‘Beginning the Conversation’

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell..... great idea.. I dont go around telling people im straight!. if you're that way keep it to yourself !!!

I am an active duty Major in the US Army and the views I present here are my own and not in any way an official statement from the government. I'm currently serving as a unit adjutant. Previously, I spent 11 years in the combat arms, have deployed to Somalia, Bosnia, have served in both Korea and Germany, and have a pending deployment to Iraq.

With the pending presidential administration change in less than 60 days, it is likely the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy will be rexamined by policymakers. Critics of the policy contend it goes too far and is prejudicial in regards to who can serve in the military. In my experience, I think the policy is prudent and best serves the interests of both the military and the nation.

During my time in USAREC, we routinely had to disqualify individuals from enlistment for medical, educational, and legal reasons, dependency issues, and also had a restrictive policy regarding tattoos. Some may joke that the Army will accept anybody off of the street, but this is simply not true. Recruiters work long hours to find eligible men and women who desire to serve the nation. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy simply eliminated one of several questions which was asked when screening applicants for eligibility.

Some critics of the policy contend the policy forces Soldiers to serve in an oppressive atmosphere. Just the opposite, the policy means "witchhunts" at unit level regarding personal, sexual preference are unauthorized. Soldiers are instead judged on their leadership, performance, and professionalism. Just as the US Constitution regards one's home as sacrosact, the policy takes this one step further in that one's sexual preference is not subject to scrutiny, unless a Soldier in word or deed blatantly violates the policy.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice already addresses improper relationships, including adultery, improper relationships with other service members, and relationships that are deemed detrimental to good order and discipline within the ranks. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy means a Soldier enlisting in a VOLUNTEER Army must abide by the policy.

Does the policy prohibit who a Soldier can reside with, if they are authorized to live off post? No. Does the policy prohibit who a Soldier can list on their SGLI/DD 93 in regards to benefits? No. Does the policy respect an individual's right to privacy regarding their sexual preference? Yes. Does the policy prevent unwarranted unit level "witchhunts" regarding one's sexuality? Yes.

It is an understatement to say how politically and socially volatile this subject is in the United States. This policy allows the US military to stay out of the political fray and avoid unneccessary distractions while manning and training the Army for current and future operations.

If a soldier cannot handle what he imagines his co-workers' sex lives to be to such a great extent that he cannot work with them, how will this soldier be expected to appropriately deal with homosexuals he encounters on the job that the military cannot take away, such as foreign troops or civillians. Who cares what goes on inside a soldier's bedroom--if he wants multiple partners, or tied up, or buttsex? Who cares? And why are these people so concerned with his sex life?

sharkmam; I'd like to throw you off the back of a Carrier at full speed. I would rather have a gay or lesbian watch my back than your sorry ass.

First of all gay people do not throw their sexuality in your face as much as you do it to them. Every time you kiss in public, hold hands, are out at dinner, the wedding pictures on your desk. Those are all ways you throw your sexuality in their face. So you see one flamer every month or may have once or twice in your life time seen two guys kiss...get over it. Don't ask don't tell needs to be repealed. "Sorry, you've been serving for 30 years and are the best soldier I've ever known but we're going to have to (honorably) discharge you." Tha's stupid. People are also thinking that if don't ask don't tell is taken away that the gays are going to come out of the wood work. I gaurantee you that will not happen. It needs to be taken away because there are many many instances where it's not even the soldier getting caught in the act or saying something about being gay. There are plenty of other ways to be found out. People that are worried about gays in the military are just afraid of things they don't understand. This is not a discussion about faith, whether you have any or not. It is a discussion about what is right. Whether homosexuality be nature or nurture it doesn't matter. They have all the same rights as the rest of us and should be treated as so. Don't ask don't tell and other anti-gay policies are only in place because of an activist legislature that pushed President Clinton to approve it. To use a line that I've seen many conservatives use throughout my life, "This is America and if you don't like it, you can leave." And remember. We are a Democratic Republic. We have majority rule with minority rights so before you go blaming activist judges for legislating from the bench, you first need to inspect the laws. Just because (random number) 80% of americans don't think gays should have the same rights as them doesn't make it true. We should applaude these judges that go against the grain and do what is right.

The Republican party need to abandon its don't ask don't tell policy regarding gay congressmen. All the Republican homosexuals need to drop their hypocrisy and come out of the closet before they embarrass their party like Mark Foley and the other gay from Idaho.

And what about the 70% of women in the military that have been raped or sexually harrassed? They even have a new term for the immence suffering that will last all their lives because of it. It's called MST or military sexual trama. There is also rape by rank. All of this is done by their fellow male soldiers. and the military if too short of soldiers and too image conscious too actually try these guys for what they've done. And they will be coming home being taught that they can rape with impunity because they are heros. And you worry about gays. Worry about the straight males if any of them are around your women.

The policy Don't Ask, Don't Tell was established to circumvent the law. The law, established during the Nixon administration, set forth the boundaries between tolerance and intolerance. The policy, established during the start of the Clinton years, did not repeal the law. The law stands today as when it was established. So then, whatever becomes of the policy, the law remains intact.
Perhaps then the Senator hopes to turn the debate away from the policy to focus on the law. That not withstanding, it is possible however that Senator Davis is unaware of the law. In either case, the topic of homosexuality in the Arms Forces is not a matter for public debate. The matter before the public is the place homosexuality holds in our society.
Traditionally, homosexuality in America has always been tolerated. Evidence of such tradition echoes in the use of the phrase "as long as they don't bother me." But while 'they' may not bother you, the debate is not about you or how 'they' may or may not 'bother' you. The debate rests in how we, as a civilized society, define homosexuality. If we use public discourse to define homosexuality, as it appears Senator Davis suggests, the debate will scream out for a definitive societal law. However, if we use sound reason, coupled with intellectual honesty, the debate will heed the tradition, and tolerance will prevail.

