US generals, admiral come out of the closet - flag fag officers

theage.com.au via g2mil.com ^ | December 11, 2003 | John Files

[Destro]

US generals, admiral come out of the closet - flag fag officers

By John Files

Washington

December 11, 2003

Alan Steinman, Keith Kerr, and Virgil Richard. Picture: New York Times

Three retired US military officers - two generals and an admiral - who had been among the most senior officers to criticise the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for homosexuals in the military, have revealed that they are gay.

The three - army Brigadier-Generals Keith Kerr and Virgil Richard, and Rear-Admiral Alan Steinman of the Coast Guard - said the policy had been ineffective and undermined the military's core values - truth, honour, dignity, respect and integrity.

[Devil_Anse]

See my reply to Godebert at Post 139. Jengaio, needless to say, is one and the same with Chief Inspector.

[Mo1]

---

	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER

[Devil_Anse]

I do indeed have a legitimate reason for knowing all this. If you demonstrate to me that you are sincere in your interest in me, Marysecretary, I may tell you how I know. Otherwise, I will simply allow the many others on this forum who do know the story, to fill you in.

[Marysecretary]

You seem to know so much about her and I wondered how you came about that information. I am sincerely interested. M

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Rear Admiral?

The Rear Admiral's rear is the Vice Admiral's vice.

--- Old USMC saying from the 1800s.

[Devil_Anse]

I freepmailed you, Mary.

I know you may have an urge to feel sorry for someone you may perceive to be the underdog, Mary. But don't give in to that urge too quickly. What I told you in freepmail is only the tip of the iceberg! Don't be a fool, as I once was, and fall for her "victim" routine! She is no victim; she is a victimizer!

[Marysecretary]

Thanks for the freepmail and the advice. I am a sort of 'feel sorry for the underdog' type and appreciate your admonition. Maryxxx

[Devil_Anse]

UR welcome! And thank YOU, for understanding where I'm coming from.

[Lucky Dog]

How many of those you postulated had violated Article 125 for other than sodomy held a news conference and announced their violations? How many of those demanded that the rules be changed for them?

As has been noted in other replies on this thread, those who think they are homosexuals but who stay celibate are not committing any crime under any secular law. Additionally, those homosexuals who do not stay celibate but don't get caught (i.e., are very discreet) and keep their mouths shut don't create problems for themselves (outside of early death, Aids and other STDs) either beyond those noted below.

The morality and honor of the situation just described is still degenerate. Additionally, as noted, the homosexuals in the original post of this thread were still placing themselves in compromising situation as far as potential blackmail for classified information is concerned.

It is exceptionally doubtful that those you postulated as violating Article 125 for reasons other than homosexuality would be subject to potential blackmail. Consequently, could you please restate your objection in practical terms.

[Devil_Anse]

"Was he a democrat?"

Alas, Godebert, she wouldn't answer you that one: she wouldn't answer whether her late ex-husband was a democrat... and I bet it's b/c she has NO IDEA whether he was one or not. She hadn't been with him in something like 20 years, at the time the guy died, I believe. She probably remembers that period of her life only as a time when she was pretending to like being with a man, when in fact she preferred being with a woman. And HE is probably only remembered as a small bump in the road on her way to "finding herself". (All these types have to "find themselves", don'tcha know?)

And above all, she is so wrapped up in herself, she probably never even bothered to listen to her short-term husband long enough to even know his political views at all.

[Devil_Anse]

Think Rosa Parks.

Total bunk. I would DEARLY love to know what you, as a self-professed gay woman, think YOU have in common with Rosa Parks.

This should be REALLY good, everyone.

Funny, you've invoked your deceased ex-husband, you've invoked Rosa Parks. Funny how you use people who are dead, and who therefore can't speak for themselves.

[rogator]

"Consequently, could you please restate your objection in practical terms."

I had not stated my objection.

But now that you mention it, when I was on active duty, more than 30 years ago, the investigative folks spent a great deal of effort in ferreting out discrete homo sodomites. I have never seen them go after the hetero sodomites. If sodomy is a violation of the UCMJ, to be consistent they should have gone after both or changed the reg to say that hetero sodomy is OK.
In no way do I support the concept of admitting "in your face" perverts to our armed forces.

[LN2Campy]

Well I really wasn't posing an objection, just noting the VERY broad sweep of the statute. Your points are very well taken -- and as a practical matter, sodomy prosecutions in the military are only brought in NONCONSENSUAL cases, i.e, as an extra charge if a rape/sexual assault has been alleged. Much the same as how adultery prosecutions are generally only brought when other misconduct is also at issue (an example is that chaplain, CAPT Lee).

[Lucky Dog]

The reason the investigators behaved as you stated they did probably rests in the potential problems with homosexual behavior versus the other behaviors you referenced. There multitudinous problems with homosexual behavior, but one in particular is worthy of singular mention.

As I stated earlier: "It is exceptionally doubtful that those you postulated as violating Article 125 for reasons other than homosexuality would be subject to potential blackmail." In other words, the practicing homosexual presents a very real threat to the security of classified information that may be in their possession.

[gathersnomoss]

You are certainly in line for the observation post.

[Lucky Dog]

Actually, you are incorrect. As a unit commander with UCMJ authority, I had the very unpleasant duty of ordering punishment for violators of Article 125 after an appropriate investigation and proceeding. There was no element of force in in this case nor any of the cases of which I am personally aware.

You are correct in that the article is very broad. However, a commander's discretion is also very broad and all in my experience pursued action only when the incident or individual presented a threat to the "good order and discipline" of the unit or hampered its mission in some way. I found the same to be true of most if not all of the nonviolent portions of the UCMJ.

[LN2Campy]

"In other words, the practicing homosexual presents a very real threat to the security of classified information that may be in their possession."

This was certainly the case back when the social opprobrium for homosexuality was very great. But if society at large is neutral on the issue, then the "threat" factor of "outing" someone becomes less potent, and the blackmail potential is arguably less of an issue. Unless of course you get a married guy that's swinging both ways.

[LN2Campy]

I incorrectly stated my other post --- my belief is that prosecutions for HETERO sodomy generally only occur in the nonconsensual context. But naturally I'll defer---you're the OEGCMJ, and I'm just the guy filling out the forms!

[Lucky Dog]

As long as Article 125 is in the UCMJ, a practicing homosexual is subject to blackmail to avoid damaging his or her career. The possibiltiy of blackmail in this situation has little if anyting to do with society's neutrality on the issue.

I expect that Article 125 will remain a part of the UCMJ for as long as the military can force people to live in open barracks or sleep in any other non private accommodation. This situation will probably remain until there is no longer a requirement for deployment to jungles and deserts or other combat locations which necessitate the imposition of harsh and austere conditions upon our nation's service personnel.

[DeathfromBelow]

By your same logic we would have to expell all the single people from the military too, because they are continuously involved in fornication and adultress affairs with the married spouses.

So then what, no military.

I personally never relished sharing a foxhole or submarine bunk with a "potential" if found out then I went out of my way to "Out Them"

Master Chief Petty Officer, Submarines, USN RET