« Giraldi on Zuckerman | Main | "They Don't Mind and We Don't Matter" - Anonymous 11b »

28 May 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



Hetrosexual 'singles' are allowed in their off time to do the bar scene if they so choose. Will the Homosexuals be allowed the same? From what I have ascertained, the 'gay bar'scene is just a 'little bit' 'different' from the 'straight' world. Look at the following

to understand my 'concerns' regarding the clearances factor. Such will need to be addressed by Command.

Patrick Lang


Who do you think looks like Hope? pl


J, the homosexual bar scene is pretty complex. I am not a big bar customer, but there is a mixed bar around the corner that was run by two gay friends for many years. I can tell you, you would have had troubles to tell who is straight and who gay. ...

I avoid a larger more literary excursus, about male friendship over the ages and/or legal aspects. When was the paragraph abolished that punished homosexuality with dead in England, in the big 18th century reform? Were there equivalent laws in the States?

So, OK. Security risks. An artist friend who stood over here in Germany told me he had a minor clearance, which seems to occasionally come with camera training. I am assuming you wouldn't consider this guy's knowledge risky? Would you?

These two might be more suspect?: including 2 USNA grads

I can understand your irritation about the more flamboyant parts of gay society, although much of it to me feels like role playing to me - I am with optimax on the issue. But strictly again, I could imagine a heterosexual soldier in a brothel somewhere outside the states as pretty much the same security risk as the most brothel like gay bar or sauna. Can't you?

Something else comes to mind from the political German context. When the Green Party became part of our legislative bodies there was a huge discussion if one could really share state secrets with these guys. They have been in quite a few legislations since and obviously know more than they were supposed to know, but as far as I can tell there was no treason case. Quite the opposite they seem to be quite as corruptible as the rest given a chance. (irony alert)

To return to possible secret carriers above, the grads, that may have had a higher security clearance. Shouldn't their much longer training not only guarantee a higher responsibility and if not that than at least an awareness of the duties that accompany clearance more precisely legal aspects?

So what concrete evidence, apart from irritation by some flamboyant aspects of the gay pride world, do you have that a gay is untrustworthy?


Anon, what is an emo? will not google certain topics.

It was good of you to put Optimax in his muumuu substitutes on that list.

Are women allowed to wear makeup in uniform? Are there regulations governing mascara, lipstick shades, false eyelashes and that sort of thing?

Patrick Lang

Apropos of nothing, we had a gay bar here in Alexandria a few years back. it was a local sensation for a while, then it went broke. Now, I can't remember what it was called. I went in for a drink once to see the picture hanging over the bar. Another, even stranger old retired Army colonel had been very outspoken in his outrage over this place. In retaliation the owners had a picture painted that depicted him as a reclining nude looking back over his shoulder at the crowd across the bar. I wonder what happened to the painting... pl


is there a standard military issue bra?



I have no 'irritation' with their world, as I have my hands full with my world as it is. What I have 'irritation' with is possible 'exploration' by Hostile Intelligence wonks (i.e. Mossad honey-traps, Russian honey-traps, etc.) that are all too frequently used in the world of espionage to ferret out secrets. The U.K./D.C. politicians and their homosexual individuals who have/are frequently successfully targeted by hostile-to-the-U.K./U.S. espionage honey-traps, are a prime example. Heterosexual individuals in the military world whether married or single, there are established guidelines in the security clearance arena. Since DADT, DOD has had the 'luxury' of being able to in most aspects turn a blind-eye to certain aspects of the homosexual/lesbian world, that it will now have to address if homosexuals/lesbians are 'formally accepted' into the military ranks. DOD will have to establish 'off limits' boundaries for all (Heterosexuals, Homosexuals) with no favoritism.

The days of Command 'luxury' in the clearances world is coming to a close. Hostile Intelligences never sleep, and continually seek to successfully exploit wherever and whenever they can. That's the real-world.



There are those who contend that the hidden agenda behind the drive to allow gays to openly serve is to undermine the Armed Services. There are those who contend that straight personnel do not wish to face an external enemy while at the same time fending off sexual overtures from the rear. Some see Homosexuals gaining rank and using it to extort sexual favors. There are concerns that discipline and morale will decline. There are those who see Heterosexuality is about love, marriage and procreation, whereas contend that Homosexuality is largely about sex for its own sake to compensate for developmental disorder. There are those who take issue with the way Homosexuality is being foisted upon military Heterosexuals.

See Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan (Retd. USMC) address his concerns to the Congress this past March:

He told a Senate Sub Committee that gays serving openly have a debilitating effect. (See YouTube above) He said the Commander of the Dutch Army blamed open gays for the failure of the Dutch to prevent the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica of 8,000 unarmed Bosnian men and boys by Serbian militia. It was the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II.
Sen. Levin then appeared upset at what Gen. Sheehan said. And the Dutch government responded with their shorts in a knot at what Gen. Sheehan had to say.



