Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is Riding the Rainbow

[Razor]

Teehee, I said "joint" and "staff."

Chairman don't think the Gays should be disallowed from the Military

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of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set the stage for the Defense Department's yearlong study into how the ban can be repealed without causing a major upheaval in the military.

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, although he did little in his first year in office to advance that goal. 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."

Congress enacted the law that enshrined the "don't ask" policy, which was intended to soften the previous blanket prohibition on gays in the military. "Don't ask" says gays may serve so long as they kept their sexuality private. Gay rights organizations have called that an insult and have said it is a form of discrimination.

Repeal of the ban would require a new law passed by Congress. Gates and Mullen said their efforts are intended to make sure the Pentagon is ready when that time comes.

The hastily called session gave Obama high-level cover on a divisive social issue complicated by the strains on an all-volunteer military force of fighting two wars.

Gates, who says he is a Republican, is the only member of former President George W. Bush's Cabinet whom Obama asked to stay on. He has gained a reputation for candor and caution. Mullen's words were a forceful endorsement from a careful man, but his very appearance, starched uniform and four stars on view, spoke as loudly.

Gates drew unusually pointed and partisan criticism from Republicans on the panel for saying that the review will examine how, not whether, to repeal the ban.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the committee, icily told Gates he was disappointed in his position. In sharp questioning, McCain angrily suggested that the Pentagon was usurping Congress' job in rewriting the law should it choose to do so.

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

Mullen looked pained when Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., suggested that Mullen had preordained the outcome of any study of the wisdom of repeal by signaling his own opposition to the ban.

"This is about leadership, and I take that very, very seriously," Mullen replied, tightlipped.

Several other Republicans sided with McCain, warning Mullen and Gates not to pursue a change at a time when the United States is fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and facing a continuing threat of terrorism. Democrats said they would back a change in policy.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and chairman of the committee, said a repeal of the law might be slipped into a broader military policy bill that authorizes defense spending.

Democratic Sen. Mark Udall said his Colorado constituents pride themselves on allowing others to live and let live.

"You don't have to be straight to shoot straight," said Udall, quoting libertarian Barry Goldwater.

Gates suggested that lawmakers keep the intensity of debate in check until the military can get a better handle on how to proceed. To sort out the details, Gates has turned to Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, who leads Army forces in Europe.

"Keep the impact it will have on our forces firmly in mind," the secretary implored lawmakers

Mullen said it was his sense that rank-and-file troops would support the change.

"I have served with homosexuals since 1968," he said in response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "There are a number of things cumulatively that get me to this position."

Ham is a former enlisted infantryman who rose through the ranks to eventually command troops in northern Iraq in 2004 and hold senior positions within the Joint Staff. Recently, he helped conduct an investigation into the shootings by a soldier at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas.

As the Pentagon's top legal counsel, Johnson has played an integral role into the effort to try to close the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Well. Admiral Mike Mullen, the highest ranking uniformed officer in this country, has said that the ban should be repealed. Hurray?

Obama called for this in his State of the Union address last week, and quite literally has the ball rolling a week later. Sure, Obama may have pushed for this to appease his liberal supporters while appeasing the conservatives with tax cuts to businesses, a freeze on spending for some agencies, and a cut of the horrendous waste in the Man to the Moon campaign that Bush started, but I honestly believe this is politics actually getting shit done. The Joint Chiefs of Staff aren't there to agree with the President. They're there to be liaisons. And with today's world, if Admiral Mullen didn't want to agree with Obama he wouldn't have. Trust me. People love to disagree with any President.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Motherfucking Gates is convening a panel on how to repeal the ban. Gates. The only man from Bush's cabinet to be asked to stay for Obama. He's a Republican if I've ever heard of one. And he's supporting the President's push for this.

I, for one, completely agree with how they are going about this. They are going through the military to see if it can handle such a repeal of the act. I understand why it is there, even if I may not agree. I can't really argue against Norcal, when he's the one who has fought and I haven't. However, the people in charge are going about seeing how a repeal would effect moral and/or fighting ability in the armed forces. Gates or Admiral Mullen aren't circumventing the law here. They are merely seeing how such a repeal would effect the forces, and if such a repeal is even legit.

