Looking the other way on Don't Ask, Don't Tell
When it comes to kicking Americans out of the military because they’re gay, the occasional defense — offered by conservatives who know the policy is absurd — is that the Pentagon is merely following the law. If Congress wants able-bodied, patriotic, American volunteers to join the Armed Forces, regardless of sexual orientation, lawmakers should change the policy. If not, the Defense Department doesn’t have a lot of choice.
Except, that’s wrong. Gay soldiers discharged under the DADT policy have dropped from 1,200 a year in 2001 to less than half of that now -- and it's probably not a coincidence.
The U.S. military says it is enforcing the ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, as it has for decades, in the face of statistics that show a sharp drop in the number of discharged homosexuals as wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue.
Homosexual rights advocates cite the plunge as evidence that the military is losing interest in enforcement and lets openly homosexual men and women serve because commanders need every able-bodied troop.
"Truth be told, I don't think the Pentagon is a big fan of the law anymore," said Steve Ralls, spokesman for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is pushing for the ban's demise.
Then maybe it's time to end the ban?
Ellseberg on Edmonds-
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5583
We need cannon fodder, so being gay's ok...
apparantly the hate for arabs is greater than the hate for the gays.
Just to play the devil's advocate, maybe not as many homosexuals are opting to get involved with this insane war. Who the hell could blame them?
The policy was stupid then and it's stupid now.
Hmm, good point. Especially since the anti-gay dogma is pretty much relegated to old fundamentalist dudes in DC.
that is so awesome that everyone is so worried about who sticks what in who's hole....
hilarous!
If they let homosexuals in the military where will all the bigots go? Those poor dumb haters already have to put up with Jews, negros, asians and brown skinned people.
"ANYONE dumb enough to wanna be in the military... should be allowed in.... it should be the only requirement" - Bill Hicks
andy @ 8:
ISP.
Steven Zeeland "Barrack Buddies and Soldier Lovers: Dialogues with Gay Young Men in the U.S. Military""
Steven Zeeland's "Barrack Buddies and Soldier Lovers" is a raw, unsanitized personal record of conversations he had with young soldiers and airmen stationed in Germany shortly before the outbreak of the Gulf War. These interviews document the far-ranging and pervasive gay networks with the U.S. Army and Air Force. While a few of Zeeland's buddies were targeted for discharge, most portray an atmosphere of sexually tense tolerance — and reveal a surprising degree of interaction with straight servicemen. Some of these soldiers even found that, ironically, the U.S. military actually helped them become gay. It did this by taking them away from hometown constraints, stationing them overseas in cities where they found greater opportunity to explore their sexuality, and thrusting them into the sexually charged atmosphere of all-male barracks life. Scott, Doc and John were part of this network.
Steven Zeeland "Sailors and Sexual Identity: Crossing The Line Between “Straight” and “Gay” In The U.S. Navy"
The phrase "crossing the line" in (the) subtitle refers not only to the sexual flexibility of sailors but to a time-honored, officially-sanctioned maritime initiation ritual said to date back to the early 1600's. It occurs in the U.S. Navy when ships cross the equator. Those who have already gone through the ceremony are known as "shellbacks," and those being initiated are called "wogs," short for "polliwogs."
In the interviews that follow, Sonny, Eddy, Anthony, Trent, and Joey describe the shellback tradition and their individual experiences "crossing the line."
Steven Zeeland "The Masculine Marine: HomoEroticism In The U.S. Marine Corps"
In "The Masculine Marine," Steven Zeeland interviews active-duty U.S. Marines about what it means to be a man, to be a Marine, and to desire other men. Their answers shed light on homoerotic bonding among Marines, hazing and institutional violence, how gay Marines reconcile their sexual identity with the ethos of "hard" Marine supermasculinity, Marines in all-male pornography, how Marines feel about being viewed as sex objects, and male attitudes about women in the Marine Corps. In the following excerpts, "Captain Eric" (aka "R", as featured on the cover of The New York Times Sunday Magazine) takes issue with the gay stereotype that "all Marines are bottoms."
pissed off patricia @ 4:
Probably true but in the actual report they interview several gay people in the military who came forward with proof of being gay, and their commanders basically kicked them out of their offices.
Querelle The Movie
Querelle is the tale of a beautiful, proud and hard-as-nails loner, the sailor Querelle (Brad Davis, Midnight Express – this is one of Fassbinder's few films shot in English), whose commanding officer, Lieutenant Seblon (Franco Nero, Camelot), is obsessed with him. Querelle turns on his drug-smuggling partner and murders him. He goes to a notorious brothel run by the rapacious Lysiane (Jeanne Moreau, Jules and Jim), who leads him into his first homosexual encounter, with her husband Nono (Günther Kaufmann). Lysiane is madly in love with Querelle, but takes his brother Robert (Hanno Pöschl) as a substitute. Robert and Querelle have an incestuous relationship, which they try to hide. Later, Querelle falls in love with a fellow murderer, Gil, who bears an uncanny resemblance to his brother (both Robert and Gil are played by Hanno Pöschl). Gil is having an affair with an angelic young man named Roger (Laurent Male). Querelle's increasing passion for Gil, the first man he has loved, panics him, so he betrays him to the police. But by now Querelle has become vulnerable, and he at last allows himself to submit to Seblon.
Querelle is Fassbinder's most luridly experimental film, filled with extremes of visual design and debauched characters, his most grotesque since Whity and Satan's Brew. It's as if he had gone down into a maelstroml of operatic emotion (say, Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, Strauss's Salome, Berg's Wozzeck – Fassbinder was an opera devotee), and then transformed that passion into shattering images; his extremes of color and composition are like the most intense music made flesh.
Of course, the film derives from Jean Genet's extraordinary – and equally lurid – book, although the author would be surprised to see a video arcade, decades before its invention, in this adaptation. But such anachronistic shocks (there are others) are as intention as Fassbinder's revolutionary extremes, even for him, image and sound: as he states, on a title card in the opening credits, this is a film about Genet's novel, not a mere picturization.
The only reason that the military is backing away from this policy,is because people are Not enlisting.The reason their not enlisting is.........Everybody knows this is an illegal war.
http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/
http://www.palmcenter.org/
http://www.stevenzeeland.com/zeeland/toc.htm
Steven Zeeland "Military Trade"
#1 BESTSELLER, THE ADVOCATE, JUNE 1999
"A smoldering seductive passage into the labyrinths of man-sex that disturbs, intrigues, and arouses as you sit up all night trying to put it down."— Frank Browning, Author, "The Culture of Desire" and "Queer Geography"
"REMARKABLE, AND REMARKABLY ILLUMINATING." — Leo Bersani, University of California at Berkeley
"AN ENTICING VOLUME... ZEELAND SUCCEEDS HANDILY ON ALL FRONTS."— Next (New York)
"FASCINATING, EVEN STIMULATING READING."— Gay Today
"A BOOK OF LOVE."— XY
Since the publication of my first book in 1993 I've received upwards of a thousand letters from men from all over the world who have written to share with me their own experiences about admiring, desiring, loving and / or having sex with military men. Many who have written me are themselves active-duty servicemen or veterans, but even more have been civilians. Their stories sparked my curiosity: What exactly is it about a man in uniform that so enthralls us? And what happens when an idealized sexual attraction becomes a long-term real life pursuit, or even a vocation?
These are some of the questions I've explored in my newest volume of interviews, essays and photographs, "Military Trade." Some of the more sensational contributors include:
> a TV talk-show host who pimped Marines to Hollywood stars
>a heavy metal superstar who dreams of being reincarnated as a Marine boot
> a woman ("a gay man trapped in a woman's body") who seduces Marines online then dominates them in person
>a former Force Recon Marine who complains of being chased by civilians but is now a Marine-chaser himself
Though "military chasers" come from all walks of life, it seems that most of us share a certain (arguably classic) masculine ideal; a desire to be immersed in large numbers of military men; a conviction that servicemen are more likely than civilians to believe in honor and integrity; and a yearning for "pure" homosocial camaraderie or "buddy love" — but one that allows for sex between men.
http://www.stevenzeeland.com/zeeland/toc.htm
But if they get rid of the policy that would be like admitting they aren't revolted by icky gay people... Just because they're allowing 'em in the military doesn't mean they can't still hate 'em.
Being allowed to fight in the military might make homosexuals feel they're obligated to other basic rights that the rest of Americans have too. Talk about a Pandora's Box of tolerance that'd be unleashed if that happened!
June 28, 1998
Uniforms in the Closet
By JENNIFER EGAN
New York Times Magazine
''The Shadow Life of a Gay Marine,'' published on the cover of The New York Times Magazine, June 28, 1998.
Excerpt here:
Driving from Camp Pendelton into San Diego, 40 miles south, R. grows visibly more relaxed. He has a California tan, deep-set eyes and the sturdy build characteristic of marines, along with a large Marine Corps tattoo -- eagle, globe and anchor. A vigorous, sociable man, he is full of plans. After work tomorrow, he will make the two-hour drive north to David's house in Los Angeles, as he does each weekend. On Sunday, they will go to brunch at the home of a gay Marine officer. In a couple of weeks, R. will accompany his battalion to ''the desert,'' Twentynine Palms, a Marine base outside Palm Springs where field training exercises are performed. From there he will head into Palm Springs for the annual White Party, a large all-night gay dance...This constant switching between mutually exclusive worlds can have some odd, hallucinatory effects, R. says: ''Several times I've met someone on base and wondered, Haven't I seen him at a bar? And then I've seen people at bars and thought I recognized them from the base. When I see someone at the mall, I can't remember where I know them from...''
R. joined the Marines as a teen-ager and is fiercely loyal to the Corps, particularly to the enlisted men who answer to him -- ''my marines,'' he calls them, and adds, ''I'm a marine first and gay second.'' His career has been stellar; he is what is known in the Corps as a ''mustang,'' an enlisted marine who crossed over to become a commissioned officer. ''Now that I've been a commanding officer and a general's aide, sky's the limit,'' he says. Military retirement, which can begin after 20 years, would allow him to draw half his base pay for the rest of his life. But R. plans to leave the Marines at the end of his current commission. The reason is simple. ''I'm fed up,'' he says, ''with having to hide...''
It has been more than four years since the policy known as ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue'' went into effect. This policy was a compromise eked out among the White House, Congress and the Pentagon after President Clinton's announcement of his intention to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military -- a ban that prohibited homosexuals from serving under any circumstances -- set off a firestorm of opposition. Under ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' homosexuals (and bisexuals) may serve as long as they tell no one about their sexual orientation, refrain from ''homosexual acts'' and forgo homosexual marriage. The policy bars the military from questioning service members about their sexual orientation or investigating them without credible information that they have engaged in homosexual conduct. The stated goal of the policy is to allow homosexuals to serve while preserving morale and unit cohesion, which the military believes would be impaired by the presence of openly gay soldiers. But ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' forces a difficult choice upon homosexuals: in order to serve, they must either do without sex, romance and companionship or live uncelibate lives and lie about it -- breaking the law and forfeiting their careers if they are caught...
Read the entire (very long indeed), article @:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE1D7153CF93BA15755C0A...
I would be willing to bet none of the current candidates, from either party, would end the discrimination.
Rainbow Warriors Unite.
Let's not forget it was CLINTON who signed the hateful law. Totally unforgivable. If "don't ask, don't tell" were fair, why is it NO PROBLEM for a hetero military guy to tell someone else, "hey, I just banged Jane last night". And let's be honest, my hunch is that the military is made up about 60% gays and lesbians. Puh-leese, grow up.
The GOP would try to have their cake and eat it too. If they had enough troops to kill who they want killed, they would enforce DADT. When they are finished with all the killing, they'll be a profound resumption of DADT violations. I'm not gay.
There are Gays serving right now in the U.S. Military, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, admitted or not.
There have always been gay men in the U.S. Military.
There will always be gay men in the U.S. Military, too.
Welcome to the real world. The world is not "one-dimensional" as the conservatives want to pretend it is, either. Yes, there are gays and lesbians in the world and while on that, sexuality is not as simplistic as the "one-dimensional" thinking imposed upon America by the conservatives.
There always have been gays in the military.
The "issue" of gays in the military has been made up purely for political and culture-war purposes.
See, this is just another example of how extremely cruel, petty and short-sighted the US government can be. I'm a gay veteran and I tell every gay person I meet who's considering joining the US military what a terrible idea it is to join. If you know of a gay or lesbian friend or loved one who's about to join the US military DO NOT let them join! I say the US military is getting what it deserves in this aspect, and if they lose their volunteer forces and have to reinstate the draft, the American people will not stand for that. And recruiters are stone-faced liars who'd do anything to get someone to sign on the dotted line. They lied to me, promised me several things in my contract that would help me complete my college education, then failed to make good when I got ready to claim my benefits. My service record was spotless, and I'd served my country in good faith, yet still...
To the US military: See what hatred and blind bigotry get ya, you idiots?!? This is a mess of your own making.
The leaders of America are all messed up, and keep getting more ignorant by the year, if not, nanosecond.
Let’s not forget it was CLINTON who signed the hateful law.
Right. And if Sen. Clinton gets elected, will she get rid of this stupid, illogical ban, as she could do with an executive order?
Has anyone bothered to ASK her?
Hillary Clinton has a position on Dont Ask Dont Tell.
But dont ask her because she isn't going to tell you.
I'm in it to win it
More delaying tactics by the GOP. By the time we elect a Democratic President in Nov we will be forced to either end the war or reinstate the draft. This way, with the assistance of the MSM, all blame will be placed on the Democrats and not the GOP. It’s all part of their MO and has been for years.
put a stake in the heart of southern baptist sharia
If the Conservatives have a problem with gays in the military then maybe they could offer to replace those gay service people by serving themselves. Nah, that would never work. Those Conservatives would just claim that they are gay to get out.
Out all of the closet "queers" on the conservative-Republican side, and do so with pictures, catching them in their "act of sin," so they can eat their own crapola for once....
Believe you me, there are loads and loads of Republican "queers," which is the term most used by the right-wing conservatives to describe gays and lesbians in American society...the media totally ignored all the gay scandals of the Republicans in the past 7 years and gave it almost zero attention. It is time to call the Republicans on their hatred and dishonesty.
Don't see the big deal. I don't think any personal attributes to a soldier should be known. Soldiers should work in groups, the individual is largely unimportant.
Same way a recruited racist should keep quiet about his personal beliefs, a homosexual should keep quiet about his personal sexuality. The only issue I can see is if one possible confrontational aspect of one person is punished, and not in another.
Mr. XXXX @ 33:
That's funny. I'm pretty sure Larry Craig was all over the news.
Then maybe it’s time to end the ban?
Yeah, I wonder how a Democratic candidate would be perceived if he or she said something like, "You know, who the heck cares if a soldier is gay or not? All that matters is that they're willing and able to defend their country. As in the UK, Holland, Israel, it's a non-issue if you ask me." and/or "Gay marriage? Why should I care if gay people want to get married? (see also Canada, Mass, etc., which haven't blown up)."
After an audible gasp by greater Wingnuttia, they'd be widely praised as straight talkers with a solid vision for the future. Many many Independents and even some Republicans would find that hard to argue with and even cast their vote for the future instead of the past.
As with ending the shitty Iraq war, the vast majority of voters would support this, in spite of all that Fox can dish out (which is considerable).
Actually, feel free to include Canada. Openly gay members of the military, and gay marriage.
And if you want heads to explode, not too long after the federal law was changed to allow gay marriage, we had a gay military wedding: chaplain doing the ceremony, on a base, the archway of swords when the happily married groom and groom walked out of the chapel, the whole shebang.
The Marines just got a little more fewer, but a whole lot more colorful. You know green, brown, dark green and now rainbow.
Peacetime is the time to end the ban. If they really were accepting of gays, they'd change the rules when they aren't needed for cannon fodder.
Regardless, given recent economic events, it's just a matter of months before the US economy collapses and we're in a worldwide depression. I wouldn't put it past the US government to tell troops, "Pay your own way back home, we can't afford it."
I am so damn SICK of gay people saying that this probably means the military will soon accept homosexuals.
Am I the ONLY homosexual who read Randy Shilts' book "Conduct Unbecoming"?!
During WWII, the military would allow outed soldiers to continue serving. However, this "acceptance" lasted only until the need wasn't so great. Then the life-ruining witchhunts and dishonorable discharges started back up again.
Considering that the GOP is STILL using homosexuality as a wedge issue, and seeing as how Huckabee is once again openly demonstrating the Republican opinion of gays in general, the ONLY way gays will be able to serve openly is with an executive order.....and I'm not stupid enough to think any of the candidates--INCLUDING Mrs. Bill Clinton-- will do that.
This is such a non-issue. The more we bring attention to the military's abhorrent stance on gays in the military, the more the right is going to use it as a club to bash us. We have bigger fish to fry. Let's focus on real issues: health care, tax cuts for the middle class and the erosion of our basic civil liberties. Let the army mess itself up all it wants.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go sodomize and burn an American flag while getting married to my same-sex lover.
Do not be fooled.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell is about to be eliminated. Not because of the Civil Rights issue, or because the wingnuts have finally learned that gays are not a threat to the security of this nation, but only because the US Army needs to start the Draft.
A draft cannot have any legitimate effect if it has a loophole the size of a high school gymnasium built into it. Anyone trying to get out could simply parade about the Selective Service Inductinon center in a pink tu-tu and red lipstick.
M*A*S*H
Corporal Klinger: (from Wikipedia):The character's original defining feature is his attempts to gain a Section 8 psychiatric discharge from the army, by habitually wearing women's clothing and engaging in other "crazy" stunts.
The Republicans will bleat like goats about the end of civilization, but they will work behind the scenes to let the Democrats have the "Moral" victory by eliminating DADT, then it's only a matter of days when the Selective Service sends out its notices.
pissed off patricia @ 4:
You don't know a lot of soldiers, huh?
Or gay men, I suppose! ;)
Palooka @ 35:
Yeah, for a few weeks, and then nothing....When the media did report on Mr. Craig it said nothing about an ongoing homosexual pattern within the Republican party and its hierarchy....
myiq2xu @ 7:
...don't forget women! Remember how the sky was going to fall if the military was forced to admit women? Remember how expensive it was going to be to create separate barracks, washroom facilities, etc.? How there'd be screwing going on in the foxholes that would distract the soldiers and allow their positions to be overrun by the enemy (not to mention creating gobs and gobs of unwanted pregnancies)...?
During the Vietnam era, plenty of straight guys were pretending to be not so straight hoping to be exempted from military service.
PLEASE, UPHOLD THE BAN ON GAYS IN THE MILITARY
Look at this as not an equal rights issue, but a special right, an exemption from the horrors of war. It's not that gays can't serve. They can and obviously have. This arrangement is a privelage, a special status worth maintaining.
Mr. XXXX @ 44:
Right! Compare what happened to Craig over getting caught soliciting sex in a public bathroom vs. Bill Clinton getting a blowjob in the privacy of the Oval Office.
Hell, compare ANY of the multitude of scandals foisted upon us by the Republican Party members (from Preznit on down) to Clinton's blowjob. How we haven't been able to even START impeachment proceedings on damn near HALF of our elected officials and/or their staffs, is beyond me.
<blockquoteAnd if you want heads to explode, not too long after the federal law was changed to allow gay marriage, we had a gay military wedding: chaplain doing the ceremony, on a base, the archway of swords when the happily married groom and groom walked out of the chapel, the whole shebang.
Ah, men in uniform...
Wait, what were we talking about again?
fwacbar @ 20:
Obama in his latest speech called for the end to discrimination against gays and Ron Paul would end it, but fat chance he would get in. Clinton ducked the question when asked.
Remember the first presidential candidate to speak out against banning gays in the military was Barry Goldwater. Of course, he is not a real Republican because he also opposed the influence of Jerry Falwell and others on the Republican party.
Predictably, Boston will be home to the last military base not allowing gay folks.
I more concerned with the fact that they're still enlisting Bush supporters rather than identifying them as mental defectives and protecting the troops who are already on the ground.
Let's see...Bill Clinton said the military would never support equality for Gays & Lesbians in the military. And then Bill threw them under the bus. And it didn't take anything but a drop in applicants for the military to change its mind. But Bill Clinton still threw Gays & Lesbians under the bus.
Supply and demand created what a president could not. Because Bill Clinton could not.
I'm just saying that I think a candidate's position of "don't ask, don't care" (as someone else tagged themselves) for military or married gays is a political winner. It may have to be framed just so, and presented at just the right time. It's a post-Will & Grace world, and the haters need to get used to it.
what about looking the other way on corporate censorship? because you dont understand the purpous of the man being censored. What about looking the other way on any issue, seems the spin doctiors always look the other way cuz they're content in looking at everything through one set view.
You see the conservative position is simple. It's ok for gay Americans to fight and die for this country in wars that their soft, pasty white, pudgy cowardly asses would never have the courage to fight in themselves only to turn around and throw the gays out of the military during peace time when they are no longer useful, strip away their rights at home and demonize them for their small minded bigoted hate filled religious Christo-fascist base.
What kind of dizzy Queen wants to join the Army anyway? Why take away this easy out from the young, its one genuine advantage to being gay & the mainstreaming Idiots want to ruin it. HOW STUPID!
the only reason to cite to anyone who is an idiot enough to still support this wrongful policy is this: it's a staggering WASTE of taxpayer dollars. everyone can understand that reason. all Americans are paying for a wasteful policy. the policy is based on religion anyway. and religion mixed with the military, well, that just ain't gonna cut it. but don't look for any Republican president to halt this policy. it'll have to be done by a Democrat. i'm not sure of hillary's stance on this policy now, but I think she stated she would end it. how odd, since her husband placed it there. politics does have irony at times.
Haw! End the ban?
There will (eventually) come a time when troops levels will rise; then it'll be time to drive out them durty homos again. In the meantime, it's a handy tool for persecuting select grunts (like those preposterously vague "sodomy" charges, which are regularly leveled against the enlisted, even when no sexual activity is involved).
I see there's the usual Bill-bashing that farts out whenever DADT is mentioned; spare me. Like many policies, it was a good idea at the time that has been perverted by those in power, aided by the non-involvement by an unconcerned public (by which I mean, YOU).
Comments are closed on this entry