The military medical field will need to address battlefield wounded, blood transfusions. Will DOD then have to every six months do a blood test with Homosexuals to see if the have contracted AIDS? There are ramifications (i.e. medical, etc.) that extend far beyond the clearances factor that I broached above. How will these issues be addressed by DOD? DOD will no longer have the luxury of acting like a Ostrich with its head buried in the sand.



There are those who say that the 1993 Clinton mandated legislation didn't pop out of thin air. that it was put in place as a decoy from the real US Code Title 10, Subtitle G, Section 654

US Code Title 10, Subtitle G, Section 654:

Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces


10 USC Sec. 654 01/24/94



Subtitle A - General Military Law




Sec. 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces


(a) Findings. - Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United

States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise

and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules

for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed


(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I

of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the

discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and

conditions of service in the armed forces.

(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for

and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the

armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the

ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.

(6) Success in combat requires military units that are

characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit


(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is

unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual

service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military

unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the

individual unit members.

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life

in that -

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces,

the unique conditions of military service, and the critical

role of unit cohesion, require that the military community,

while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized

society; and

(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws,

rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions

on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian


(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces

regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the

moment the member enters military status and not ending until

that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed


(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of

Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all

times that the member has a military status, whether the member

is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off


(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is

necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at

all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces,

the international responsibilities of the United States, and the

potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat

routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces

involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions

that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced

intimacy with little or no privacy.

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a

longstanding element of military law that continues to be

necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that

exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create

an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of

morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the

essence of military capability.

(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who

demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts

would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of

morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the

essence of military capability.

(b) Policy. - A member of the armed forces shall be separated

from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary

of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and

approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such


(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or

solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless

there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with

procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has

demonstrated that -

(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and

customary behavior;

(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to


(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force,

coercion, or intimidation;

(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the

member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent

with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline,

good order, and morale; and

(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage

in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual

or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further

finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set

forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that

he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in,

has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual


(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person

known to be of the same biological sex.

(c) Entry Standards and Documents. - (1) The Secretary of Defense

shall ensure that the standards for enlistment and appointment of

members of the armed forces reflect the policies set forth in

subsection (b).

(2) The documents used to effectuate the enlistment or

appointment of a person as a member of the armed forces shall set

forth the provisions of subsection (b).

(d) Required Briefings. - The briefings that members of the armed

forces receive upon entry into the armed forces and periodically

thereafter under section 937 of this title (article 137 of the

Uniform Code of Military Justice) shall include a detailed

explanation of the applicable laws and regulations governing sexual

conduct by members of the armed forces, including the policies

prescribed under subsection (b).

(e) Rule of Construction. - Nothing in subsection (b) shall be

construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed

for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made

in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of

Defense that -

(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the

purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and

(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest

of the armed forces.

(f) Definitions. - In this section:

(1) The term ''homosexual'' means a person, regardless of sex,

who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage

in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the

terms ''gay'' and ''lesbian''.

(2) The term ''bisexual'' means a person who engages in,

attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends

to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts.

(3) The term ''homosexual act'' means -

(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively

permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of

satisfying sexual desires; and

(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would

understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in

an act described in subparagraph (A).


(Added Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V, Sec. 571(a)(1), Nov. 30,

1993, 107 Stat. 1670.)



The Uniform Code of Military Justice, referred to in subsec.

(a)(10), is classified to chapter 47 (Sec. 801 et seq.) of this





Section 571(b)-(d) of Pub. L. 103-160 provided that:

''(b) Regulations. - Not later than 90 days after the date of

enactment of this Act (Nov. 30, 1993), the Secretary of Defense

shall revise Department of Defense regulations, and issue such new

regulations as may be necessary, to implement section 654 of title

10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).

''(c) Savings Provision. - Nothing in this section or section 654

of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), may be

construed to invalidate any inquiry, investigation, administrative

action or proceeding, court-martial, or judicial proceeding

conducted before the effective date of regulations issued by the

Secretary of Defense to implement such section 654.

''(d) Sense of Congress. - It is the sense of Congress that -

''(1) the suspension of questioning concerning homosexuality as

part of the processing of individuals for accession into the

Armed Forces under the interim policy of January 29, 1993, should

be continued, but the Secretary of Defense may reinstate that

questioning with such questions or such revised questions as he

considers appropriate if the Secretary determines that it is

necessary to do so in order to effectuate the policy set forth in

section 654 of title 10, United States Code, as added by

subsection (a); and

''(2) the Secretary of Defense should consider issuing guidance

governing the circumstances under which members of the Armed

Forces questioned about homosexuality for administrative purposes

should be afforded warnings similar to the warnings under section

831(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 31(b) of the

Uniform Code of Military Justice).''


Just a quick comment about clearances re: this thread.

DADT is a big part of the problem on the security clearance front, because it creates a need for people to develop the kind of personal secrecy that opens the door to blackmail and worse. Anyone living a secret life is a security risk, and that's not a gay or straight issue: it's a human nature problem.

Gays who are 100% "out" are generally not a problem for security clearances, because there's no potential for leveraging secrecy, simply because there's no secrets to leverage. There are plenty of gay and lesbian folk working in secure federal venues, and they are otherwise indistinguishable from their more plain-vanilla colleagues in terms of the quality of their work.

Where homosexuality creates the potential for security breaches is in those settings where it necessarily must be hidden, and in that sense, DADT creates security problems instead of remedying them.

I have no opinion on the utility of DADT in the military, since I have no firsthand knowledge of the topics our host brings up here, and thus I defer to those whose experience is relevant. But I do know a lot about the requirements for security clearances, and in that particular setting, DADT is a liability, not an asset.

Patrick Lang


I would agree with that. pl

Patrick Lang


I suppose that at one time underwear was issued to women service members. Perhaps it still is, but I expect that most women wear something they prefer. Maquillage? Ear rings? Someone else will have to answer that. What's the point? Is it that you think it will be all right for male soldiers to wear makeup and ear rings? If that is so then straight male soldiers will have to be allowed to do the same thing. I would prefer the jewelry described in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," a gold skull and crossbones worn in one ear with a bone added for every assault landing. pl


All right, assault landing earrings with hash marks. LOL LOL



I just got it. Your slogan ") If I had a gay side I wouldn't be afraid to express it" with image of the most interesting man in the world leading the S.F. Gay Pride Parade dressed as Carmen Miranda and wearing her signature fruit salad on his head. That would make a fine commercial.


Thank you for putting me so high on your list.

Patrick Lang


I think people should be themselves, up to a point... a decent regard for the opinions of mankind, etc.

I seem to recall that you are African-American. What to do you think of the picture of the black SCV guys? i have anumber of these from different "Camps." I have been pursuing the idea of the complexity of human relations for a long time. I have been through the CS veterans magazines. There were quite a few of these people. I have the feeeling that there would be more mention of them if it were not for the fact that their presence was taken for granted. I think this is a suppressed colective memory. pl



I'm White, a WASP with some Irish.
I also believe personal freedom is limited by living in a civil society. Hisrory use to teach us that the slaves were all happy and has been revised to teach all slaves were abused both physically and mentally. Learning that some free Blacks owned slaves, some fought for the Confederate Army and some stayed with their owners after emancipation complicates the picture. The only way to create an ideal world is by suppressing certain memories, or some think, but the world is too complex to ever conform to any groups ideal. Reading the WPA slave narratives was eye opening to me and are on line.

As children we use to visit our Great Aunt and Uncle who had a dairy farm in Alabama. I had to reconcile their love for me and my love for them with their racism when it reared its ugly head one time. I was dissappointed but still loved them.

It's hard for people today to understand the strong ties people had at one time to land and community, stronger than an idealogy.

Patrick Lang


You were disappointed. Well, why not? Humans are so flawed. "The glory, jest and riddle of the world." I think that the South of WBS times so perfectly expresses this that it became an obsession for me and I have tried to express that in my novels. pl


optimax - history (and current reality as well) is complicated. It isn't neat and tidy, although by the time it gets written about that's the impression that is usually left...

Colonel - I guess I have two (completely naive) thoughts about all this: first, as a practical matter, the question of whether gay men and women will be able to serve openly in the military (it is completely evident that many already serve, sometimes with distinction) is, or should, be a decision made by the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces (that's his job, and he should do it one way or another); I can't imagine that Truman's Executive Order in 1948 desegregating the Armed Forces was entirely a piece of cake - but it not only happened, it was sincerely taken to heart, and now the Armed Forces are one of the most color-blind organizations in America. Granted, the DADT legislation injects Congress into the process, but IMO they really don't belong there and the faster they can remove themselves, the better.

Second, the specific issues that you bring up about who gets what benefits and how, are likely to provide employment and amusement to many lawyers for a few years - but it strikes me that the simplest way for the military to deal with it would be to 'repeal' DOMA at least within the context of the UCMJ, treat "married" homosexual couples as married within that context (with everything that implies), and let the states and the communities within which they reside just deal with it...as long as it happens within the military community, I don't see that anyone else has a legitimate case for having a conniption. (although I'm sure many will anyway...)

Patrick Lang


"would be to 'repeal' DOMA at least within the context of the UCMJ,"

The military can not repeal a law. pl

I was dissappointed but still loved them.

Similar experience - and they loved me in spite of my being young and callow with strange ways I no doubt got from the other side of the family as well as some damned peculiar ideas they could only hope I would outgrow.

It's hard for people today to understand the strong ties people had at one time to land and community, stronger than an idealogy.

These ties are too old to ablate in one or two generations. They persist even among Wandering Gentiles who have come to believe Promised Land and covenant means a patch of mortgaged real estate. We just don't recognize them in their displaced and [mal]adapted forms.


did the post just get sent to the oubliette?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad