Skip to content

Military accepting openly gay recruits

October 20, 2010

Weeping predicted on both sides of the issue

The anti-gay / pro-DADT (who are not necessarily the same people but who are aligned on this issue) side is going to be highly upset that the recruits are being allowed to enlist to begin with. Those on the other side are going to be irate when an injunction is finally granted (or a higher court reverses the finding that DADT is unconstitutional) and the discharges begin again. No one wins here. The only thing this does is suck up some resources from the services.

On the other hand this could be an opportunity to get rid of DADT by just breaking the system. Right now SLDN is still advising service members not to reveal their orientation but if they held an international coming out day and even 60% of gay service members walked into their CO’s offices and confessed to being gay it would overwhelm the DoD’s ability to deal with the issue. Same with recruiting – pack the recruiting offices with openly gay recruits and you overwhelm the services ability to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. It wouldn’t even take that many recruits to do so. People would be surprised how low actual quotas are per recruiter – not that they seem low to the recruiter, but numbers wise it wouldn’t take much to overwhelm the system.

-elsewhere-

Had to laugh at this one – Leftist dullards mock Palin for correctly referencing Boston Tea Party.

Lefty insta-meme: Idiot Sarah Palin doesn’t know that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776! Because, after all, nothing happened in 1773 that could possibly be worth referencing at a tea-party rally, right?

Advertisements
5 Comments leave one →
  1. October 20, 2010 8:20 am

    Those on the other side are going to be irate when an injunction is finally granted (or a higher court reverses the finding that DADT is unconstitutional) and the discharges begin again. No one wins here. The only thing this does is suck up some resources from the services.

    Agreed. Personally, I think the overall situation might have been better if the judge had, pending resolution on appeal, limited her injunction to discharges and allowed recruiters to continue turning away people who “tell” – but requiring that it not be recorded or held against them if DADT is upheld and they want to try again later without telling. It would minimize new complications if she is overruled, while still putting investigations and discharges on hold until the question is settled.

    Putting current investigations and discharges on hold for the year or more it will take for this to reach the SCOTUS and for them to issue a decision won’t cause any real disruption, but having any significant number of recent recruits discharged all at once -probably just as (or shortly after) they finish their specialty training – probably will.

    On the other hand this could be an opportunity to get rid of DADT by just breaking the system. Right now SLDN is still advising service members not to reveal their orientation but if they held an international coming out day and even 60% of gay service members walked into their CO’s offices and confessed to being gay it would overwhelm the DoD’s ability to deal with the issue.

    On the one hand, I really like that idea. On the other hand, they might just try anyway, and the probable disruption caused by a large number of sudden discharges – especially in combat zones – worries me.

    On the gripping hand, it would be interesting and informative to see what percentage of the military consists of gays serving in spite of DADT.

  2. October 20, 2010 7:36 pm

    Aaaand it’s back.

  3. xbradtc permalink
    October 30, 2010 8:30 pm

    Hello? Is this thing on?

  4. jumper permalink
    December 19, 2010 3:51 am

    I served 20 years and retired from the Army. Never had a problem with gays personally, and thought most were competent team players that I found out about. However, there were several very quiet court martial’s of prominent gays (high ranking individuals) who used their rank and power to rape lower ranking individuals under their supervision. The worst case was for 27 counts and involved his wife suducing unsuspect drunk guys while the perp went out to obstensively buy more alcohol during football games. In all cases these people were predators, in the sexual sense and enjoyed rape or a form of professional blackmail where one feared damage to their career as motival for keeping quiet. The fear of showering or consentual sex is not what people dislike – it is the rather overt nature, the strong sexual orientation whreby sex is the primarly focus of one’s being that worries most folks who have to deal with gays.

    Here in the State Department, gays have a perch from which they are untouchable. Once they have tenure they can be incompetent and still use complaints and character assination of people they don’t like through EEO. The problems they create are one of fear in the ranks by straights where we dare not cross them – for they are militant, petty and mean when angered and use all form of weapons, e.g., rumors and EEO. At State our expierence is different. We people who walk about like Hollywood Hair Dressers, and enjoying their sexuality, mocking the normal sense of sivility that would be considered professional non-sexual conduct; they can do this specifically because we make an exception. We avoid confrontations, and tip toe in the closeted sense around gays trying not to offend them (being a Republican is an offense in the correctness sense here in the Department and being an R indicates you are against Gays).

    But there is one bigger problem is one in which the State Department has fostered a situaiton where they have a category of family member called Member of Household (MOH). An example of the MOH benefits can be drawn from the fact we have here in Rio de Janeiro an openly homosexual junior foreign service officer living with a Brazilian male; the office is shortly going to deploy to Pakistan or Afganhistan and during his absence (prior to gong to Bangkok) for one year, his MOH boyfriend will continue to live in government leased housing (about $130K a year), be entitled to employment as any other family member, etc. Straight orientated foreign service officers are not giveng these “rights” for hetro different sex boyfriends or girlfriends, and I think this another form of charity the Country cannot afford.

    My objection to gays openly service can be initially touched upon in the paragraph above, but there one other area that concerns me as well. That is the consideration that we have an Islamic block at the UN or within the world about 67-69 nations in one religous group where being openly gay is a crime in their nations and we send Openly Gay Diplomats (in the future Gay Military personnel). Do these nations and the adherents of Islam see the West and America once more as a decadent perverse society that by our very essence seeks to offend the pure? If we cannot deal with very question within our government and society, have we the right to export our morality or lack there of, into other societys? I do not see this as sending a Black Mayor from Atlanta (Andrew Young) to an Apathid South Africa for we were allied with a Deklerk Government, but rather in just this one instance of Islam at a stage of religious intollerence by those so inclined. So based on this one situation alone I beleive it is within the rights of Nations to reject our politicians and military from interaction with their society’s on the basis of religious and legal grounds. Were these nations to arrest and/orexpule from their country’s openly gay diplomats, or refuse military assistance it would make our diplomacy and protective umbrella unable to deal with today’s negotiations or tensions.

    I could go on but one can get the sense there is more to this issue lurking below the surface.

    I am curious where all of you stand on the Entitlements the State Department is throwing money at to allow FSOs to have lovers live in hosing they are not occupying, or the fact that gays can now compete agains wifes/husbands and they do complian through EEO when their lovers are not hired as the best qualified…..

    It is my belief that we can ill afford the “trail by fire” in the diplomatic arena and we definitely cannot afford the “unfunded obligations” Hillary has imposed at the Department of State NATION-WIDE.

    • December 26, 2010 6:29 am

      I have no insight into the State Department policy that you are talking about, I have never heard about it before. Regarding how Islamic countries will react – frankly I could care less. It is not our responsibility to cater to their mores, and the State department is there to represent America, not hide who we are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: