• CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.

Gays May yet Serve Openly in the US Military

Check out this article from news week. Hey, I know this Forum has become an addiction for some of us. So, I try to bring the news inside when I can...

Check out this "NewsWeek" article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177723?GT1=43002

Keep it comming babe. I just wish I had more time in the world to read everything. Speaking of time I have been meaning to PM you but have been a bit tied up.
Denny Bear
 
Thanks again Jayman for bringing us into a positive discussion. I served. I am gay. If we openly serve what will change? That the straight people will know that they are showering with a gay. So what changed? They're perfectly happy to shower with us now.

All the arguments used to uphold the current and former policies are almost word for word the same as those used to defend against racial and gender integration in the military. We now have a 4 Star General who happens to be a woman. Time was that would have been unthinkable.

I think it's high time the JCS and the rest of the military got the idea that if it weren't for the gays, no ship would sail out of Norfolk or San Diego. No health care would be provided at Walter Reed and no base/post headquarters would ever file another piece of paper (ok those are some stereotypes but in my military experience it's true......)

15 of the 17 women in my platoon were bi or lesbians. No I didn't recruit them, they came that way. I did not do anything about it. My bad? They did their work and I let them. What's so wrong with that? The measure of the person is in whether or not they do their job, not with whom they sleep.

Again thanks for bringing this to light Jayman.

Jayce
CPT, USAR
 
Thanks again Jayman for bringing us into a positive discussion. I served. I am gay. If we openly serve what will change? That the straight people will know that they are showering with a gay. So what changed? They're perfectly happy to shower with us now.

All the arguments used to uphold the current and former policies are almost word for word the same as those used to defend against racial and gender integration in the military. We now have a 4 Star General who happens to be a woman. Time was that would have been unthinkable.

I think it's high time the JCS and the rest of the military got the idea that if it weren't for the gays, no ship would sail out of Norfolk or San Diego. No health care would be provided at Walter Reed and no base/post headquarters would ever file another piece of paper (ok those are some stereotypes but in my military experience it's true......)

15 of the 17 women in my platoon were bi or lesbians. No I didn't recruit them, they came that way. I did not do anything about it. My bad? They did their work and I let them. What's so wrong with that? The measure of the person is in whether or not they do their job, not with whom they sleep.

Again thanks for bringing this to light Jayman.

Jayce
CPT, USAR

Thank you for the opportunity to share. I agree with everything that you have said here. I to have served. I have found your statements to be true; especially those highlighted above. I would add cooks and linguists to that list as well.

Trust me, when I discovered I could go to the E-club and pick up guy as easily as I could a gay bar; life in the military got a whole lot easier. :blushing:

There is no sense in getting rid of good people who are doing their job well and prosecuting them over something as trivial as who they sleep with. It is only a matter of national security if the soldier/sailor/airman must hide the fact that they are gay,lesbian, or bisexual. If it is legal to serve being gay, lesbian, or bisexual; then there is no crime and nothing to hold over a person's head to blackmail them with either.

Jaman01
Sgt., USMC
 
Last edited:
Jayman:

And here I thought I'd be able to call you Gunny! LOL.

You know I had a few Marines. Buff, vgl and sooooooo willing to take it in the ass!!!!! Semper Fi!:001_tt2:

Jayce
 
Jayman:

And here I thought I'd be able to call you Gunny! LOL.

You know I had a few Marines. Buff, vgl and sooooooo willing to take it in the ass!!!!! Semper Fi!:001_tt2:

Jayce

Just call me the Jayman01; that works best for me. Oh! Rahhh!!! and Semper Fi to you too. Sorry, I am mostly a top myself. I could always be versatile when I met the right person. Finding the right person happened few and far between. LOL So, I think you can guess that I found quite a lot of bottoms too... :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Thank You Both For Serving

Jayman and Jayce, while I did not serve, I thought this little caption would bring a smile to your faces. :biggrin: Check below and be sure to scroll down for the last 2 lines.

PRICEL~1.jpg
 
Jayman and Jayce, while I did not serve, I thought this little caption would bring a smile to your faces. :biggrin: Check below and be sure to scroll down for the last 2 lines.

View attachment 434


I guess karma can work pretty fast sometimes. Thanks Richardnoggin...:thumbup:
 
Last edited:
It does bring a smile to my face, although I still feel uneasy about a scene like that. Especially when someone is hurt thru their own stupidity (even terrorists can be complete idiots!).

Jayman: I know what you mean.... I remember one guy... buff, beautiful, and had a cock by Chrysler. I'm taking a fifty's kinda chrysler... slick, huge, gorgeous and would last forever..... unfortunately for me he didn't like to use it! Rather the heels were around his ears quicker than that same Chrysler could get off the line.

Thanks guys for another stimulating post.......

Jayce
 
First off, my thanks to Jayce and Jayman01, and all the other known and unknown people who have proudly served our country. I will never be able to adequately express either my pride in you, or my gratitude for the precious gift you have given me. I too know of someone with an otherwise unblemished career whose service on the flight deck of the USS John Kennedy was cut short by an officer who could not have "fucking fags" serving "alongside hard working dedicated and God fearing Americans." There's more to the story, but suffice it to say thatI know now that God truly does work in mysterious ways. God Bless you all!

M&M

Thank you so much MarkyMark. :thumbup:
 
Thanks Markymark. I am proud to have served and proud of those I represented and served. Atleast that was true until King George took office.....

YOurs,

Jayce
 
Yes. I think MarkyMark speaks for many of us. To those of you who have served and those who are serving now we offer our sincere gratitude. We can all have our own beliefs on the morality of war in general. We can quibble over our opinions on whether the current wars were necessary and/or competently prosecuted. One thing we can't do is make the mistake of the Vietnam era and blame the troops for the political miscalculations of the government.

To all of you who have put on the uniform and sworn to defend us with your life if necessary, THANK YOU!
 
Yes. I think MarkyMark speaks for many of us. To those of you who have served and those who are serving now we offer our sincere gratitude. We can all have our own beliefs on the morality of war in general. We can quibble over our opinions on whether the current wars were necessary and/or competently prosecuted. One thing we can't do is make the mistake of the Vietnam era and blame the troops for the political miscalculations of the government.

To all of you who have put on the uniform and sworn to defend us with your life if necessary, THANK YOU!

Wow, Bless your heart.:thumbup:
 
Is Obama back pedaling or mustering support for this issue?

Obama seeks assessment on gays in military
No rush to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | February 1, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is telling the Pentagon and gay-rights advocates that it will have to study the implications for national security and enlist more support in Congress before trying to overturn the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" law and allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to people involved in the discussions. They said Obama, who pledged during the campaign to overturn the law, does not want to ask lawmakers to do so until the military has completed a comprehensive assessment of the impact that such a move would have on military discipline. Then, the president hopes to be able to make a case to members of both parties that overturning the 1993 law would be in the best interest of national security.

Obama is hoping to avoid the missteps of the Clinton administration when it tried to open the ranks to gays and lesbians, only to be confronted by fierce resistance from lawmakers and commanders. Early in his presidency, Bill
Clinton signed an order allowing gays to serve but was forced to back off. A compromise made it illegal for gays to serve openly, but also restricted investigations into service members' sexual behavior.

"The Clinton experience makes a lot of folks [in the administration] apprehensive," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, which represents gay military personnel discharged under the current policy. Sarvis, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, recently met with Obama advisers on the subject. At the Pentagon, officials say they have been told not to expect the administration to seek to lift the ban quickly. One senior officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, said staff
officers for Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been told it will be several months at the earliest - possibly not even this year - until the top brass will be formally asked to weigh in on a change in policy. And even then, he said, the military has been assured it will have wide latitude to undertake a detailed study of how a change in the policy would affect the military.

Mullen told reporters earlier this month that he is aware of the Pesident's "intent to do this," but "there are no more specifics with respect to when." When the time comes, he said, he will give the president "my best military advice" on "the impact of what a potential change could be."
During the campaign, Obama signaled his intention to allow gays to serve openly in the military, but did not commit to any timetable.

Last April, Obama told the Advocate, a national gay and lesbian newsmagazine, that he believes there is "increasing recognition within the armed forces that [don't ask, don't tell] is a counterproductive strategy."
As recently as Jan. 15, his spokesman made Obama's ultimate intentions clear. "You don't hear politicians give a oneword answer much," Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, responded when asked whether the new president would take action to overturn the 1993 law. "But it's 'Yes.' "
But in addition to winning over the military, Obama and allies in Congress will also have to convince lawmakers in both parties that reversing the policy is necessary, according to several Capitol Hill sources involved in the deliberations.

Only legislation approved by the House and Senate and signed by the president can reverse "don't ask, don't tell." Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a senior member of the Armed Service Committee, is preparing to introduce legislation to lift the ban, but not until he can get a Republican co-sponsor, according to a congressional aide. The aide said Kennedy's office is lobbying several GOP colleagues to join him, including Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Some powerful members of his own party also appear unconvinced.

"I still think we have significant issues with a lot of the Midwestern Democrats being on the fence," the aide said, adding that some Democratic senators are considered "shaky." Some of those include Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska - all representing states with significant conservative constituencies. All three declined to provide their views. The House of Representatives, with a larger Democratic margin than the Senate, is considered more likely to vote for
overturning the current law when a companion bill is introduced by Representative Ellen Tauscher, Democrat of California, whose office confirmed that she is drafting legislation. Still, Democratic boosters in the House face hurdles of their own. For example, Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee that would have to vet any such legislation, "isn't there yet," said the congressional aide.
Lauren Dealy, a spokeswoman for the committee, said Skelton supports "don't ask, don't tell" but added that he also believes the panel has a responsibility to reassess the policy at some point.