After I posted my comments (twice accidentally, I'm sorry to say), I noticed a lot of random and baseless comments regarding homosexuality, especially in morality contexts. So, I wanted to add that during the course of my more than 60 psychotherapy sessions with mental health providers to treat PTSD, anxiety disorders, and depression from my 366-day tour to Afghanistan, I learned a lot from my psychologist. One day during a session, we were making small talk, and we discussed homosexuality in general, in non-specific terms. In doing so, I asked him what the medical community has to say on the homosexuality subject. He told me unequivocally, that there is much research showing that homosexuality is genetic and therefore, many people are preconditioned towards becoming homosexual or heterosexual. Therefore, I think it is very sad to see so many people supporting the old paradigms associated with homosexuality--i.e. it's sacriligious, it's evil, it's sinful, it's perverted, it's revolting, etc. I found the following article interesting. I hope those people who fit the previous paradigms, read the article...and I hope that you have a paradigm shift after reading it: http://www.emaxhealth.com/48/22818.html.

The "don't ask, don't tell, don't harrass" policy worked very well during my time in the military, 1995-2008. The latter part of that phrase, "don't harrass," became crucial when it went into effect sometime in the late 1990s, because before that, military members and other government employees would openly giggle about the policy, or they would tell crude jokes, etc. At least with the "don't harrass" part of the policy going into effect, people became more discreet in their off-color remarks.

The policy of "don't ask, don't tell, don't harrass" is not bad at all. The problem is on the punitive end of things. Rather than slapping a service member on the wrist, figuratively speaking, and giving them a minor reprimand, or even a long succession of reprimands that result in real punishment--i.e. failure to obey a lawful order; any admittance, or minor appearance of homosexuality, quickly results in non-judicial punishment (NJP) via an Article 15 disciplinary action by the offenders commanding officer.

Sadly, NJP is almost meaningless in the grand military scheme of things, because it does not usually result in anything lower than an "honorable discharge," and no record of why the service member was discharged other than, "for the convenience of the government" is recorder. Of course, the service member receives no military service benefits and no severance pay, but the DD214 with an honorable discharge, in and of itself is PURE GOLD!

An honorable discharged service member is eligible for VA benefits, SSA benefits, burial benefits, etc. Moreover, honorably discharged service members oftentimes are highly sought after for civilian employment, as they possess technical skills, strong self discipline, and exemplary work ethic. So, if a service member desperately wants to get out of the service under honorable conditions, usually all he or she has to do is showcase or admit some sort of affinity for homosexuality.

I saw this happen several times while on active duty, and it was sickening to watch these cowards get away with "murder," so to speak. We all want out of the service at some points in our careers, whether its while we're sitting in a dead-end job, or whether its when we kiss our family members goodbye enroute to the combat zone.

This policy problem is not about "homophobia," it is about those who fail to follow the rules and openly defy policy/law. Discipline and integrity are at the core of military operations. Congress must ensure good order and discipline within its military ranks.

The "don't ask, don't tell, don't harrass" policy worked very well during my time in the military, 1995-2008. The latter part of that phrase, "don't harrass," became crucial when it went into effect sometime in the late 1990s, because before that, military members and other government employees would openly giggle about the policy, or they would tell crude jokes, etc. At least with the "don't harrass" part of the policy going into effect, people became more discreet in their off-color remarks.

The policy of "don't ask, don't tell, don't harrass" is not bad at all. The problem is on the punitive end of things. Rather than slapping a service member on the wrist, figuratively speaking, and giving them a minor reprimand, or even a long succession of reprimands that result in real punishment--i.e. failure to obey a lawful order; any admittance, or minor appearance of homosexuality, quickly results in non-judicial punishment (NJP) via an Article 15 disciplinary action by the offenders commanding officer.

Sadly, NJP is almost meaningless in the grand military scheme of things, because it does not usually result in anything lower than an "honorable discharge," and no record of why the service member was discharged other than, "for the convenience of the government" is recorder. Of course, the service member receives no military service benefits and no severance pay, but the DD214 with an honorable discharge, in and of itself is PURE GOLD!

An honorable discharged service member is eligible for VA benefits, SSA benefits, burial benefits, etc. Moreover, honorably discharged service members oftentimes are highly sought after for civilian employment, as they possess technical skills, strong self discipline, and exemplary work ethic. So, if a service member desperately wants to get out of the service under honorable conditions, usually all he or she has to do is showcase or admit some sort of affinity for homosexuality.

I saw this happen several times while on active duty, and it was sickening to watch these cowards get away with "murder," so to speak. We all want out of the service at some points in our careers, whether its while we're sitting in a dead-end job, or whether its when we kiss our family members goodbye enroute to the combat zone.

This policy problem is not about "homophobia," it is about those who fail to follow the rules and openly defy policy/law. Discipline and integrity are at the core of military operations. Congress must ensure good order and discipline within its military ranks.

To Hank the Horrible - Libs only drag Christianity into every arguement when Christians use the Bible as proof of their point in that arguement.