First, I think it's a little misleading that nowhere does this post note that Obama has issued no official comment or statement on the matter. The article is based on speculation by two people advised during the campaign. Not saying it's not true, just that this article isn't super clear. (I guess "word broke" sort of implies it, but anyways...)

Second, though DODT is a ridiculous policy that should have been tossed years ago, if he doesn't move on it right away I can understand why. Clinton tried to open the military to gays and it ended up being kind of a disaster for him.

does this mean if you want to dodge a draft you can just pretend to be gay?

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with being gay, so there's nothing wrong with being gay and a soldier. I do believe it's up to the individual whether they wish to disclose their sexual orientation, and the army shouldn't be asking -- but it also shouldn't be a taboo or "morale risk" if a soldier wishes to be open about it.

Who cares, really. Who you love at home has no bearing whatsoever on your ability to do your job and serve your country.

Yeah, I'm a little unclear about what exactly prompted this post, at least the title "Obama Will Delay Repeal of..." when all the new info we have gotten on his policy appears to be:

"Advisers are now saying Obama wants to work with the joint chiefs of staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress." Which is not even followed by a source.

Interesting that even those with a propensity towards homosexual acts aren't allowed in. So if I have anal sex is that a problem for the morale of the military? Or is it just if men do? Also, if I wanted to attract a lot of attention in a bar, and got really drunk while they were playing Katy Perry's ridiculously annoying song, and made out with my best friend, would that be a problem? Or is random hot faux-lesbianism okay? I know the military has a very strict code of ethics, and adultery is actually punished, and all, but this is just such a stupid policy.

Then again, the stuff the military is okay with and not okay with frequently baffles me. If you had counseling after your parents died in a car accident, that could exclude you for mental health purposes. But if you have a criminal record, you can get a waiver. If you take birth control for any reason other than preventing babies, like if it helps your cramps, that can disqualify you.

I completely support repealing, but logistically it makes sense that it would take until 2010. The barracks system is going to have to be completely re-done. Currently men and women are not allowed to bunk together in almost all situations. This is to keep sexual harassment and assault down and to keep their minds on their mission. They can't just throw gay men in barracks with straight men, at least not at first. All of this is going to have to be thought out and it's smart of Obama to work WITH the military on this instead of just decreeing it so. This has always been my stance on the issue, it's not just because I'm an "Obama supporter."

I'm so sick of explaining this. I should save this text somewhere on my computer and just start copying and pasting. TONS of soldiers/sailors/airmen are openly gay. Lots and lots. I can't stand it like the media makes it out like gays in the military keep it as some big, dark secret away from the world. They don't. They date, they talk about it, they live with their partners, they just can't declare to be gay in an official way. Easy enough.
Second of all, it's not an issue of "We don't want to work with gays" or "Gays hurt our morale." It's an issue of being fair during training. Training in the military is set up so as to make sex as impossible as it can be. Females and males are housed separately and are not allowed to intermingle in the barracks. It's especially rigid during BMT. To openly allow gays into the military will necessitate an entire overhaul of the military training structure. How do you house the openly gay service members in a way to keep them from being able to have sexual distractions?
Honestly, it would be a nightmare. To simply "overturn" DADT is an impossibility.

Gay men and straight men live together on college campuses. Also, my entire floor was coed, and so were some of our suites.

But foxie- how does preventing people from being "officially" gay change the barracks situation?

"How do you house the openly gay service members in a way to keep them from being able to have sexual distractions?"

I don't know..if there are really so many gay people in the military right now, how do you do it?

"I completely support repealing, but logistically it makes sense that it would take until 2010"
I don't even see how 2010 could be a reasonable timeframe. I mean, it's taken years for the military just to figure out what kind of language test is the most fair to give to us. They're STILL ironing out kinks, and this is just about a stupid test, not a total overhaul of protocol, training, and housing.

Snow- it doesn't. My own husband wasn't allowed to visit me in my room when I was in training, but the lesbian downstairs practically lived with her girlfriend. The ONLY deterrent is the fear of getting caught, I suppose, since it IS against the rules.
And like I said, they're openly gay, not officially gay. HUGE difference. So the military DOESN'T manage the housing situation right now. That's what this entire post is about.

Yeesh- if the military can't figure out a housing situation in 2 years, I have no idea how they make logistical defense decisions! I thought the Air Force already had nearly all single rooms, and I know the Army has been moving towards this. So seriously, put up some walls, and get on with it already.

No, the Air Force certainly does not have almost all single rooms. When you are in training, you live with someone else. I don't know where you're getting your information.

