Great post — I agree that it's ridiculous that ex-cons are being admitted but someone who's openly gay is not.

Ok first of all the military writes waivers for all kinds of things.

Also, this doesn't make a distinction between those with a misdeanor charge vs. felons.

AND! How many times have you heard about the military kicking out someone who was homosexual? Not very often because Don't ask, Don't tell is not highly enforced.

The easy way out is to say that the military is homophobic. In reality, the amount of change that it would take to allow homosexuals in the military is STAGGERING. Every thing the military does would be touched in some way, that means the way jobs are handed out, the way that living quarters are assigned, and we'd need to build more living quarters because if you let a gay man live with females then all of a sudden every guy is gonna say he is gay... The amount of lawsuits against the military will skyrocket... And since it practically takes an act of congres for some of those guys to get toilet paper, I don't see this being an easy transition... If gays were allowed in the military, it would take at least a decade for it to be implemented effectively.

I honestly don't know how I feel about the issue because I see good points on both sides...

So ridiculous. homophobia or discrimination based on sexual orientation is just stooooopid!!! So criminals are essentially more trustworthy with the nation's safety than homosexuals, lord save us from these asinine ideas.

I heard about a soldier that was a highly trained (and needed) linguist, and he was kicked out because of his sexuality.

This bothers me:
"demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion."

It kind of sounds like they expect homosexuals to uncontrollably engage in sexual acts. They are people, not animals.

We need our most intellegent men and women working for us. To me, it is weakens our defenses more than it helps it by removing people for non-performance related reasons.

Why do people feel the need to tell others who own private businesses that they are not allowed to discriminate when hiring? It is their company, their money, their choice.

If I want to only hire Conservatives in my business, it is my right. Anti discrimination laws in my opinion have no place in private businesses.

And my above comment has nothing to do with the military, just an FYI before people get all upset.

Oh please! NOTHING has to change in the military to allow gays, they're already in the military and always have been.

Here is an article from 2007 discussing how the military kicked out 58 Arabic linguists because they were gay.

"How many times have you heard about the military kicking out someone who was homosexual? Not very often because Don't ask, Don't tell is not highly enforced"

To me, this kind of opposes the rest of your post.

If they have been able to do their work dispite the fact that they are gay, with out special living arrangements and with out anyone knowing, how can you make the argument that they would need all of this special treatment??

I quote Mr. Goldwater on this topic "You don't need to be straight to shoot straight."

But do we have information that backs up how many homosexuals want to join but arent?

Let me put it this way, just for argument, lets say we repeal it, and then guys who are all macho don't want to join anymore, and enlistment goes down by 40%... then is it really in our best interest?

Thats why I wonder how many people in the military are for repealling it and also how many homosexuals say they want to join but can't...

But to compare the military with your everyday 9-5 is very foolish. We put those guys in extremely stressful situations and extremely close quarters for months on end, so I do think that preserving cohesion and morale are more important than in other jobs.

I read an article a while back that the point of which was to show that Don't ask, don't tell isn't strictly enforced so thats where my mindset was coming from.

I understand what you mean as far as it being contradictory Jill, but at the same time, if something is hidden or even not spoken about its easy to ignore it and therefore not be required to make accomadations, whereas if its out in the open, the military will be required to accomadate.

Well then should we worry about racist guys who might not enlist if they had to serve along side black people?

"AND! How many times have you heard about the military kicking out someone who was homosexual? Not very often because Don't ask, Don't tell is not highly enforced."

This has not been my experience in with the military. It really depends upon the commander, but where we have been stationed it has been strongly enforced.

That being said, I don't think don't ask, don't tell is the best solution and I have no idea what the best solution would be. My point is only to show that there are many factors that go into this situation and its not simply a homophobic or not case.

I found several articles that show Arab linguists have been kicked out of the military because they are gay. One article from May 2007 stated that 58 linguists had been discharged at that point.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Military-Gay...

liberty can you please give us the statistic about the crime waivers!! Like what was waived? Midemeanor? Felony? etc. I think that would really add to this discussion.

Liberty that is not an analagous comparison.

Erin you probably hit the nail on the head with it being dependent on commander.

I also want to say that while there are many that are in the military now they are not out or open about it. I couldn't imagine having to hide my relationship from everyone in order to protect my livelihood.

I feel like many of the arguements against gays in the military are the same as they were about admiting women in the military or minorities into the military. I understand that the military faces pressures that most of us don't understand if we are not directly involved with the military and this may seem a bit idealistic, but if our military is out defending our freedom and promoting freedom for all people shouldn't the military embody these characteristics?

Here is some info from a USA Today article, which states that 1 in 8 recruits receive a conduct waiver (13 percent).

Most waivers involve misdemeanors. The Army has granted 4,676 conduct waivers among the 36,047 recruited from October through late February. The waivers have helped the Army meet its active and Reserve recruitment goals of about 100,000 people a year for the past several years.

A recruit needs a waiver if he or she has one felony or serious misdemeanor or more than three minor misdemeanors. For example, a single charge of possessing marijuana or driving under the influence requires a waiver. Minor infractions include disorderly conduct, trespassing or vandalism.

No exceptions can be made for a number of serious offenses, including sexual crimes or offenses related to drug or alcohol addiction.

I'm happy to see that in some cases, no exception is made. However, there are gay individuals with absolutely no criminal past and invaluable skills such as training in Arabic who cannot serve their country.

In my time in the military, even though I agree that it probably depends on the commander, I never saw anyone kicked out due to sexual orientation. And believe me, there were several openly gay soldiers, male and female.

This quote bothers me too...

"Demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion."

Like Jillness said...it implies that homosexual people commit sexual acts uncontrollably.

What about the military turning a blind eye to heterosexual male soldiers raping women? (From a post a few days ago...)

The article that is linked to above states that 27% of those with waivers didn't make it through basic training... so what is the actual percentage of people in the military as a whole with waivers?

Well, I would assume that a certain percentage of all recruits don't make it through basic training.

I understand that, but my point is that the number of those people with waivers who are actually allowed to serve is smaller than those who are recruited.

Well in my opinion the reason it is easier to give a moral waiver to someone with a rap sheet is because we all regardless of sexual orientation can relate to doing something not legal. No matter how insignificant it is we're all in the same boat when it comes to doing something technically against the law. Where as not all of us can relate to what is like to be a homosexual.

Is it right of course not and if they're are will to give a pass to criminals with of all things a moral waiver. They should extend the same opportunities to homosexuals.

I also disagree that to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion. What contributes to low morale, bad order and lack of discipline as it relates to someones homosexuality is ignorance on the part of the misfit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/14military.html
from april 2007

"The number of waivers for felony convictions also increased, to 11 percent of the 8,129 moral waivers granted in 2006, from 8 percent.

In the last three years, the percentage of moral waivers for all new enlistments in the four services combined has fallen 3 percent, with spikes in the Army and Air Force.

The Marine Corps issues far more moral waivers than the Army — 20,750 in 2006 — but only because it has a stricter policy on drug use. It requires waivers for one-time marijuana use while the other services do not. Rules on waivers vary by service."

"Let me put it this way, just for argument, lets say we repeal it, and then guys who are all macho don't want to join anymore, and enlistment goes down by 40%"

I think Liberty's comparison of racist recruits that would be put off by having other races work with them is a good comparison.

Yes, comaradery and team work is so important in the military. But to pretend that in intense situations a soldier couldn't put aside his homophobia as easily as one could put aside their deep seeded racism is pretty lopsided.

What we DO know from DADT, is that there are currently gays in the military, and are risking their lives for America. Having gays in the military seems to be working. Why not just make it official?

Jill, you made a good point about how people perceive homosexuals in general. It's like they are afraid of them. Gosh, if you'd get to know a few of them, they're unbelievably normal. I've had a gay boss (male), and plenty of gay coworkers. They talk about sports, movies, food, politics...all the same things we do. I work with a lesbian who is one of the best people I know, for many reasons. When she sees an attractive woman, she doesn't completely lose her cool, or start scratching or whooping or untucking her shirt. It's like some people think gays are just running around out of control.

Regarding what Cabaker said earlier, "preserving cohesion and morale are more important than in other jobs." if it's going to upset this balance, then don't ask don't tell might be the best policy. Minus the kicking out part. If people really just didn't ask, and didn't tell, and acted like adults, it seems like they could all just get along and do their jobs. But then again, that isn't accounting for hateful or ignorant people, or people who are just frankly uncomfortable working with a homosexual. If that's a problem for them, I don't know what to say.

when I say "if you'd get to know some of them" I meant "you" in general. Not Jillness!

If you are entering the military solely to provide a livelyhood, then you have joined for the wrong reason. I can see both sides of this issue, and I agree that "Don't ask, don't tell" isn't working.

and when I say they talk about "all the things we do" i'm incorrectly assuming that everyone here is heterosexual. sorry! They talk about all the things heterosexual people do.

Jill its not a good comparison because most of the men who join the military don't join because it's all white. However, being part of a macho boys club could be a motivating factor, therefore I feel the race issue is not the same as the sexuality issue.

I do wonder though, how many of us here think that if Obama tried to repeal this, would it get passed?

Certainly it would depend on whether Dems or Repubs, or even a signficant amount of either, were in charge...

Personally, I see the likelihood of it passing to be small...

And honestly, I want to know what the military thinks! Do the majority support it or not?

Shouldn't that be a factor??

I don't see it passing, Cabaker. You know what happens when issues are this contentious. NOTHING!

grrr. I posted a great comment with stats about felons versus misdemeanors.... and they flagged it, when will it be posted?!

I answered my own question...

Zogby
December 18, 2006

• 73% of military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gays
• 23% of service members know for sure that someone in their unit is gay, including 21% of those in combat units
• 45% of military personnel suspect a member of their unit is gay

"Jill its not a good comparison because most of the men who join the military don't join because it's all white"

But they obviously won't be joining because they think it is all straight, either. DADT acknowledges that gay people will be in the military.

"The easy way out is to say that the military is homophobic. In reality, the amount of change that it would take to allow homosexuals in the military is STAGGERING. Every thing the military does would be touched in some way, that means the way jobs are handed out, the way that living quarters are assigned, and we'd need to build more living quarters because if you let a gay man live with females then all of a sudden every guy is gonna say he is gay... The amount of lawsuits against the military will skyrocket... And since it practically takes an act of congres for some of those guys to get toilet paper, I don't see this being an easy transition... If gays were allowed in the military, it would take at least a decade for it to be implemented effectively."

Really? I just don't see this at all. I don't think very many men would be jumping at the chance to pull a "Jack Tripper" just to get assigned the same bunks as female soldiers.

Again, this all reminds me of another comedian I love, Chris Rock--

"If they wanna fight, let 'em fight. Cause I ain't fightin'! I don't give a **** if there's a Russian tank rollin' down Flatbush Avenue. I ain't shootin' nobody."

(Swears removed for the Sugar environment )

Well if they think its ok, I still think it will take sweeping changes and will be extremely costly... but if they think its ok, then maybe we should...

" 45% of military personnel suspect a member of their unit is gay"

The military obviously runs well even if gay people are in it. If we haven't had mass exudus of soldiers, even though 45% think that a gay person is in their unit, it shows the lack of negitive affect of gays in the military.

So then I'll pose a new question, should we do this in the middle of a war or wait until after?

Funny quote, Em!

Thanks, Jillness. What can I say, Chris Rock has great material

Jill I'd be curious as to how many of those respondents were being serious... calling someone gay or the 3 letter F word is pretty commonplace and an everyday occurance in the military...

I know guys who think someone is gay if they don't sleep around!

So I wonder exactly how true that stat really is.

What I want to know is if there is ever a time when we decide to initiate another draft God forbid. Will I be able to say sorry I'm gay?