Possible Repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell.. thoughts?

[cubsfan5150]

Well aware of this man. I spent 6 years active duty and served two tours in Iraq as a tank gunner. Just because the standards for UCMJ would be illegal in any other work place does not mean it is right. You said you agree with the other post, so you are ok with the repeal of DADT?

Have I mentioned that I would be against it?  I don't believe so, and if I have, I would retract it.  I've come to the belief that it wouldn't be that much different than desegregation.  In all honesty, I don't think you'll even notice a change at all.  Guys aren't going to suddenly say, "I'm gay".  They'll still keep it in their private lives IMO. 

I just get tired of civi's acting like they have a say beyond who they vote for.  It's similar to the Tom Cruise's and Shawn Penn's of the world that think that their opinions count on world issues.  It doesn't.

[Johnny America]

Have I mentioned that I would be against it?  I don't believe so, and if I have, I would retract it.  I've come to the belief that it wouldn't be that much different than desegregation.  In all honesty, I don't think you'll even notice a change at all.  Guys aren't going to suddenly say, "I'm gay".  They'll still keep it in their private lives IMO. 

I just get tired of civi's acting like they have a say beyond who they vote for.  It's similar to the Tom Cruise's and Shawn Penn's of the world that think that their opinions count on world issues.  It doesn't.

I do agree with people outside the military should not have a say in the way the forces are operated. This rule was an exception in my eyes though. When the military is using a rule that would not hold up anywhere else in the country then I am ok with people stepping in. We agree on the main point though. I was just making sure.

[Ben Steiger]

When the military is using a rule that would not hold up anywhere else in the country then I am ok with people stepping in.

A good portion of the UCMJ would not hold up anywhere else in the country. Would you like the civilian population to step in and change it, because it wouldn't? That point doesn't fly.

[Johnny America]

A good portion of the UCMJ would not hold up anywhere else in the country. Would you like the civilian population to step in and change it, because it wouldn't? That point doesn't fly.

If it is a rule that our Federal Government could not even use then yes, change it. No other place in America could use sexual preference as a job requirement. I am glad that the military can no longer do that as well.

[kingofdequeen]

Are you that dense?  I'm talking about the civi's doing picket lines for gay military rights.  I'm talking about that idiot Lada gaga stating her 2 cents.  Vote the way you want to vote, but beyond that, you need to say nothing more about the happenings of the military as long as we are staying with the laws put upon us.

DADT is a situation that should be decided by the military and those that command us.

who do you think makes the laws put upon the military?  who do you think appropriates the money for the military?  who do you think provides the funding for the military? 

in what way would you like civilians to influence those decision makers?  letter writing campaign?  hoping?  asking politely? 

civilian control is a founding tenet of the US military. 

[FSguy38]

Have I mentioned that I would be against it?  I don't believe so, and if I have, I would retract it.  I've come to the belief that it wouldn't be that much different than desegregation.  In all honesty, I don't think you'll even notice a change at all.  Guys aren't going to suddenly say, "I'm gay".  They'll still keep it in their private lives IMO. 

I just get tired of civi's acting like they have a say beyond who they vote for.  It's similar to the Tom Cruise's and Shawn Penn's of the world that think that their opinions count on world issues.  It doesn't.

That darned 1st Amendment and freedom of speech, it's a terrible thing.

[TeufelHog]

Here's a perspective for you to consider . . . 13,500 +/- military personnel have been dismissed under the DADT policy due to their own inability to follow a simple law/order - don't ask others about their homosexuality and do not reveal your own homosexuality if you are.  When they signed their contract to enter the service they all knew the policy and ACCEPTED IT.  13,500 +/- let their personal actions on duty reveal their homosexuality.  In other words, THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW IT.  By the way, you are a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine and Coast Guardsman 24/7/365 - that includes your "personal time" for those of you who want to argue the very weak case of those who were "outed" by someone else.  Doesn't that show that they couldn't follow orders?  Is that the type of person you want serving alongside of you in a combat situation?  The DADT policy wasn't broken, and it didn't need to be fixed.  This was an "election promise" made by a candidate for the Presidency to garner votes, a political agenda item by that same person for future political capital to possibly keep his position after the next election, and unfortunately, an effort to further a liberal agenda to promote same sex marriage and denigrate the very foundation of the family.  Now ask yourself, why choose the military to "make this happen?"  Because the military follows the laws/orders of its civilian led government . . . except in the case of those previously mentioned 13,500 +/- military personnel who chose not to.  I predict the largest initial impact will be to the military chaplain occupational field.       

[Johnny America]

I did serve in combat with homosexuals. I had a combat arms job. I had no problem with it. I am sorry if it offends your idea of "family." Thankfully in America your ideas do not apply to me.

[bugo]

Here's a perspective for you to consider . . . 13,500 +/- military personnel have been dismissed under the DADT policy due to their own inability to follow a simple law/order - don't ask others about their homosexuality and do not reveal your own homosexuality if you are.  When they signed their contract to enter the service they all knew the policy and ACCEPTED IT.  13,500 +/- let their personal actions on duty reveal their homosexuality.  In other words, THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW IT.  By the way, you are a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine and Coast Guardsman 24/7/365 - that includes your "personal time" for those of you who want to argue the very weak case of those who were "outed" by someone else.  Doesn't that show that they couldn't follow orders?  Is that the type of person you want serving alongside of you in a combat situation?  The DADT policy wasn't broken, and it didn't need to be fixed.  This was an "election promise" made by a candidate for the Presidency to garner votes, a political agenda item by that same person for future political capital to possibly keep his position after the next election, and unfortunately, an effort to further a liberal agenda to promote same sex marriage and denigrate the very foundation of the family.  Now ask yourself, why choose the military to "make this happen?"  Because the military follows the laws/orders of its civilian led government . . . except in the case of those previously mentioned 13,500 +/- military personnel who chose not to.  I predict the largest initial impact will be to the military chaplain occupational field.      

-1

[countryhog]

Here's a perspective for you to consider . . . 13,500 +/- military personnel have been dismissed under the DADT policy due to their own inability to follow a simple law/order - don't ask others about their homosexuality and do not reveal your own homosexuality if you are.  When they signed their contract to enter the service they all knew the policy and ACCEPTED IT.  13,500 +/- let their personal actions on duty reveal their homosexuality.  In other words, THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW IT.  By the way, you are a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine and Coast Guardsman 24/7/365 - that includes your "personal time" for those of you who want to argue the very weak case of those who were "outed" by someone else.  Doesn't that show that they couldn't follow orders?  Is that the type of person you want serving alongside of you in a combat situation?  The DADT policy wasn't broken, and it didn't need to be fixed.  This was an "election promise" made by a candidate for the Presidency to garner votes, a political agenda item by that same person for future political capital to possibly keep his position after the next election, and unfortunately, an effort to further a liberal agenda to promote same sex marriage and denigrate the very foundation of the family.  Now ask yourself, why choose the military to "make this happen?"  Because the military follows the laws/orders of its civilian led government . . . except in the case of those previously mentioned 13,500 +/- military personnel who chose not to.  I predict the largest initial impact will be to the military chaplain occupational field.     

+1

[ARtillahog]

What are everyone's thoughts about the intial reports that the military welcomed DADT repeal, when in actualality it was the opposite?  This came out in the news about a month ago, but since its already too late they won't change it. 

Has anyone been through this DADT training yet?

[pheine78]

What are everyone's thoughts about the intial reports that the military welcomed DADT repeal, when in actualality it was the opposite?  This came out in the news about a month ago, but since its already too late they won't change it. 

