrich’s take on this in “Unlimited Access”)
There was a time being an open homosexual was not only a disqualifier for any kind of security clearance, you would have been ejected from the military without much preamble.
The fact of the matter is, allowing open homosexuality (or even unverified “look the other way” homosexuality as in DADT) not only does not fix the problem, it makes it worse. The reason is, that there are still people who don’t want it to be known that they engage in homosexual activity, even if one was able to do it openly.
That leaves people open for blackmail. That may well have happened in this case, postulated by people who don’t believe he did this alone. The sexual blackmail angle is thousands of years old, and works just as well today as it did back then.
Queers gossip more than girls
Queers gossip more than girls