Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court ordered the military to temporarily continue its "don't ask, don't tell" policy for openly gay service members Friday in response to a request from the Obama administration.

In its three-page ruling, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the ruling was based on new information provided by the federal government, including a declaration from Major General Steven A. Hummer, who is leading the effort to repeal the policy.

"In order to provide this court with an opportunity to consider fully the issues presented in the light of these previously undisclosed facts," the court wrote, that it would uphold an earlier order to keep the policy in place.

Despite the delay in dismantling the controversial policy, the ruling bars the federal government from investigating, penalizing or discharging anyone pursuant to "don't ask, don't tell."

The court of appeals had halted "don't ask, don't tell" July 6 but the Department of Justice filed an emergency motion Thursday saying ending the policy now would pre-empt the orderly process for rolling it back, per a law signed by President Barack Obama in December.

The ruling was supported by Servicemembers United, an organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, but the group's executive director Alexander Nicholson voiced frustration over the slow process of dismantling "don't ask, don't tell."

"The situation with finally ending this outdated and discriminatory federal policy has become absolutely ridiculous," said Nicholson. "It is simply not right to put the men and women of our armed forces through this circus any longer."

And here I was hoping we'd put this one in the grave and were done with it

Never will I understand why we need separate legislation because a person like a dangle instead of a bajingo.

I don't got the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Why was it ever considered necessary?

coolyo294 wrote:I don't got the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Why was it ever considered necessary?

Good old fashion sentimentality and logistical problems. I think the sentimentality figured more into it than anything else.

The military is by an large a very conservative institution (The saying "There are no Atheists in fox holes" also factors in somewhat). DADT was passed as part of a compromise with Clinton. Prior to it, homosexuals could not service in the military. With it they could serve, as long as nobody knew about it...

EDIT: My position on it is the same as gay marriage. I don't care, just get it over with so people will stop complaining and we can move on to bigger problems in the world. Like starving African children

Always ask, frequently tell, I always say.

I think Don't Ask Don't Tell was a perfectly sensible rule to a point. The point being that should you be 'outed' then you're out.

It also meshes with my general view point. Couldn't care less who you prefer to knock boots with. It's none of my business. Indeed, it's between you and said other.

Kind of gets up my nose on two counts. One, that homosexuality is seen as something to be declared at all, and two, that some homosexuals feel the need to inform as many people as possible about their particular preference. If it really doesn't matter to the person(s) involved, then why mention it at all?

I can tell you for a fact that most people in the military are not comfortable being in close quarters with a homosexual.

Mr Mystery wrote:Kind of gets up my nose on two counts. One, that homosexuality is seen as something to be declared at all, and two, that some homosexuals feel the need to inform as many people as possible about their particular preference. If it really doesn't matter to the person(s) involved, then why mention it at all?

Yeah, why ever mention 'I'm going to meet my girlfriend's parents this weekend, man I always get nervous at that part' 'Nah, I'm skipping the bar, I'm going out with [name] tonight', 'Yeah, [name] and I are going to take a trip to Manhattan next time I've got leave', or anything like that? Or get email, paper mail, or texts from your girlfriend, or talk to her on the phone even briefly when anyone else can hear. Or go out on a date without making it into a huge secret.

The LOOK AT ME I LIKE PENIS part of the gay community gets on my nerves, but asking 'why ever mention anything about the person you're dating' is really pretty silly.

It's cause the entire military is secretly gay, DADT is just the phrase "No Homo" codified.

It's a primarily male organization that encourages mandates living with a bunch of other males in a regimented environment. Sounds like an all male boarding school to me and from my experience watching Glee (no homo) those tend to be pretty fruity.

avantgarde wrote:It's cause the entire military is secretly gay, DADT is just the phrase "No Homo" codified.

It's a primarily male organization that encourages mandates living with a bunch of other males in a regimented environment. Sounds like an all male boarding school to me and from my experience watching Glee (no homo) those tend to be pretty fruity.

avantgarde wrote:It's a primarily male organization that encourages mandates living with a bunch of other males in a regimented environment. Sounds like an all male boarding school to me and from my experience watching Glee (no homo) those tend to be pretty fruity.

This is sig worthy

coolyo294 wrote:I don't got the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Why was it ever considered necessary?

Because in the '90s, the military had an absolute rule that anyone who was gay would be kicked out. Some people wanted to change this, others wanted to keep it.

DADT was a compromise between both sides that allowed service members to continue to serve, but they weren't allowed to be openly homosexual.

Turns out, this great compromise had a pretty limited shelf life. Not surprising, considering the parties negotiating it.

In theory it wasn't terrible, for a compromise.

