DADT: Gay dating at USAFA, Amos on Marine Moral Compass, More
Below is an update on ongoing issues with respect to the planned repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Included below:
- Polis says USAFA should hire gay Chaplain, welcome same-sex dating
- Virginia’s proposal to institute its own DADT for its National Guard
- Transgender appeals for equal treatment following repeal
- Hunter’s Restore Military Readiness Act of 2011
- King’s combat unit DADT repeal exemption
- Repeal training to begin shortly
- Video message from General Amos on repeal
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) is on the US Air Force Academy‘s advisory board. He reportedly suggested
the academy should consider hiring gay and lesbian chaplains and said cadets should be welcome to bring “the date of their choice” to Air Force Academy balls and other social functions.
The Virgina state Attorney General seemed to indicate that the state could, in fact, enact its own ban on homosexuals in the National Guard, but that it would lose federal funding if it did so. He suggested Virginia could form a state militia if it wanted to continue DADT.
Despite clear guidance in the DADT Repeal Implementation Plan, “transgender” individuals are still lobbying for a repeal of the ban on transsexual military service. As noted previously, the logic is the same (they have a right to serve, they’re making the same sacrifices, they’re already serving). Indeed, one article simply said
“…It’s just a matter of when,” said former Army Capt. Allyson Robinson, 40, a 1994 West Point graduate who has spoken to sociology classes at the alma mater she attended as a male cadet. “There are active-duty, as well as reserve and national guard transgender service members, serving today.”
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has proposed the Restore Military Readiness Act of 2011, a bill requiring that the Service Chiefs — not just the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs — be required to “certify” that military readiness would not be harmed prior to DADT repeal.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has indicated he wants to co-sponsor a bill that would allow combat units to be exempt from being required to accept homosexuals. The concept is based on the majority of the survey that said combat units would be most affected, in a negative way, by the repeal.
Various sources have reported that “repeal training” may begin as early as this month, with repeal itself occurring by the end of the year:
The military will be trained in three major phases. First, lawyers, chaplains, administrators and civilian personnel will be briefed on what the changes mean for their jobs. Next, the leadership, including commanding officers, will be briefed. Finally, the rest of the military will receive its training.
In a video message (YouTube) from General James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” he and the Command Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Carlton Kent emphasized dignity and fidelity. Interestingly, he said:
Our fidelity to one another is our moral compass that guides us. It is the foundation of what being a Marine is all about.
“Our fidelity to one another is our moral compass.”
Not “our fidelity to a biblical hatred of gays is our moral compass”
Now the Marines will have fidelity to the gay men who will alongside them, just as they have fidelity towards the straight men who fight alongside them.
As for dating, no reason to treat it any differently to straight people.
The anti DADT bills will not pass the Senate and so are just fundraising efforts.
So Rep. Hunter proposes violating the chain of command? That’s how I’m reading that.
You may have to help us understand how a Congressman’s bill violates the military chain of command.
Phoenix,
Under that philosophy, why have more than one person certify the state of military readiness. I’m more interested in the COCOM’s opinion anyway.
I am perplexed, how is any of this going to help our troops?
1. We already have gay and lesbian preachers (now they can preach openly)
2. Virginia AG can go pound sand…he/she does not understand the bigger picture
3. DADT repeal was not about the transgenders. If you are a boy or girl in the Military, dress and act like one!
4. Rep Hunter can join Virginia AG
5. Rep King must have a different crystal ball then the rest of us…all Military can be considered to be “combat units” and ready to go at a moments notice
6. The Marines are no better than any other service; I know 2 gay Marines and they are tuffer than wood-pecker lips, and expert marksmen.
watchtower,
1. I disagree with many denominations that have (presumably active) gay and lesbian preachers, but chaplains have to conform to both their denomination and the military rules. They also can’t preach openly (yet), but likely soon, assuming their denomination allows.
2. VA’s AG is under oath to uphold the laws – “bigger issues” sounds like you like judicial activism
3. What’s to say that transgender people have different definitions of “acting like a boy or girl in the military”
4. see above
5. technically all units are not ‘combat units.’ For example, the 389th Fighter Squadron is the state-side unit, the 389th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron is the deployed unit. There are other units that don’t deploy either.
6. I’m not sure where the argument came up that homosexuals were not as tough or as proficient as heterosexuals. What’s your point?
Watchtower, remember, the attempts to stop the repeal are not about helping the troops. Everyone knows they have no chance of passing. They are a fundraising issue, so that congressmen can put something in their election campaign literature showing that they fought the good fight against the nasty gay agenda. Gays are going to openly serve in the US military, it is a done deal and even a republican senate, house and whitehouse combination is very unlikely to go backwards, throwing hundreds of soldiers with good records out of the service to appease a very small minority of voters. All that is left is a few symbolic acts of resistance to please the base in conservative districts.
Dealer – I don’t know any figures DoD wide, but I’ve known a few gay Military preachers and suspect there isn’t that many on Active Duty. Still, I don’t believe there is a need to have gay clergy on the payroll per se, there are other ways to get spiritual guidance.
On to transgender’s, repealing DADT to me doesn’t translate into allowing cross-dressing or boys carrying on like a “little prissy” or girls going “butch” to things like Military social events. I hope the training includes some level of dignity and respect regarding boy/girl “definitions” so the boys don’t go where they aren’t supposed to or vice versa.
Ok, some units don’t deploy but all the troops in them are subject to deploy so it’s ridiculous to exempt homosexuals from combat units if DADT has been repealed for everyone. The “most affected in a negative way” is not a reason because there hasn’t been any homosexuals in a combat unit and there is zero, nada, zip proof that this will even be a problem.
I’ll throw Va. AG and Rep Hunter in Donalbain bucket as a few symbolic acts of resistance.
No specific point about the Marines…just an opinion.
Donalbain – I’ll agree this won’t be reversed anytime soon. I also don’t believe this is going to be as big a deal as its been made out to. I’ll go out on a limb and predict less than 1% will advertise they are gay. If people find out, ok then, at least there won’t be anything anyone can do about…legally that is.
watchtower,
Just to be clear, your line for proper gender roles is to wear gender appropriate clothing and to maintain the stereotype that males have to be tough and it is inappropriate for women to be tough. Any justification for that opinion?
Dealer —
My line of proper gender roles is pretty basic. Gender separation for privacy.
Boys are tough (like Marines) and can also be gay. To be clear, the stereotype is Marines are tough and should not be gay. Girls can be tough, but the stereotype is they should not be tough. I can except either.
We cannot have privacy if “cross-dressing” but not to be confused as being gay although probable. Privacy cannot be expected in proper gender role environments (yet).
For the sole purpose of “serving openly” the line for proper gender roles do not change for the Military [for privacy].