WASHINGTON
Hours after a Capitol rotunda ceremony marked the 60th anniversary of racial integration in the armed forces, a House subcommittee reopened a long-smoldering debate about whether gay and lesbian Americans also should be welcomed fully into military service.
In an often-contentious hearing on the nation's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on service by gay individuals, lawmakers heard assertions that the military is losing thousands of talented and patriotic people because - as one witness put it - "of who they happen to love."
They also weighed claims that repealing the law would drive thousands of other Americans out of the military as refugees from "forced cohabitation" with gay troops that would violate their morals.
At issue is a 15-year-old policy, adopted in the early months of the Clinton administration, that permits service by gay people so long as they keep their orientation private. More than 12,000 people have been discharged from the armed forces under the policy because they declared their sexuality or the military found they had engaged in homosexual acts.
"I am horrified that Don't Ask, Don't Tell forces trained and ready troops to choose between serving their country and living openly," said former Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, a gay man who in 2003 became the first American wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Alva comes from such a dedicated Marine family that his middle name is Fidelis, as in "Semper Fidelis," the Corps' motto. He lost a leg when he stepped on a land mine three hours into the invasion. Many of the other Marines who saved his life that day knew his sexuality, he said.
"The typical reaction from my fellow service members: 'So what?' I was the same person. I did my job well. And that's all they cared about. Today, I am godfather to three of those men's children," Alva said.
Another critic of the policy, retired Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, said she left the military after a narrow escape from the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon brought home the emotional toll her longtime "double life" in uniform had taken.
"If I had been killed, my partner then of 11 years would have been the last to know, as I had not dared to list her name in any of my paperwork or on any of my emergency contact information," Darrah said.
But Elaine Donnelly, a conservative activist who has attacked the policy as too permissive of service by gay people, argued that legal sanction for that service would be a victory for "the San Francisco left, who want to impose their agenda on the military."
Donnelly also asserted that service by openly gay troops could foster the spread of AIDS in the military and that heterosexuals harassed by gay comrades would fear being branded as "intolerant" if they reported sexual advances.
Her comment about AIDS drew an acid rebuttal from Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark. By Donnelly's logic, he said, it would be best to invite lesbians into the military and exclude everyone else because lesbians have the lowest incidence of AIDS of any group.
Wednesday's hearing was the first to focus exclusively on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy since 1993. It comes amid signs that public support for the ban on service by openly gay troops has weakened.
A CNN poll released in June 2007 found that 18 percent of Americans think gay people should not be allowed to serve openly. A Zogby International survey of U.S. troops in 2007 found that 73 percent say they're comfortable working with gays.
The same Zogby poll, Donnelly noted, found that 26 percent of service members agreed that gay people should be allowed to serve openly.
Critics of the policy said Wednesday's hearing is a first step in what will be a long struggle to get it repealed.
"The idea is to give people a chance to be educated and understand exactly what's going on," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., who is leading the repeal effort.
She has not even polled Armed Services Committee Democrats on the bill. "This is something the president won't sign and we need a new president in order to get this passed," she said.
Dale Eisman, (703) 913-9872, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
"believe it inerrant"
Just because you believe it was translated correctly does not make the Bible credible when you do not believe its content.
Legislating morality . . .
Here's what I am thinking through right now. For those of us who read the Bible and believe it inerrant, homosexuality is denounced as a sin. However, we are all sinners and no one in the military would deny that! So, I was wondering whether any other sins/vices/moral issues bar people from military service. Here are a couple I thought about: all drug use (in the distant past, it might be waivered to let someone in--if they use while in the military, they are history) and abuse of alcohol (for a good sailor, they will send him to rehab once. If he doesn't get it together after that, he is history). I am not sure about opposite sex adultery--sometimes it is a career-ender and sometimes not. Usually the higher the rank of the admiral doing it, the greater the chance he will be forced to retire as an example to his juniors. So, yes, homosexuality is not the only "issue of morality" in which the military takes a stand. Cheers, MGM
outed themselves
I'm also an Arabic linguist and a friend of mine was an MLI at ME I at the time. He told me the deal about most of the ones who were booted out - they "confessed" their preference to their commanders (i.e. told) so that they could get out.
Respectfully, if you were separated because you did not meet your branch's height and weight standards that isn't a witch hunt.
I agree the country can ill afford to kick qualified people out because of sexual orientation - especially if they can make it through DLI Arabic. Academically, that was the hardest 63 weeks of my life.
CS
That's a true statement. I was at DLI twice and an Arabic linguist myself. I wasn't given the boot for being gay, I was booted out for being big. But that was post 9/11 as well when supposedly there was a stop-loss in place. There were quite a few witch hunts on DLI too, especially in the Army. It's not easy or cheap to replace linguists in the military, especially in the upper languages like Arabic. Let's not forget the issue with anthrax around the same time. I knew many who refused the anthrax shots and were kicked out (this was before the courts put an injunction on the shots). In a time of need, it just appeared that the government was just throwing perfectly good talent aside for trivial reasons, which always left me questioning how important national security really was. At the time, the government's actions and words seemed rather contradictory...
Give DADT the boot
"we dismissed many of our arabic translators because of sexual orientation" This is actually untrue. The majority of the people "dismissed" were students - not qualified Arabic linguists - who outed themselves to get out of their commitments. A couple of them waited until just before graduation so they could get the training but not have to serve. If you out yourself you get an honorable discharge, so there were no negative repercussions for this scheme. I also had a roommate who outed herself after she didn't get accepted to flight school because it was the quickest way out of the military. She didn't get what she wanted so she quit - not exactly the "duty, honor, country" she was supposedly taught at West Point. I couldn't care less about a service member's orientation and I think abolishing DADT would be a good thing. If nothing else it would close an "easy out" loophole for certain members
is DADT constitutional? Isn't it discrimination?
Is it a Constitutional right for the military to have the DADT plan in the first place? Why can't it be viewed as discrimination?
HIV positive folks
Are returned stateside and serve here until they get too sick. They are then medically retired. That is the policy and has been the policy for about 20 years. There are HIV+ folks in the military and, until diagnosis, they are often overseas (maybe that's where they got it). We had an HIV+ airman working with us in Germany till they sent him back to Goodfellow AFB in Texas for treatment.
That said, I must admit that I am more concerned, disease-wise, about the spread of STD's in the military via hookups of all kinds than I am of disease spread via longterm couples of all kinds. That is only common sense, I guess. And also, the ones throwing the wild parties in the barracks and keeping all of the hardworking folks from sleeping concern me, too. It is possibly the same crowd. I am married and off-base at night usually, but I hear stories from the singles that do concern me for their well-being. Cheers, MG
Idea
Let gays serve, just as they always have, before and after "Don't ask, don't tell." If someone feels threatened there are harrassment charges.
Now to my idea: Don't ask, don't tell should be relugated to golf. If I come walkng out of the woods with a big smile on my face after a great shot, you shold not be allowed to ask if I picked up my ball. Also, if I come home smelling of booze w/ lipstick on my collar and my wife asks if I was w/ another woman, I then should be able to invoke this rule. That's fair I think. If we must promote lying and deception I would like it to be useful for others and not just the gay community.
How many of you want to live in fear?
How many of you want to live in fear of losing your job because of your sexual preference? Could I see a show of hands?
Elaine Donnelly has no idea
Elaine Donnelly has no idea what she is talking about. Her assertion on the spread of AIDs? Really. Even if you dismiss Rep. Vic Snyder's argument, it is not the "gays" who are responsible for the spread of AIDs among heterosexuals. Somebody who is diagnosed with AIDs won't be fighting anyway -- it's kinda like cancer patients, they tend not to be the best candidates for combat. The fact is, as our population grows, so will the percentage of people who are gay, and it makes no sense to get rid of well-qualified military personnel because of sexual orientation. For example, even if you stipulate that George Bush performed perfectly to protect us from terrorism, we dismissed many of our arabic translators because of sexual orientation, an act that which compromised the ability of our military to properly brief our President so he could continue to make the best decisions. Finally, the notion
"lots of integrity" .... not quite
"partner then of 11 years" would go back to 1990, three years before DADT went into effect. That would be when a lesbian relationship was flat out against Navy regs with no DADT policy to give a way out.
Another officer who expected her subordinates to follow Navy regs while hypocritically disobeying them.
This is an example of what Naval Officer Mary calls "one of the finest officers" she ever knew?
Something to think about . . .
As much as I have supported DADTDP, I must make one comment at this point because I reread the article and saw that Joan Darrah outed herself nationally in regards to these hearings.
I personally knew Joan Darrah. She was our community manager. She was one of the finest officers I ever knew and she had lots of integrity. When I was a young pup, newly commissioned, she loaned me her car several times in Spain when I had no other means of transport. I will never say a negative word against Joan Darrah, regardless of how these discussions on the Hill go. Cheers, MGM
C.B. I get the picture
We all get the picture, but what's missing in your comment is some sound common sense, but you demonstrated a total lack of understand about gays and their partners. Getting into sexual acts between gays or hetero's isn't anyone's business. I don't want to hear about your sex life and I sure as heck will not discuss mine. Why you are concerned about gay sex life is totally beyond me. Why in the heck do you care?
What difference does it really make
If they are doing their jobs and not making open advances on someone, who gives a rats butt if they are in love with a bag of turnips? If the guy shows up for inspection in a tu-tu, or won't do his job because he might break a nail then you have an issue. Short of that what diffference does it really make?
scrapping the DADT won't
Scrapping the DADT doesn't mean gays will be sitting around talking about their sex life, but trying to get hetero's to stop talking about their sex life is probably impossible. What it really means for gays is they won't have to serve in the military in fear of being outed and then kicked out. Nobody wants or should have to work or live in fear of who they are. It's really that simple!
Keep sex lives private . . .
I am for DADT (have been in the military for 26 years and am still there), but I am also for *everyone* leaving their tales of their sexual conquests at home. If you don't flaunt your sexuality in my face, I won't have any way of knowing what it is all about, right?
Also, regarding having a same sex person as your SGLI beneficiary, people do it all of the time. I have kept the unit records enough to know that. And I never checked to find out whether that person was a relative, a friend, or a lover. Remember, it's "don't ask, don't tell" *and* "don't pursue." Cheers, MGM
RE: what the problem is
"Well when you have one of your female sailors come to you about another female sailor cornering her in the shower, then you have your problems."
No one would deny that's a problem, but how realistic is the problem? In that case you have cause for action, but no action is required from hetero or gay sailors who respect others, and don't commit such an act. I don't get your point at all.
Wow
Any one and I mean any one has the right to fight for their freedom!!!
I have served for almost 12 years now and I am an E6. Well I am not Gay, but many think that I am because I am single and in my 30's. (I have made the Navy my life) so I just let them think what they want. I know I am not. I have known many that are gay and have served. Nobody y really cared. In fact I know a gay dude marry a Lesbian to get BAH. LOL I have also seen straight dudes say they are gay to get out.
Oh by the way does any body know that DADT also states that Hetrosexuals can not come out and state they are Hetrosexual. Oh it is true. that changed about 4 years ago. That means that one is supposed to have pictures of their wifes or families on their desk or any thing of that nature. Wow I think that rule gets broke every day. But who cares, Like I said ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO FIGHT FOR THEIR FREEDOMS and no one should ever say different.
What the problem is...
Well when you have one of your female sailors come to you about another female sailor cornering her in the shower, then you have your problems. I mean seriously, we have seperate berthings for male and female sailors to prevent any "co-habitation" from happening while on board ship. But can the same be held into account when you have 2 male/female sailors sharing a "rack" at night? Doesn't seem right to me that we deny our straight sailors from doing the same thing.
C.B. It's only obvious to
"What medical proof do you need beyond the obvious?"
It's only obvious to those who are biased or prejudice, so yes I want any legitimate medical proof you can find becuse there is none. As far as you hurling your lunch, well, guess who's problem that is.
Straight People
You want to know what your problem is? You flatter yourselves way too much to think that every gay man/woman in the military is after you for sexual reasons. Gay people should have the right to serve their country just as much as the straight people, unless you straight people just want to be glory hogs. I have known straight service members who abused DADT for their own gain (to get out). What say you to that?
I'm a gay man who served 5 years in the Navy. I served honestly, openly, and proudly. I can't understand this DADT crap and why you people don't want gays in the military. It's absurd. Quite frankly, society expects us to partake of other American activities, like tax paying, spending in the economy and voting, so why not the military? If that's how you want it, fine, send your straight sons and daughters into war and let them get killed for my freedom. Just remember, you wanted it that way. Don't
While some gays....
may no tbe the most dignifies in their approach to civil rights, it is still important that all priveledges of being an american be extended to all. Frankly it is not any of our business but if two men or two women decide that they want to hold hands in the street as many heteros do then what is it to any of us?
Something tells me that if we allow homsexuals to serve in the military just as most european nations do, it will have the same impact as those european nations have witnessed, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. If you fear the breakdown of our military due to acceptance of all americans well then I fear you have no faith in our military. As for those who have served but are no longer there having a problem well Thanks for your time but your services are no longer required.
Big issue...
I don't have any issue with homosexuals serving in the military as long as the military is willing to make showers into private stalls & allow us individual rooms. While I was serving we had gang showers & open bay rooms...which make others feel uncomfortable when having to shower with someone that is a known homosexual. I am all about live & let live but I also feel it is important to allow others their privacy as well.
Yeah let's hear it for
Yeah let's hear it for people's small mindedness and bigotry. That's why I love Hampton Roads we pretend to be forward thinking, but then I have polls like these to prove to me how stupid some people really are.
Please...
Gertz, please refrain from anymore visuals like mens bodies fitting together. I almost hurled my lunch. What medical proof do you need beyond the obvious?
Shahinah, you may replace the word "fear" with "disgust". Those awful "NeoCons" that, according to you, are the basis for a different reasoning, do not condone harrassment or rape of females either. What ever gave you that impression? Oh, I know, a liberal trying to scream load illogical attention getters that have no dog in this fight.
choice
i try and have respect for the person i am with and the people around me,there is a right time and place for every situation.homosexual behavior is not natures way,but a person has a CHOICE to live like they please.homosexuals are a small percentage of people and make the biggest noise about their rights.we live in a society where majority is supposed to rule.who you love and who you sleep with is totally your business and should remain private.nature dictates that a partnership is between the opposite sex of almost all creatures,should we force an exception for the so called dominant species?no one questioned the possibility that any people in the military whether straight or a homosexual use the DADT policy to their advantage.your numbers don't mean much as far as an argument on losing good people was it by CHOICE or convenience?each of us will be standing before the eyes of god and have to
JMO
"The key word is nature. Anyone who's familiar with the anatomy of men and women can plainly see that nature did not intend for us to have same-sex intercourse. Our bodies are such for a reason.
Defend homosexuality all you want, and I don't care what you do in private, but homosexual sex is not 'natural'."
JMO, what your saying is completely wrong, opinionated and not backed by any scientif proof.
Ask any homosexual and they will tell you their bodies fit together quite naturally. If the missionary position is all you know then I can see your lack of knowledge.
Get a grip, people
What I'm hearing from the DADT supporters is a lot of childish fear with no basis in reality. For those trembling about the possibility of sexual assault on straight men, first of all get over yourselves. You aren't attractive to every gay man and straight woman in existence. Second, why doesn't "sexual behavior" - including harassment and rape - seem to bother you when it's directed at women? Oh, right, because it's "normal". Please. You neo-cons think everyone should be required to serve, but you're willing to turn away a huge chunk of people based on who they sleep with - better illiterates and felons in the military than OH NOES TEH SCARY GAYZ. Shame on all of you for being such ignorant bigots.
In reality, it's quite natural
In any discussion concerning homosexuality, it seems that, invariably, someone asserts, as is the case below, that "...homosexuality is not normal behavior in the eyes of nature."
That's a blatant falsehood.
From Wikipedia, "Homosexuality in Animals": "A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them." And from Petter Bøckman: "No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis."
Thus, if by invoking the idea of normalcy the intent was to suggest that homosexuality does not occur naturally in a wide variety of creatures, that is wrong. In fact, the percentage of a given animal population that engages i
WHY ASK? DON'T TELL!
Being straight has never led me to detail to anyone what I do in the bedroom. This whole argument is kinda off-base (no pund intended) considering this topic should not be discussed at work, civilian or military.
So what's the point? Young guys and gals show up to outings/parties with same sex friends all the time. No one walks up and ask whether they slept together last night. Is this a "in your face" attempt to ensure a certain lifestyle is accepted, by force?
I've never had a straight person walk up and declare, so why should I want or expect a gay person to? Keep your bedroom play in your room, no need to flaunt or challenge.