In practice it was pretty awful, mostly for the reasons BearersofSalvation pointed out. We heterosexuals have the luxury of mentioning and making our sexual orientation implicitly clear ALL THE TIME and sometimes don't even realize that we're doing it. Expecting gay folks to actively hide and lie about their own personal lives in order to keep their jobs was never going to work out well.

Mannahnin wrote:In theory it wasn't terrible, for a compromise.

In practice it was pretty awful, mostly for the reasons BearersofSalvation pointed out. We heterosexuals have the luxury of mentioning and making our sexual orientation implicitly clear ALL THE TIME and sometimes don't even realize that we're doing it. Expecting gay folks to actively hide and lie about their own personal lives in order to keep their jobs was never going to work out well.

But they can openly discuss such things:

'Nah, I'm skipping the bar, I'm going out with George...err Georgie...I mean Georgina, yes that's her name, Georgina defininitely not a bloke called George. No way'

Oh its this one again? Good grief.

Relapse wrote:I can tell you for a fact that most people in the military are not comfortable being in close quarters with a homosexual.

A lot of people in the military in the 50s weren't comfortable being in close quarters with a negro, but they had to get over it.

Agreed. Besides like a gay guy told me once, get over yourself Brandon, I dont want to feth you in the slightest. Things were fine after that

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Relapse wrote:I can tell you for a fact that most people in the military are not comfortable being in close quarters with a homosexual.

A lot of people in the military in the 50s weren't comfortable being in close quarters with a negro, but they had to get over it.

How many women are comfortable bathing with men in the same space at the same time? Using the same bathrooms. Sure some probably don't mind, but many probably do. It's really the same thing in this case and a little different from a subjective bias against people for the color of their skin. This is a bias against people for their behavior which I actually think is harder to deal with than some of the dumber reasons for people not to like other people.

When possible the military provide separate facilities. It's one of the 'reasons' women are banned from combat units and why for so long they weren't allowed aboard combat ships in the navy. We really can't provide for separate facilities for both gay men and gay women. It's a stupid cost to be spent and I don't see the military funding such a project. So, how do we logistically deal with it? Honestly the soldiers are probably just gonna have to suck it up and deal with it and do what you're supposed to do when there is inappropriate behavior going on. Report it.

The paranoia about homosexual soldiers is likely a little unjustified I think, but I don't consider it to be without rhyme or reason. Of course, I also don't think this bias is really that 'logic' why they were banned from the military. I think that's just good old fashion 'you're a weirdo and not like me' style bias.

EDIT: To be honest, I'd be a little uncomfortable, but I think that's more because as an Army brat, I've never met anyone who I knew was gay and don't have any idea exactly how to behave. I know that sounds weird, probably I should just treat them like I treat everyone else I meet (with silent contempt ) but the human brain is weird. People get confused when encountering something they have no experience with or nervous.

biccat wrote:

coolyo294 wrote:I don't got the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Why was it ever considered necessary?

Because in the '90s,CONGRESS HAD A LAW FOR the military
that anyone who was gay would be kicked out. Some people wanted to change this, others wanted to keep it.

DADT was a compromise between both sides that allowed service members to continue to serve, but they weren't allowed to be openly homosexual.

Turns out, this great compromise had a pretty limited shelf life. Not surprising, considering the parties negotiating it.

Fixed that for you. Let us not forget that the military does not make its own rules. They are rightfully imposed by the civilian government. Which is the reason when certain organizations and universities did/do not allow military recruiters and the like access because they do not like the 'military rules' like DADT it is a load of stinky poo, usually a weak excuse to engage in an anti-military hatefest which would have existed anyway.

Jake

LordofHats wrote:How many women are comfortable bathing with men in the same space at the same time? Using the same bathrooms. Sure some probably don't mind, but many probably do. It's really the same thing in this case and a little different from a subjective bias against people for the color of their skin. This is a bias against people for their behavior which I actually think is harder to deal with than some of the dumber reasons for people not to like other people.

How many southern men were comfortable with bathing with negroes in the same space at the same time? Using the same water fountains? Turning up in the same bars? They had to deal with it, and the objections seem silly now, even outright racists don't support going back to segregated facilities. This actually makes LESS sense that segregation did back in the 40s, because at least there was segregation to begin with, and there was segregation in society to model on. There currently are gays in the military, and they're not segregated from straights, and there are gays in society who use the same locker rooms and bathrooms as straights.

The idea that the army suddenly needs to come up with a form of split facilities that it has never used for a class of people in the past, and that isn't used in society in general, is just nuts. "Don't ask, don't tell" never meant 'no gays in uniform', it just meant that the gay guys in your shower didn't tell you they were.

I guess if you want to ignore the point. The bias against gays is not the same as the bias against blacks. One is based on behavior, the other on a fictional idea of race. Bias against a behavior is harder to deal with than a bias against a social construct because the behavior is real while the construct is imaginary.

BearersOfSalvation wrote: There currently are gays in the military, and they're not segregated from straights, and there are gays in society who use the same locker rooms and bathrooms as straights.

This was a debate in the military community a few years ago. It still comes up every now and then. It's not like I'm making it up.

The idea that the army suddenly needs to come up with a form of split facilities that it has never used for a class of people in the past, and that isn't used in society in general, is just nuts.

It's easy to say that in a society where gays in general are not socially accepted as being 'normal' culturally. We can tolerate all we want but the cultural bias won't go away for a long time, especially in a society with 1000 years of Christian back history behind it. I also never claimed that the argument made sense. It's just one that exists (among others). Like those against women in combat units their mostly kind of silly and function as shield for people to use so they can say 'no gays' while at the same time pretending that they have a legitimate logical reason.

"Don't ask, don't tell" never meant 'no gays in uniform', it just meant that the gay guys in your shower didn't tell you they were.

DADT meant the military didn't have to deal with the problem. They could just pretend it didn't exist (you know, until it blew up in their face).

LordofHats wrote:I guess if you want to ignore the point. The bias against gays is not the same as the bias against blacks. One is based on behavior, the other on a fictional idea of race. Bias against a behavior is harder to deal with than a bias against a social construct because the behavior is real while the construct is imaginary.

Eh, I'm not so sure its that clear. Homosexuality isn't just a behavior, its an identity. Homosexuals do homosexual things, and it in large part defines who they are. The behavior informs the identity, sure, but that isn't so distinct from an identity informing a behavior; ie. all black folk do X. The comparison isn't direct, true, but they're closer than you might think as, in both cases, two personal characteristics have served to develop a certain type of subcultur, though not an exclusive one.

LordofHats wrote:
This was a debate in the military community a few years ago. It still comes up every now and then. It's not like I'm making it up.

Without being overly brazen, the trends regarding the acceptance of homosexuality in the military are amusingly skewed towards the more intellectually demanding parts of it. Whether or not that has to do with the situations of those parties is open for debate, though the same debate leads to questions regarding other military issues; like higher rates of sexual assault convictions amongst combat personnel.

LordofHats wrote:
It's easy to say that in a society where gays in general are not socially accepted as being 'normal' culturally. We can tolerate all we want but the cultural bias won't go away for a long time, especially in a society with 1000 years of Christian back history behind it.

Europe seems to be doing just fine.

LordofHats wrote:
I also never claimed that the argument made sense. It's just one that exists (among others). Like those against women in combat units their mostly kind of silly and function as shield for people to use so they can say 'no gays' while at the same time pretending that they have a legitimate logical reason.

Women at least have a biological deficiency (muscle density, not what you thought of immediately) in the field.

dogma wrote:Europe seems to be doing just fine.

I think we both know the cultural differences between the US and Europe. It's not a straight thing. The US has this issue more, complicated, than Europe because the US held on to a strong Christian cultural identity much longer than the Europeans did. As a general rule, I think the US could be said to lag behind Europe in terms of its political culture by about twenty to thirty years. We tend to follow a lot of the same trends but with a time delay. EDIT: The US appears more change resistant than Europe at large is.

LordofHats wrote:
Women at least have a biological deficiency (muscle density, not what you thought of immediately) in the field.

The problem is that there likely are women who meet the physical requirements. Probably more than a few. But the ban is outright, based on a cultural bias about women within the military and outside the military as it relates to combat duty with some 'reasons' thrown in for justification.

LordofHats wrote:
I think we both know the cultural differences between the US and Europe. It's not a straight thing. The US has this issue more, complicated, than Europe because the US held on to a strong Christian cultural identity much longer than the Europeans did.

The thing that isn't true. When you say something about "1000 years of Christian history" you aren't talking about the US, you're talking about Europe. I mean, the US isn't even half that old. Thererfore, it doesn't seem like age is the issue, at least not in the sense of "older equals more Christian."

LordofHats wrote:
As a general rule, I think the US could be said to lag behind Europe in terms of its political culture by about twenty to thirty years. We tend to follow a lot of the same trends but with a time delay. EDIT: The US appears more change resistant than Europe at large is.

I'm not sure that's true. I simply think that Europe is older, and like an older brother it scoffs at some of the rookie mistakes we've made in the last 50 years.

LordofHats wrote:
The problem is that there likely are women who meet the physical requirements. Probably more than a few. But the ban is outright, based on a cultural bias about women within the military and outside the military as it relates to combat duty with some 'reasons' thrown in for justification.