I set through the training a few months ago.  It is what it is.  As the saying goes, we have to shut up and color now.  If gays in the military are allowed now by our leadership, we have no choice but to endorse it.  If you don't like it, you have a choice--get the heck out!  I am not saying I like it, but I will damn sure go along with it.  Everyone needs to quit bitching and get on board.  Out.


Has anyone been through this DADT training yet?

[Old Tusk]

While I am retired, the folks I'm in contact with say it is a non issue.

[Johnny America]

While I am retired, the folks I'm in contact with say it is a non issue.

This is the same feedback I have received from my guys that are still in. People really just do not care.

[hawgsav1]

What are everyone's thoughts about the intial reports that the military welcomed DADT repeal, when in actualality it was the opposite?  This came out in the news about a month ago, but since its already too late they won't change it. 

Has anyone been through this DADT training yet?

Yeah, I got briefed on it in May, which was before the court order to immediately stop.  My command had maybe one or two people who were against the repeal, but honestly, 80-90% were for repealing it.  Granted, I only got briefed with officers and a few senior enlisted folks, but most everyone had no issue with gays serving openly in the military.

Basically, from my understanding, the way it's working now is that gay folks are allowed to openly serve, but they are all under the same rules (e.g fraternization, etc.).  The only difference right now is that they haven't restructured the bureaucracy to deal with health care, transfer of pay, and other tangible benefits for domestic partnerships.  However, that will probably have to be dealt with on the civilian side before we get to make any progress in that arena.

[Johnny America]

Yeah, I got briefed on it in May, which was before the court order to immediately stop.  My command had maybe one or two people who were against the repeal, but honestly, 80-90% were for repealing it.  Granted, I only got briefed with officers and a few senior enlisted folks, but most everyone had no issue with gays serving openly in the military.

Basically, from my understanding, the way it's working now is that gay folks are allowed to openly serve, but they are all under the same rules (e.g fraternization, etc.).  The only difference right now is that they haven't restructured the bureaucracy to deal with health care, transfer of pay, and other tangible benefits for domestic partnerships.  However, that will probably have to be dealt with on the civilian side before we get to make any progress in that arena.

When the money/benefits are finally able to transfer to a domestic partner then this ruling will be a true success. When a gay soldier can get killed in combat and his/her partner can not receive the same benefits as a married couple, that just sucks.

[hawgsav1]

When the money/benefits are finally able to transfer to a domestic partner then this ruling will be a true success. When a gay soldier can get killed in combat and his/her partner can not receive the same benefits as a married couple, that just sucks.

To be fair, while I'm definitely in favor of allowing gays to openly serve with us, I don't think you can put it on the military right now when it comes to the shared benefits/etc.  That stuff is inextricably tied in with the civilian side of things as well, so until the rest of the country catches up, I don't think the military can do much about it, except for perhaps something like Tricare.

[Johnny America]

To be fair, while I'm definitely in favor of allowing gays to openly serve with us, I don't think you can put it on the military right now when it comes to the shared benefits/etc.  That stuff is inextricably tied in with the civilian side of things as well, so until the rest of the country catches up, I don't think the military can do much about it, except for perhaps something like Tricare.

I agree with you. It will eventually happen though.

[Section 107]

When the money/benefits are finally able to transfer to a domestic partner then this ruling will be a true success. When a gay soldier can get killed in combat and his/her partner can not receive the same benefits as a married couple, that just sucks.

Just fill out your paperwork and list your "friend" as your beneficiary.  Only thing is you will have to be counseled about an unusual beneficiary.  But if you want to leave your $400,000 SGLV payment to "Your Friend" then list him as a friend.  Sign that you have been counseled and everything is settled.  DO NOT change the rules when there is no rule against it. 

[Johnny America]

Just fill out your paperwork and list your "friend" as your beneficiary.  Only thing is you will have to be counseled about an unusual beneficiary.  But if you want to leave your $400,000 SGLV payment to "Your Friend" then list him as a friend.  Sign that you have been counseled and everything is settled.  DO NOT change the rules when there is no rule against it.

So how can you get your "friend" covered under your insurance? This is a larger issue than just the death money.

[Section 107]

WHY would I want your "friend" covered under your health insurance?  Why can't my girl friend be covered under my health insurance? 

Answer:  Because the military is NOT concerned about your friends health insurance.  Whether it be my GIRL friend or your BOY friend.  They are not  a dependent so WHY would the military be obligated to pay for their insurance?

If you are REALLY in LOVE take an allotment out of your paycheck and YOU buy them some health insurance.  Do not ask me and the rest of the country to support your gay lover with health insurance.  In return I will not ask you to support my girl friends health insurance.  If a girl friend gets pregnant by a soldier should the military cover the birth in a military hospital?

This repeal will probably be done away with as soon as us "Tea Partiers" take control of the government.  We can only hope.  That is my thoughts.

[Johnny America]

WHY would I want your "friend" covered under your health insurance?  Why can't my girl friend be covered under my health insurance? 

Answer:  Because the military is NOT concerned about your friends health insurance.  Whether it be my GIRL friend or your BOY friend.  They are not  a dependent so WHY would the military be obligated to pay for their insurance?

If you are REALLY in LOVE take an allotment out of your paycheck and YOU buy them some health insurance.  Do not ask me and the rest of the country to support your gay lover with health insurance.  In return I will not ask you to support my girl friends health insurance.  If a girl friend gets pregnant by a soldier should the military cover the birth in a military hospital?

This repeal will probably be done away with as soon as us "Tea Partiers" take control of the government.  We can only hope.  That is my thoughts.

You are missing the point. You are allowed to marry your girlfriend. Same-sex couples fo not have that right in most places. Do not worry, once tri-care accepts same-sex marriage this will not be a point any longer. Good luck with taking over the government though.

[Section 107]

UNTIL they pass a FEDERAL law saying same sex marriage is legal.  Tricare will not recognize it. IF they do, Then I will worry about it. But after this next election you will see what happens when the people get fed up.  Until then, all I can say is go to New York or any other state that recognizes it.  Let their tax payers pay for it. 
Don't come to me asking to pay for healthcare because you want to hump a man. 
That crap is even against the rules in jail yet you want to make it legal on the outside? 

[Johnny America]

UNTIL they pass a FEDERAL law saying same sex marriage is legal.  Tricare will not recognize it. IF they do, Then I will worry about it. But after this next election you will see what happens when the people get fed up.  Until then, all I can say is go to New York or any other state that recognizes it.  Let their tax payers pay for it. 
Don't come to me asking to pay for healthcare because you want to hump a man. 
That crap is even against the rules in jail yet you want to make it legal on the outside? 

I think you will be pretty disappointed with the next elections. I have voted for republicans in the past. The Tea Party people have pushed me in the complete opposite direction though. I have gone from voting for third parties to now voting for democrats just to keep the republicans from winning. Being all about less government should extend to someone's bedroom. Until they stop trying to force religious ideals on the population I will not be supporting them.

Using your jail analogy though, I guess sex between a man and woman should be illegal on the outside?

[Section 107]

So I take it you are going to vote for Obama in 2012?  Not any of my business but do you mind if I ask why?  I have stated that I will vote for the Tea Party because they are the ONLY one in Washington that voted for the things they were sent there to vote for.  I will vote for them again in 2012. Hopefully a lot of other voters will do the same.  Either that or sit around and complain about the deficit. Everyone can make their own decision on that.  But I know what mine will be.

To answer the question that you asked though.  Sex between a MAN and a WOMAN is not illegal in jail.  Communal visits.

Do you think they would give a communal visit to a male inmate with his "friend"?

[Johnny America]

Since I live in Arkansas I doubt who I vote for will really matter. The republican candidate will carry this state. Would I rather vote for Obama than someone who will try to push their religious views into law? Yep.

So you are ok with the only time we are allowed to have sex is when someone approves of it? haha I am just taking the prison thing and running with it here

[Old Tusk]

If they are legally married, why would the partner not be eligible for insurance?