I side with Udall, who was quoting Barry Goldwater:

"You don't have to be straight to shoot straight,"

But, this thread isn't for what I think alone. Should "Don't ask, don't tell" even be considered for appeal? Should it go ahead even if the military deems it possible to pull off? Are Defense Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen right to go about investigating, or should they look at Obama and refuse? I see this as true bipartisanship, Republican Gates working with Democrat Obama to get a policy both think is wrong repealed.

Or am I blowing smoke? Stake your claim.

 

[FromTheSouth]

NorCal can make this argument far better than I can, but I will give it a try.

The military should never be an instrument of social change. If I had it my way, anyone who isn't me can sign up to be shot it. The problem is that the military is not the real world. In the real world, diplomacy can go a long way, but once the bullets have started flying, all bets are off.

Say that the military is full of homophobic rednecks and I might not even disagree. The problem is that those homophobes are getting shot at to protect the nation, you, and most importantly me. I do not want to do anything to make troops uncomfortable in these situations. Discord in the barracks can lead to a disjointed force in the field.

Look, I may be against gay marriage, but I do not oppose any of the other hot button issues - adoption, visitation, estate - but this is one that I think is completely different from all the others. You can't just tell a bunch of 18 year olds who are risking their lives for the country to just deal with it. The force needs to be able to trust one another with their lives and, call it homophobia, that wouldn't be good for the soldiers.

Like I said, NorCal can make the point better than I can, but my main assertion is that military should never be used as an agent of social change because the day to day circumstances are far outside those of the real world.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

LULZ worthy is what all this shit is. Absolutely fucking dreaming.

Its not even a case of homophobia that I will touch on, which as was the case with blacks so many many years ago, people could just get over it, with time. That's and entire other argument that I dont even care to get into.

Ill tell you guys a little story. While I was gone from here, me and the boys heard Obama's fantasy land talk about doing away with don't ask don't tell, and I said to myself "Welp, there it is, Obama's first clear incident of simply just talking shit" becuase clearly, no one has thought of the logistics of this. Its fun to run around with a rallying cry of "rah rah gay rights rah rah change we belive in rah rah" well....thats all well and good but....How the fuck are you actually going to make this work? Logistically?

Were will they live? Sleep? Shower? In deployed locations, and in basic, you do all of this together. Like, side by side "thats a nice tattoo" together. You shower together, you sleep four to a very small bunk space, you live together, get naked in front of each other....How the fuck will that work?? Can you put them in the same shower room as hetero men? Yes, thatll last about as fuckin week. Can you put them with the girls? No, becuase regardless of how "gay" someone claims to be, no women will feel ok about having guys live with them and shower with them. Shit, you can't even put them TOGETHER, becuase, hello, each other are what they date. It would be the same fucking thing as mashing girls and guys into those living situations. What rules apply to them as far as battle? Women arent allowed on the front lines, do the same rules apply to gay men? Do bull-dykes get to serve in the front line now, even though they are girls?

Me and my troops literally would sit around for hours sometimes, listing out all the fucking ways this could never work, strictly from a logistics standpoint. Not to leave the fact that, as FTS said, there is a very large amount of phscyo killer rednecks in the military. Shit, whites and blacks still get into fucking fights, and keep to their own groups for the most part.

Some of you will come in here witht he dumb solution of "well ok, then let them serve, but not get sent to a warzone"

Ugh, the fucking chaos that would get ensued from THAT. You would have people lying to say they are gay to get out of going...It would also furthermore drive a wedge between different people in the forces becuase gays would still get paid the same, but clearly, not carry the same burdens. So, that solution is out the fuckin window, and we are back to square one. How do you go about making this work?

Our soceity isnt even close to being ready for this. Shit, interracial couples still rub a huge portion of this country the wrong way. Gay people aren't even allowed to get married in a lot of states still, and you want to put them in the fucking trenches with bullets flying? Are you fucking kidding ??