In the meantime, longtime opponents of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" are preparing to fight any efforts to allow gays to serve openly. Elaine Donnelly, president of the conservative Center for Military Readiness, has testified before Congress on the issue and says that open homosexuality in the military would severely weaken discipline. "Such a policy would impose new, unneeded burdens of sexual tension on men and women serving in high-pressure working conditions," Donnelly said in an interview. "I think the burden of proof is on those who say the [don't ask, don't tell] law should be repealed," she added. Advocates for lifting the ban say such arguments are outdated because national attitudes have changed considerably since the law was passed. And supporters of lifting the ban are arming themselves with a different argument they hope will tip the scales: that allowing gays to serve openly will improve the military. Government reports show that many of the servicemembers who have been discharged under the policy had critical
skills, such as foreign-language proficiency, that are in short supply for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - a point Obama raised in his April interview with the Advocate.

Gay-rights groups also point to research by the University of California, Los Angeles that suggests allowing gays to serve openly would draw tens of thousands of additional recruits - patriotic Americans who have not enlisted because the current policy is perceived as hostile to gays. To help make their case they have also enlisted more than 100 retired generals and admirals who say the law should be changed. But Nathaniel Frank, a researcher at the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara that has studied the issue, believes there is good reason for the Obama administration to move cautiously on the issue that harmed Clinton's relationship with the military. Yet Frank also said waiting too long could jeopardize the entire effort: "A delay could let opposition fester and build."

The Boston Globe
 
Obama seeks assessment on gays in military
No rush to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | February 1, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is telling the Pentagon and gay-rights advocates that it will have to study the implications for national security and enlist more support in Congress before trying to overturn the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" law and allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to people involved in the discussions. They said Obama, who pledged during the campaign to overturn the law, does not want to ask lawmakers to do so until the military has completed a comprehensive assessment of the impact that such a move would have on military discipline. Then, the president hopes to be able to make a case to members of both parties that overturning the 1993 law would be in the best interest of national security.

Obama is hoping to avoid the missteps of the Clinton administration when it tried to open the ranks to gays and lesbians, only to be confronted by fierce resistance from lawmakers and commanders. Early in his presidency, Bill
Clinton signed an order allowing gays to serve but was forced to back off. A compromise made it illegal for gays to serve openly, but also restricted investigations into service members' sexual behavior.

"The Clinton experience makes a lot of folks [in the administration] apprehensive," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, which represents gay military personnel discharged under the current policy. Sarvis, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, recently met with Obama advisers on the subject. At the Pentagon, officials say they have been told not to expect the administration to seek to lift the ban quickly. One senior officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, said staff
officers for Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been told it will be several months at the earliest - possibly not even this year - until the top brass will be formally asked to weigh in on a change in policy. And even then, he said, the military has been assured it will have wide latitude to undertake a detailed study of how a change in the policy would affect the military.

Mullen told reporters earlier this month that he is aware of the Pesident's "intent to do this," but "there are no more specifics with respect to when." When the time comes, he said, he will give the president "my best military advice" on "the impact of what a potential change could be."
During the campaign, Obama signaled his intention to allow gays to serve openly in the military, but did not commit to any timetable.

Last April, Obama told the Advocate, a national gay and lesbian newsmagazine, that he believes there is "increasing recognition within the armed forces that [don't ask, don't tell] is a counterproductive strategy."
As recently as Jan. 15, his spokesman made Obama's ultimate intentions clear. "You don't hear politicians give a oneword answer much," Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, responded when asked whether the new president would take action to overturn the 1993 law. "But it's 'Yes.' "
But in addition to winning over the military, Obama and allies in Congress will also have to convince lawmakers in both parties that reversing the policy is necessary, according to several Capitol Hill sources involved in the deliberations.

Only legislation approved by the House and Senate and signed by the president can reverse "don't ask, don't tell." Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a senior member of the Armed Service Committee, is preparing to introduce legislation to lift the ban, but not until he can get a Republican co-sponsor, according to a congressional aide. The aide said Kennedy's office is lobbying several GOP colleagues to join him, including Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Some powerful members of his own party also appear unconvinced.

"I still think we have significant issues with a lot of the Midwestern Democrats being on the fence," the aide said, adding that some Democratic senators are considered "shaky." Some of those include Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska - all representing states with significant conservative constituencies. All three declined to provide their views. The House of Representatives, with a larger Democratic margin than the Senate, is considered more likely to vote for
overturning the current law when a companion bill is introduced by Representative Ellen Tauscher, Democrat of California, whose office confirmed that she is drafting legislation. Still, Democratic boosters in the House face hurdles of their own. For example, Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee that would have to vet any such legislation, "isn't there yet," said the congressional aide.
Lauren Dealy, a spokeswoman for the committee, said Skelton supports "don't ask, don't tell" but added that he also believes the panel has a responsibility to reassess the policy at some point.

In the meantime, longtime opponents of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" are preparing to fight any efforts to allow gays to serve openly. Elaine Donnelly, president of the conservative Center for Military Readiness, has testified before Congress on the issue and says that open homosexuality in the military would severely weaken discipline. "Such a policy would impose new, unneeded burdens of sexual tension on men and women serving in high-pressure working conditions," Donnelly said in an interview. "I think the burden of proof is on those who say the [don't ask, don't tell] law should be repealed," she added. Advocates for lifting the ban say such arguments are outdated because national attitudes have changed considerably since the law was passed. And supporters of lifting the ban are arming themselves with a different argument they hope will tip the scales: that allowing gays to serve openly will improve the military. Government reports show that many of the servicemembers who have been discharged under the policy had critical
skills, such as foreign-language proficiency, that are in short supply for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - a point Obama raised in his April interview with the Advocate.

Gay-rights groups also point to research by the University of California, Los Angeles that suggests allowing gays to serve openly would draw tens of thousands of additional recruits - patriotic Americans who have not enlisted because the current policy is perceived as hostile to gays. To help make their case they have also enlisted more than 100 retired generals and admirals who say the law should be changed. But Nathaniel Frank, a researcher at the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara that has studied the issue, believes there is good reason for the Obama administration to move cautiously on the issue that harmed Clinton's relationship with the military. Yet Frank also said waiting too long could jeopardize the entire effort: "A delay could let opposition fester and build."

The Boston Globe

So far Obama is chickenshitting. All he has to do is sign an executive order, just the stroke of his pen would do it. This does not require congressional approval or legislation. He is dumping it on congress so he will have some political cover.

Back in the 90's Jimmy Cater said BIll Clinton made a mistake by not simply signing an EO and letting it happen. The dust would have blown away in a couple of months and that would have been the end of it.
 
So far Obama is chickenshitting. All he has to do is sign an executive order, just the stroke of his pen would do it. This does not require congressional approval or legislation. He is dumping it on congress so he will have some political cover.

Back in the 90's Jimmy Cater said BIll Clinton made a mistake by not simply signing an EO and letting it happen. The dust would have blown away in a couple of months and that would have been the end of it.

I agree. However; I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt for the time being. I know it is as easy as an EO. I feel he is trying to put forth a hand in friendship at this time and he wants to be sure that congress is behind him. It is a little whimpy... However; it could have a lot of legal ramifications. Like can the soldiers who were dishonorably discharged for breach of Don't ask don't tell re enlist. I would say, No based on expost facto. Also, the military isn't keen on soldiers that cannot follow orders. "Don't ask, Don't tell" is a military directive. Essentially those who broke the rule are in breech of the rule. I am also wondering if this could be part of the whole idea of obtaining a Constitutional Amendment identifying GLBT citizens equal rights...
 
I agree. However; I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt for the time being. I know it is as easy as an EO. I feel he is trying to put forth a hand in friendship at this time and he wants to be sure that congress is behind him. It is a little whimpy... However; it could have a lot of legal ramifications. Like can the soldiers who were dishonorably discharged for breach of Don't ask don't tell re enlist. I would say, No based on expost facto. Also, the military isn't keen on soldiers that cannot follow orders. "Don't ask, Don't tell" is a military directive. Essentially those who broke the rule are in breech of the rule. I am also wondering if this could be part of the whole idea of obtaining a Constitutional Amendment identifying GLBT citizens equal rights...

My favorite Marine, don't hold your breath.
 
My favorite Marine, don't hold your breath.

I hear you...:biggrin: If they do allow people to reenlist? Do they get back pay? Lots of things to ponder. LOL :thumbup:
 
Serving openly

Yes, the president could sign an EO, however CONGRESS must change the UCMJ to reflect those changes. Therein lies the problem.......

Yours in service,

Jayce
 
Yes, the president could sign an EO, however CONGRESS must change the UCMJ to reflect those changes. Therein lies the problem.......

Yours in service,

Jayce

Thanks for that. I was pretty sure that Congres had to ammend the UCMJ. (Uniform Code of Military Justice) I just couldn't say that for sure. I was actually looking it up... Besides, I got to thinking about that. To just write and EO like that this early in his presidency would not be the swiftest move he can make as President. He needs a lot of congressional support to get some other major projects underway and finalized. I do believe he will do it. Hopefully durring this term in office.

Hey, Gene Rodenberry had a whole gay episode in StarTrek in the very begining where Captain Kirk was going to Marry his nephew off. I figure we have had at least 5 major StarTrek TV series shows and still no Gay wedding. What more can we expect of President Obama.
 
Top