« Wikileaks, the diplomatic turn | Main | DADT Post closed »

30 November 2010


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


Can I get that in lavender Sarge?

John Minnerath

I see problems for years down the road.
Most of the objections have come from the combat troops, the rear echelon units exist only to serve those.
The military will become a haven for homosexuals and I see young people now rethinking military service because they don't want to be around that culture.
Some younger people may look at homosexuality differently than us of older generations, but not all by a long shot.


From my experience some 50-odd years ago I can attest that life in a male enlisted mens' barrack was in no way gay-accommodating.

We can hope youngsters today will adjust more easily, but having spent those three years among 18-21 year old men I have my doubts.


Lots of people among the actual fighters in the ground forces didn't like integration in 1951.

Over extended periods of time the force became a haven for blacks in the same way that the industrial working class had become such (back when there was such a thing). Segregated Army garrison life came to an end. The Army in which Walter Bedell Smith was raised was gone. The segregated social life of units largely ended. Were West Point grads looking forward to interracial marriages at graduation? I doubt it.

Sometimes, the new generation is right.

Patrick Lang


And sometimes not. pl


I'm kind of surprised by how negative you are to this because I know you are not a homophobe. And I know you have served with homosexuals, they just weren't openly gay.

They would still have to adhere to the military rules.

Patrick Lang


You don't get it. The open display of homosexual behavior will change everything in the military. This not a job that we are talking about. It is a way of life. pl

Medicine Man

I'm not as pessimistic as this. The expected behavior of gay people in the military is going to be very conservative, just due to the environment. There is a good chance that gay service members will continue to be assimilated into military life, just as they have always been in the past.

I guess we'll see.


The Australian Navy is suffering from an attack not only of female enlisted and officers, but also lesbians as well from what I've been told and seen myself.

What happens when a Gay officer decides they have the hots for someone who may not be openly gay? What happens in the weapon pit?


I get it! Any gay person in the military is going to act according to the military's rules. That is the deal.

I doubt the flamboyantly gay, with their boas and womens dresses and heels, would choose the military. It just isn't the culture for THAT kind of dressing.

Patrick Lang


I think you are wrong. The former cadet who illegally wore a USMA uniform while acting as Gaga's escort to a public event is an example. She was impersonating a member of the armed forces and should not be re-admitted the the academy. pl


"I expect that over extended periods of time the force will become a haven for homosexuals in the same way that the Catholic clergy and religious orders have become such havens."

Why do you expect this?



exactly. And don't forget the gay nco's doing the same. As the col. pointed out it is the open display of the behavior will change the culture, especially in barracks.


I'm in the minority with the Colonel, this is going to be a mess.


We could both be wrong, but that is for others to sort out. If the former cadet wearing the USMA uniform tries to be re-admitted, I'm sure the they will deal with her.

Issues such as these always remind me of the MASH episode when a white Southern boy is wounded and needs blood. He's horrified that he will get it from a black blood donor. Have you ever seen the movie "My Fellow Americans" with Jack Lemon and James Garner? Two secret service officers save the two ex-presidents.

P.S. Lady Gaga?


Can you give us an example of an "open display of homosexual behavior?" Because I'm betting that whatever you can come up with, "it" is also illegal for straight soldiers too. Just curious.


apologies for too many adverbs in one sentence.

Patrick Lang


This has nothing to do with legality under UCMJ and you know that. I am trying to explain this to you and you want to play games with me. pl

Patrick Lang


I will let the insult pass. pl

Patrick Lang


Are you serious? Someone tell him. i am loosing patience especially with some woman named Mary who can't tell the difference between VMI and the Citadel. pl

robt willmann

I guess in every culture is the wise old saying -- just let sleeping dogs lie. Sadly, the desire to push an issue without looking at the big picture is all too prevalent, maybe even a neurobiological tendency in us.

A friend of mine was in charge of an Air Force crew in the Vietnam war which operated one of the surveillance, radar jamming, signals gathering and transmitting, and NSA-associated planes of which there were only a few in the U.S. military. His group consisted of technicians, linguists, and so forth. Among them were some who were homosexual, but there was no problem because those who were did not make an issue out of it and the rest didn't care because of that and because the job got done.

This is why the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law is grounded in reality. I understand that the risk remains that a conscientious serving member of the military may -- if his or her sexual "orientation" is found out -- be discharged. However, the easier way to deal with that is for Congress to add some vague language to the statute to allow the person or panel adjudicating a potential discharge to allow the person to stay if the circumstances weigh against discharge.

Race deals primarily with skin color and facial features, although some will argue that it includes cultural traits. But sexual orientation affects a different set of attitudes.

Furthermore, whenever you move a matter into the realm of "legal rights" you open a Pandora's box of trying to define the "right" in words, its coverage, the procedures to deal with disputes about it, and the degree of coercion involved to attempt to enforce it, because the written law in a governmental entity ultimately looks to force to try to compel obedience to its decrees (look at the Transportation Soviet Administration [TSA] as an example). This narrow approach to achieving the objective naturally leads to ancillary problems.

Live and let live can only operate when left alone.

William R. Cumming

If the formula is Duty, Honor, Country then where does homosexual or heterosexual orientation fit in and does it make a difference if combat unit or REMFs?



That was me. You're right, it was the Citadel. I'm sorry. I retract my comment and beg your forgiveness.


Medicine Man

Actually I second Ronald's question. The US Army has a vastly better track record when it comes to self policing than the Roman Catholic church. Even if you accept the premise that closeted gays are the majority culprits in the Church's ongoing abuse scandal it is a stretch to imagine that tolerating them will create an identical situation.

Or am I reading too much into your statement by bringing up abuse issues? If not, I'm not sure what you're driving at.

Patrick Lang

MM and Ronald

I did not say anything about abuse of anyone. This change in the law will create a protected class who will have a great deal of power in the ability to claim violation of the law against just about anyone. Priests had similar power in that they were protected by the hierarchy for many years. In these circumstances people who possess the protected trait are attracted to the institution. Once this change occurs the "self-policing" powers of the US Army will be applied against anyone who objects to the change. pl

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