[Section 107]

No, You can have sex anytime you want to as far as I am concerned.  Just don't ask me to pay for the consequences of it.  UNLESS you are a couple of HOT lesbians. 

Oldtusk,
They might be able to get insurance in states that voted it to be legal.  If a couple of "dudes" get married in New York.  Why would they get the benefits that normal people in Arkansas would receive?

[Section 107]

Since I live in Arkansas I doubt who I vote for will really matter. The republican candidate will carry this state. Would I rather vote for Obama than someone who will try to push their religious views into law? Yep.

*******************************************************************

THANKS to the Northwest part of the state you are probably right. 

Do you think Obama would allow "religious" views to be pushed on anyone?  (This is fixing to get interested).

[Old Tusk]

No, You can have sex anytime you want to as far as I am concerned.  Just don't ask me to pay for the consequences of it.  UNLESS you are a couple of HOT lesbians. 

Oldtusk,
They might be able to get insurance in states that voted it to be legal.  If a couple of "dudes" get married in New York.  Why would they get the benefits that normal people in Arkansas would receive?

I saw nothing in any of my records that asked if my spouse was a female, they only asked for a copy of my marriage certificate. I really doubt that the military can or will get into the business of determining which of a states marriage certificates are valid. If a state says they are married, the federal government can't say the aren't. Last time I checked, marriage was not a Federal function.

[Section 107]

Tusk,
The military could care less what the State law says.  The Federal Government controls the military.  Until it is a federal law the military is not going to fund the insurance of a male or female "friend".  If you get married to a guy in New York and move to another state.  Does the new state of residence have to honor the marriage certificate? If the state law says that drugs are legal. Would military members in that state be allowed to use drugs?

Ask the military members in Europe what was the first thing that happened after a "vacation" to Amsterdam.  When they turned up "hot" the military did not care that smoking dope is legal in Amsterdam.

[Old Tusk]

Is there a federal law against gay marriage? What legal basis would the military have to not recognize the marriage? There is a argument that the COTUS requires other states recognize the marriage.

[Section 107]

Is there a federal law that says I cannot wear hair down to my butt and a beard to my navel?
Try that in the military.

There MIGHT be a COTUS determination that says other states have to honor the gay marriage deal.  But I have not seen one. 

[Old Tusk]

Is there a federal law that says I cannot wear hair down to my butt and a beard to my navel?
Try that in the military.

There MIGHT be a COTUS determination that says other states have to honor the gay marriage deal.  But I have not seen one. 

Is there anything in the UCMJ that says a spouse has to be a female?

[Section 107]

That would really suck if you were a female soldier and it WAS in there.
Wouldn't it?

There is nothing in the UCMJ that says you cannot marry a goldfish either.  When they wrote it, they probably figured "common sense" would prevail.  MOST people have a spouse of the OPPOSITE sex. 

BUT when they wrote the constitution they probably figured common sense would prevail. 

They were definitely wrong on that assumption. Weren't they?

[Old Tusk]

Seems to me common sense is winning.

[Johnny America]

Seems to me common sense is winning.

+1

[Section 107]

Seems to me common sense is winning.

I agree. That is why it should stay the same as it is. 
At least as far as the military is concerned.

[hawgsav1]

There is a big difference between naming someone as your beneficiary and being given the same benefits as a husband and wife.  You can name anyone your beneficiary to your life insurance: mother, father, son, daughter, sister, brother, friend, "friend", wife, husband, etc.

You can't get just anyone on your Tricare.   You can only get dependents and spouses on Tricare.

[Section 107]

I TRIED to explain that to them.

NOW they want to know; WHERE does it say your spouse HAS TO be a female?

The military is NOT going to authorize same sex marriages.
HOPEFULLY not in my lifetime.

They are fixing to totally screw up the military retirement to "cut" spending; yet some people want the military TriCare to cover their "lovers".

[Johnny America]

I TRIED to explain that to them.

NOW they want to know; WHERE does it say your spouse HAS TO be a female?

The military is NOT going to authorize same sex marriages.
HOPEFULLY not in my lifetime.

They are fixing to totally screw up the military retirement to "cut" spending; yet some people want the military TriCare to cover their "lovers".

I hope they will cover every "spouse" in my lifetime. I knew a few gay men in my unit, a combat unit. They had relationships that were better than several of the "normal" ones I knew about.

[Old Tusk]

Marriage is a civilan issue. The military has no definition of marriage. As soon as DADT is completely gone, a soldier in a same-sex marriage will put his spouse on his Tricare policy. The military will allow it because they know they will lose in Federal court.

Along those lines, I have always been amazed that single troops haven't filed a class action for the pay disparity.

[Johnny America]

Marriage is a civilan issue. The military has no definition of marriage. As soon as DADT is completely gone, a soldier in a same-sex marriage will put his spouse on his Tricare policy. The military will allow it because they know they will lose in Federal court.

Along those lines, I have always been amazed that single troops haven't filed a class action for the pay disparity.

I agree with you on both counts. I knew several guys that married a girl and payed her a couple hundred a month just so they could pocket the rest.

[Section 107]

I agree with you on both counts. I knew several guys that married a girl and payed her a couple hundred a month just so they could pocket the rest.

Did you turn them into the authorities?  If no, then you the same type scum that they are.  Like I said I could cut a whole lot WITHOUT raising taxes.
The military DOES NOT fall under civilian "STATE" laws.  It is not going to happen Tusk.
DADT says they can serve openly (for some stupid reason).  It does not say anything about marrying the "flaming friends" so my taxes can go up.

[Old Tusk]

Did you turn them into the authorities?  If no, then you the same type scum that they are.  Like I said I could cut a whole lot WITHOUT raising taxes.
The military DOES NOT fall under civilian "STATE" laws.  It is not going to happen Tusk.
DADT says they can serve openly (for some stupid reason).  It does not say anything about marrying the "flaming friends" so my taxes can go up.

I'm beginning to doubt your understanding of the US military.

[Johnny America]

Did you turn them into the authorities?  If no, then you the same type scum that they are.  Like I said I could cut a whole lot WITHOUT raising taxes.
The military DOES NOT fall under civilian "STATE" laws.  It is not going to happen Tusk.
DADT says they can serve openly (for some stupid reason).  It does not say anything about marrying the "flaming friends" so my taxes can go up.

Wow, you are an angry person. I did not turn them in. They were really great at their jobs. I do not care if their lifestyle offends someone like you. I wanted the best guys around me when I went to war. These men were in that category.

[Old Tusk]

The point is that if they are legally married they are not breaking any law.

[Section 107]

Wow, you are an angry person. I did not turn them in. They were really great at their jobs. I do not care if their lifestyle offends someone like you. I wanted the best guys around me when I went to war. These men were in that category.

It does not matter if it offends me or not.  It is called FRAUD and Military Finance offices will fry their a$$.  But like you said they were good at their job. Even they were in a "fake marriage" for the BAH money.  I am not talking about the gays. I am asking about the ones who had a "contract marriage".  It is called moral and integrity.  I guess they quit teaching that in basic training when we were invaded by the "new generation".

[Section 107]

The point is that if they are legally married they are not breaking any law.

Call your local CID office and ask if two people are married for the sole purpose of the BAH money if it is fraud.  BAH is for DEPENDENTS if your spouse is not your DEPENDENT he/she is not entitled to BAH money.  Same thing as saying your parents are renting you a place when you are mobilized so your parents can get extra money from the military through you.  I dealt with the con artists for 22 years Tusk.  Matter of fact had the "pleasure" of seeing several REALLY be cons before it was over.  I was good at my job.

[Old Tusk]

How do you prove they are defrauding the Gov?