Maybe, but I can tell you that I can outperform most any infantryman in a distance race, but I would never be allowed to serve in combat because I have an artificial ACL.

Categorical bans in the military aren't just about gender.

dogma wrote:The thing that isn't true. When you say something about "1000 years of Christian history" you aren't talking about the US, you're talking about Europe. I mean, the US isn't even half that old. Thererfore, it doesn't seem like age is the issue, at least not in the sense of "older equals more Christian."

I say that because you have to look at the early European colonists for the the English Colonies that would form the core of the future US which has several centuries of history behind it. The earliest English colonists had a large cadre that were in a generous way of saying it, religious radicals. Even though they would become a minority of the population by the time of Independence, the United States historically heavily entrenched their particular brand of Christian thought (the Great Awakenings furthered this). Our history with Britain is partially to blame, as Britain has always been a little different from the rest of Europe culturally while following many of the same trends, and that mixed in with the colonists' religious backgrounds and created a religious environment different from that in Europe.

By the time of the Revolution Europe had begun to shred the Christian yolk. The United States on the other hand went through a series of events with a much longer history behind them that entrenched Christianity further into our political culture. We wouldn't really start seeing the shift noticeably until the 1960's and it's still very strong in our political culture to the point that one can argue no president can win election without being Christian in some way.

EDIT: Our peculiar slave culture to 1860, Civil War Reconstruction, and the Progressive Era also contributed heavily to this issue I think.

I'm not sure that's true. I simply think that Europe is older, and like an older brother it scoffs at some of the rookie mistakes we've made in the last 50 years.

I'm not entirely sure it's true either (not in the way I've phrased it). It's merely a trend I've noticed in the US political culture over time. To clarify, I am trying to explain the continued and very strong persistence of Christianity in American political culture. From what I understand, it is no where near as strong in Europe, and hasn't been for quite some time.

Categorical bans in the military aren't just about gender.

I'm talking about a single categorical ban that is about gender. Not all categorical bans. Some make perfect sense, some make a little, others don't make much at all.

Mannahnin wrote:In theory it wasn't terrible, for a compromise.

In practice it was pretty awful, mostly for the reasons BearersofSalvation pointed out. We heterosexuals have the luxury of mentioning and making our sexual orientation implicitly clear ALL THE TIME and sometimes don't even realize that we're doing it. Expecting gay folks to actively hide and lie about their own personal lives in order to keep their jobs was never going to work out well.

On the other hand, gay folks demanding a close quarter situation with straight people who want nothing to do with them wasn't going to turn out well, either.

Relapse wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:In theory it wasn't terrible, for a compromise.

In practice it was pretty awful, mostly for the reasons BearersofSalvation pointed out. We heterosexuals have the luxury of mentioning and making our sexual orientation implicitly clear ALL THE TIME and sometimes don't even realize that we're doing it. Expecting gay folks to actively hide and lie about their own personal lives in order to keep their jobs was never going to work out well.

On the other hand, gay folks demanding a close quarter situation with straight people who want nothing to do with them wasn't going to turn out well, either.

Neither is the fact that there are straight people who are obsessively convinced that "the gays are out to get inside them!".

Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:In theory it wasn't terrible, for a compromise.

In practice it was pretty awful, mostly for the reasons BearersofSalvation pointed out. We heterosexuals have the luxury of mentioning and making our sexual orientation implicitly clear ALL THE TIME and sometimes don't even realize that we're doing it. Expecting gay folks to actively hide and lie about their own personal lives in order to keep their jobs was never going to work out well.

On the other hand, gay folks demanding a close quarter situation with straight people who want nothing to do with them wasn't going to turn out well, either.

Neither is the fact that there are straight people who are obsessively convinced that "the gays are out to get inside them!".

Just telling it like it is. In a close quarter situation with shared showers, etc., most straight people in the military do not want gays around them.

Because many straight people here in the US are under the misconception that being gay is contagious and those who are afflicted by it can't control themselves from wanting to bum any hole they see.

Kanluwen wrote:Because many straight people here in the US are under the misconception that being gay is contagious and those who are afflicted by it can't control themselves from wanting to bum any hole they see.

Be that as it may, anyone going into a combat situation should not have their effectiveness or moral compromised by something like this.
As far as your comment goes, I had a friend who was constantly approached by homosexuals who knew he was straight. He even had one come after him with a gun after he turned down his offers and told him to stay away from him.
There are similar stories ,minus the weapon, I have from other friends of mine. Multiply this by the number of people in the military that have no doubt had similar experiences, and you can understand why known gays wouldn't be welcome the next rack over.