Thats another thing to be spoken for. A gay man / women shouldnt HAVE to deal witht he same things that Americans who enjoy their full breadth of rights do. They should have fuck all obligation, how can you call them an American who can serve their country when they dont even get to have all their fucking rights? Lets get to marriage, and full sharing of rights before we start putting people into battle, full on killing left and right.

I personally, would have zero issue serving next to, killing next to, showering next to, a gay man. Not very many hold my same stance on that, and they shouldnt have to.

 

[BladeRunner]

This is a non-issue.

Seriously, this shouldn't even be a issue.

There's always been gays doing all sorts of things. So what?

If a person wants to do something honorable, such as defending one's country, that's cool with me. Means I don't have to do it.

This really just seems like one of those pet issues on both sides of the political aisle that both sides can really get in an uproar about and really is not that big of a deal at all.

I mean the only difference is, instead of gays being gay in the military and not saying it, they're now saying it. They're still there, and they've always be there. You just now know a tiny bit more about their personal life.

I just really don't see what the big deal is.

I mean this is fun stuff to discuss, but me wasting tax payer money on these dumbasses in washington discussing this bullshit for hours is not my idea of money well spent.

 

[lghikas]

This is one of the few things I actually agree with Obama and is glad that he is hopefully doing to get rid of "Don't Ask Don't Tell". I used to be all against Gay/Lesbian people getting married but recently changed my mind once I actually stopped to think about the history of this country and the Bill of Rights and how we have Freedom of Religion, to me all that falls under that it's pretty much Freedom to Believe whatever you want to, as long as there is no harm or foul in it.

Another thing was in my senior year of High School we were honored to have a guest speaker that was African-American and fought in Vietnam and the question I asked him only really reinforced in my belief. I was able to ask him how he felt about being Black and fighting for the rights for people, when he doesn't have those rights back home. He paused for a bit than said "When it come time to fight whether you were White, Black, Spanish, or any stereotype it just doesn't matter because you all rely on each other" or something pretty much along those lines.

So it doesn't matter if they are Gay or whatever sexual orientation because in the end you all rely on each other to protect each other and fight for each one another. That and also Gay men don't really hit on Straight guys. Also it's the military it isn't something people join in hope of having sexual relations with someone else.

Anyway get rid of it, it's stupid and it shouldn't matter WTF you like when you are fighting for a country and protecting people.

 

[LigerBomb]

Blah blah blah, yea it shouldn't matter; yea it should be a non-issue in the year 2010; but truth of the matter is it just simply wouldn't work. As a culture we just aren't there yet (if ever). No one likes being forced to do anything --least of which those who are already asked to be placed in tense and potentially life threatening situations-- and believe you me if a law is passed then that's exactly what we would be doing to those who currently serve.

Simple put: now is just not the time.

 

[BladeRunner]

No one likes being forced to do anything --least of which those who are already asked to be placed in tense and potentially life threatening situations-- and believe you me if a law is passed then that's exactly what we would be doing to those who currently serve.

No one's being forced to do anything. If you don't like the army you can quit. If you don't like their rules you can quit.

The way you put it, it was like the army was forcing hetero's to be gay

If a person doesn't want to work with gays, that's their right. They can quit.

But I have a feeling most wouldn't quit, because a person that has your back, has your back irrespective of what their sexual preferences are. I also think that most probably already know who all are gay and who aren't, and just leave it up to that person's business anyway.

Imo, we need every person we can get to join the army. I don't care what your color is or what religion you are or whatever the heck else makes you different from me. Without a standing army we wouldn't even have a nation. A good soldier is a good soldier.

 

[LigerBomb]

No one's being forced to do anything. If you don't like the army you can quit. If you don't like their rules you can quit.

The way you put it, it was like the army was forcing hetero's to be gay

If a person doesn't want to work with gays, that's their right. They can quit.

But I have a feeling most wouldn't quit, because a person that has your back, has your back irrespective of what their sexual preferences are. I also think that most probably already know who all are gay and who aren't, and just leave it up to that person's business anyway.

Imo, we need every person we can get to join the army. I don't care what your color is or what religion you are or whatever the heck else makes you different from me. Without a standing army we wouldn't even have a nation. A good soldier is a good soldier.

Missing the point, read Mi-T Norcs ideas for a taste of the unrest it would cause. First, you would be forcing people "to serve or quit" if they had problems. That in and of itself is dumb. It's akin to the "like it or leave" response that grew to prominence after some people started having problems with the way things were being handled post 9/11. It's unrealistic, problematic, and too myopic to be the proper way to handle the situation as the OPs article's critics have already responded.
At this point we don't need unrest in the armed forces. Especially with 2 front wars going on. We don't need people to consider abandonment of their service, not wanting to enlist, or being enlisted and disgruntled, we don't need a quiet segregation, and secret alienation; this holds especially true when a sense of unity is a key stone of service that saves lives. Second while I'm glad you don't care "what your color is or what religion you are or whatever the heck else makes [others] different" from you, others do and that's still very real and carries the potential of serious consequence if provoked, even today in this "day and age". I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's the best, but I'm saying it's real. And reality with always trump Utopian fantasy. Baby steps are needed and their will have to be a middle ground between "don't ask dont tell" and it's outright repeal and the instating of a new law.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Um, not to fucking mention, there is no such thing as "quit the army". You can't quit, they own you, so you ARE forced to deal with these situations. You can disobey direct orders, but then you will receive a "Big Chicken Dinner" or, in my terms, a "Bad Conduct Discharge"

If you get one of those, you receive a felony on your record, ALONG with, a dishonorable discharge? Guess what kind of fucking job you can get with BOTH of those??

I mean, you could sell drugs, I suppose.

 

[BladeRunner]

Your basic reasoning is "because some people are homophobic, gay people shouldn't be able to be who they are in the army."

That's like saying "because some people hate jews, no jews should be able to mention that they're jewish in the army."

What I'm talking about is freedom.

What you're talking about is a police state where everyone is scared that everyone else is going to out them.

I think people deserve better. People should be respected and given a chance, instead of automatically assuming things about them, and making them hide the parts you don't like about them.

The army should treat everyone equally and not make some hide who they are because others don't like it.

 

[X]

How many of you actually know gay, lesbian, or bisexual people? It never ceases to amaze me the astounding arrogance of straight men who seem to think that anyone who's gay is going to want to immediately suck their cock and try to fuck them. It's actually downright offensive. Please, don't fucking flatter yourselves, gay, lesbian, and bisexuals aren't fucking sexual predators always trying to get their rocks off every 10 minutes with anyone of the same sex. Seriously, if you can have women and men in the military together, then there is absolutely no reason why gays can't. Especially since, you know, there already ARE thousands of gay and lesbian people in the military. Only now they won't have to hide who they are.

Seriously, you think if you take a shower and there's a gay guy in there he's going to start checking you out and winking at you and trying to get you to drop the soap? Stop flattering yourselves. And if I hear this "morale" argument bullshit one more time, I'm going to snap. Let me get this straight, you're cool with defending your country and KILLING PEOPLE,but just don't let any darn gays around me while I'm firing off bullets into my enemy's chest! Seriously, you think they're concerned with sucking your rancid cocks? I assure you, they are not, they're concerned with protecting their asses and the asses of every other man and woman around them.

And this bullshit about "our society isn't ready! Not when we're in two wars!" pisses me off as well. What would you like to wait for, until the entire human race is completely understanding and forgiving of all races and sexual preferences and peace overtakes the globe? Keep dreaming, that shit isn't happening. You think society was ready when blacks were allowed into the army? FUCK NO, the KKK was running rampant around the nation hanging blacks left and right. But it was the RIGHT thing to do, and yes, shocking, but sometimes the RIGHT thing to do isn't the easy thing to do.

It's a sad joke that Don't Ask, Don't Tell still exists and I for one cannot wait until that bullshit policy is rid of forever.

 

[Shadowmancer]

I know Norcal mentioned it in another thread, basically on the basis of the possibilities of relationships occurring and resulting in the possibility of units getting put in danger due to a need for one member of a couple to protect the other.

My position on whether someone is gay, bi or straight is, thats nice I don't give a fuck. That is how I view the army when it is in action. Outside of the deployed situations they can be whatever they are but when they are deployed they are asexual. Drill that into heads and you will have an effective fighting force.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I used to be completely against people not being allowed to make their sexuality known in the army. I've always been completely for the rights of homosexuals, and I saw this as them being pushed down, almost as if they should be ashamed of what they're like. Then I read NorCal's post on this issue a while back, and he changed my mind. It's all well and good talking about gay rights, but when you look at it in practice, as NorCal has shown, it doesn't work. It's not being homophobic, it's the same reason I wouldn't feel comfortable getting changed in front of a man. It's not that all homosexuals are rapists or sex offenders, and if people think THAT, then they are homophobic. It's that being that close to someone who could find you sexually attractive, or look at you in that manner is awkward. Again, it's the same reason men and women don't get changed together for the most part. Not all men are sex offenders, but it's still awkward.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Well, way to ruin MY fucking post, Becca.

X, it has fuck all to do with gay people being rapists or whatever wild shit you are spewing up there. It has to do with some of the most basic of human rights, man. You don't FORCE men and women to shower together, to live in close quarters, to share bunks, to get naked in front of each other. With gay people, it would be the exact same thing, regardless of the level of attraction. Not every man is attracted to every woman, nor are they all crazed sex feinds, but it would still not be acceptable to force them into those sorts of situations. This isnt fuckin Starship Troopers. How would you feel if your girlfriend or wife was going off to serve, and knew she would HAVE to shower with other men? Fucking really? How do you think a gay man would feel about his Boyfriend or husband doing the same? A lesbian and her girlfriend / wife? No, it can't happen, and it won't happen. Its basic human rights as we as Americans accept them. Any argument in opposition to that is not one rooted in any sort of reality. Sorry.

As been said a few times, another thing in this is soceity just SIMPLY isnt ready. You still have fools out there with fucking pitchforks and torches trying to say it isnt natural, its a choice. And you want to force these people to be together like this? Like I brought up earlier, fucks sake man, they aren't even allowed to be married in most states

The vast majority aren't even REMOTELY educated enough on this stuff for this to happen. It fucking sucks, but it's just the way it is. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fucking dreamworld.

 

[X]

Well, way to ruin MY fucking post, Becca.

X, it has fuck all to do with gay people being rapists or whatever wild shit you are spewing up there. It has to do with some of the most basic of human rights, man. You don't FORCE men and women to shower together, to live in close quarters, to share bunks, to get naked in front of each other.

You already have gay people living in close quarters, sharing bunks, and getting naked in front of each other Norcal. There are thousands of homosexuals in the military.

You know where else men change in front of each other Norcal? The freakin' locker room at the gym. If they can handle it, I think some marines can.

With gay people, it would be the exact same thing, regardless of the level of attraction. Not every man is attracted to every woman, nor are they all crazed sex feinds, but it would still not be acceptable to force them into those sorts of situations. This isnt fuckin Starship Troopers. How would you feel if your girlfriend or wife was going off to serve, and knew she would HAVE to shower with other men? Fucking really? How do you think a gay man would feel about his Boyfriend or husband doing the same? A lesbian and her girlfriend / wife? No, it can't happen, and it won't happen. Its basic human rights as we as Americans accept them. Any argument in opposition to that is not one rooted in any sort of reality. Sorry.

That's a terrible argument Norcal. You know why? Because it can be solved in about 5 seconds. Bathroom stalls + show separators that have been in use since the Vietnam war = end of the problems you just discussed. This wouldn't even dent 1/10,000th of the military budget to do this.

As been said a few times, another thing in this is soceity just SIMPLY isnt ready. You still have fools out there with fucking pitchforks and torches trying to say it isnt natural, its a choice. And you want to force these people to be together like this? Like I brought up earlier, fucks sake man, they aren't even allowed to be married in most states

Didn't you see my point of comparing this to the plight of blacks in the military in the US Norcal? For fucks sake blacks weren't even technically FREE from slavery yet and they were let into the military Norcal! That's just an BS excuse dude, sorry. "It's not the right time, society isn't ready", so fucking what? You have to MAKE society ready. If you're waiting for the day when homosexuals are accepted round the world Norcal, that day is never going to come, so I don't think its fair to ask homosexuals to wait all of eternity to have the same basic rights as everyone else.

Like I said, you think society was ready for integration of blacks into schools in the 50s? FUCK NO they weren't, and quite a few people were killed because of it. But it was the RIGHT thing to do, just like this is. The right thing to do isn't always the easy thing Norcal, and I think you know that man.

The vast majority aren't even REMOTELY educated enough on this stuff for this to happen. It fucking sucks, but it's just the way it is. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fucking dreamworld.

You're the one living in a dreamworld dude, the one where apparently we have to wait until homosexuality is accepted around the globe and no one has a problem with it until they can have the same rights as heterosexuals in the military.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

You already have gay people living in close quarters, sharing bunks, and getting naked in front of each other Norcal. There are thousands of homosexuals in the military.

Yes, and there is an image of heterosexual majority that is projected, with DIRE fucking consquences if it is messed up. I understand what you are saying, but it really doesn't fucking matter. Let's go ahead and remember the types of people this policy is in place for in the first place.

You know where else men change in front of each other Norcal? The freakin' locker room at the gym. If they can handle it, I think some marines can.

Were there is also an air of heterosexual majority. I hardly think anyone is running around advertising how gay they are in a male locker room. There is a basic unspoken "dont ask dont tell" in that sort of enviorment. Don't play dumb, thats a shit example.

That's a terrible argument Norcal. You know why? Because it can be solved in about 5 seconds. Bathroom stalls + show separators that have been in use since the Vietnam war = end of the problems you just discussed. This wouldn't even dent 1/10,000th of the military budget to do this.

Ok, and living conditions? and regardless of seperators and stalls, its still a locker room / shower room enviornment, something that 95% of people will not be comfortable with being in the same as different genders / orientations. And they shouldnt be forced too.

Didn't you see my point of comparing this to the plight of blacks in the military in the US Norcal? For fucks sake blacks weren't even technically FREE from slavery yet and they were let into the military Norcal! That's just an BS excuse dude, sorry. "It's not the right time, society isn't ready", so fucking what? You have to MAKE society ready. If you're waiting for the day when homosexuals are accepted round the world Norcal, that day is never going to come, so I don't think its fair to ask homosexuals to wait all of eternity to have the same basic rights as everyone else.

Like I said, you think society was ready for integration of blacks into schools in the 50s? FUCK NO they weren't, and quite a few people were killed because of it. But it was the RIGHT thing to do, just like this is. The right thing to do isn't always the easy thing Norcal, and I think you know that man.

and is that what you want? Do you WANT large amounts of people to die over this? Or do we have a far more open, educated soceity now than we did back then, and maybe we arent too far off? Why force it, and have needless death, when things are progressing every day? Soceital change doesn't happen overnight. Lets have a generation of individuals who understand its a natural thing, and they are normal people just like you and I before we start FORCING this through combat situations. Not all of fucking enternity, why does it always have to be so dramatic with you but shit, lets get them the same basic rights as Americans they deserve before they start defending America. Hello.

You're the one living in a dreamworld dude, the one where apparently we have to wait until homosexuality is accepted around the globe and no one has a problem with it until they can have the same rights as heterosexuals in the military.

Way to take it to the extreme, and take what I said out of context. I never said it needed to be roundly accepted globe wide. I said our soceity isnt ready right now.