Not being challenging, just curious. I get the housing changes, but what changes need to be made as far as protocol and training?

(I'm imagining salute training for gays with emphasis on correcting limp wrists...but I'm sure that's not it!)

And re: lesbians shacking up in the barracks, does that cause problems I'm not thinking of?

(While we certainly didn't require quite the same discipline, my sorority house was like that. Boys allowed in only during certain hours, but lesbians were free to have their girlfriends spend the night or if she was in the same sorority just share a room.)

And simply putting up some walls won't solve anything, since the military keeps mingling in check by having female-only/male-only buildings, bays, or levels.

"Easy enough."

I guess I didn't get the whole "it's a nightmare" vibe from that comment.

Plus, the don't ask don't tell policy says nothing about being "officially" gay, it says you can't be openly gay. I actually have no idea what the difference is between being officially and openly gay is, but maybe someone gay could explain it to me. I understand anecdotally, that isn't what is your experience, but people have been kicked out of the military for being openly gay.

I didn't mean basic training, or even the training schools, I meant base assignments.

I guess my friends' experience in the military must be very different from yours, because they almost always spent the nights in each others' rooms, and my bf's brother met his wife there. They definitely lived together, so I was under the impression married couples are allowed to live together. Since that isn't the case, the military must have an even more messed up view of families and sex than I thought. ANd yet they still have so many problems with sexual assault- maybe because of their overly repressive behaviors.

The only problem, TS, is that is isn't fair to the rest of us. Not that I'm angry about it, and I don't think anyone else is. But once you take away DADT, the military will have to find a way to make it fair.
I say include training and protocol because a new housing structure doesn't fix anything on its own. It has to come with new rules, procedure, phase structure, and whatever else to go along with it.

Snow, I'm talking about training, and training only. Obviously, once a service member graduates training, they are treated like the adults they are and given their own living spaces. That's a non-issue and would require no overhauling if DADT was overturned. TRAINING is the problem.
And easy enough was in reference to how easy it is to follow the DADT rules.

Well that makes a little more sense. I just don't get why having DADT solves any problems. It seems like the problems are there no matter what. And I don't get why a straight and a gay guy can live together on a college campus, but all of a sudden, in the military they have this idea the gay guy is going to just be so horny he can't keep his hands off anything, even in basic training, in barracks full of 20 guys. It just seems like it's a little stereotypical.

I'm trying to recall my parents' stories of being in the Navy. It seems like when they were in boot camp or on the ship they were housed in open rooms with dozens of beds. But I remember my mom talking about having a roommate when she was in Cuba. That must have been post training. While I can see why you might not want to put a gay person into that group housing, with no provacy, I don't see the big deal. Maybe I'm missing something.

Snow, it's not an issue of him being so horny he can't control himself. That's silly. It's an issue of fairness, and fairness only. Military training is supposed to teach you discipline by keeping you on a short leash and giving you your liberties back little by little by little. Of course there are problems with DADT, but gays are the ones getting the better end of the deal during training as things are right now. The only way to eliminate these problems would be for the military to actually crack down and discharge anyone who is found to be gay. Obviously no one wants that, so we just live with these problems and turn somewhat of a blind eye to them.
If DADT can be successfully phased out, I say do it. I just personally have a hard time understanding how Obama will figure out a solution. I think, in theory, it's a good idea, I just wanted to give my perspective on this issue, since it's ALWAYS spun in the media.

TS- Once again, the big deal is that in training you aren't supposed to be able to room with people you'd want to have sex with. It takes away from discipline. The biggest issue is how do we keep things like this in check for gay service members? Lesbians could''t room in the male barracks because of sexual assault fears, and they couldn't room in the female barracks because of the no-sex policy. So how would the military house them in a way that's fair to them and fair to the rest of us?

Oh and I believe for most services (I trained with all 4), the housing structure is like so...
BMT/some deployments - Open bays
Training - rooms with roommates
Post training - individual rooms on base, or housing off base.

Obviously, I've not been stationed everywhere, but from what my Army/Navy/Marines co workers have told me, this is basically the norm.

PS- Is the guy in the picture Peter Krause? He's a dead ringer for him!

Wow. Awesome. I'm a huge Bob Ross fan.

Foxie- I see what you are saying. I think it's just odd that it's so essential to training that you don't get to sleep in the same room with someone you'd want to have sex with. I mean, hell, it's even more torturous to be around someone you'd LIKE to have sex with and can't, so I'd assume that would be a bigger deal. I think no matter what, at least for basic training and maybe parts of OCS, anything involving a barracks type situation shouldn't be segregated (gay from straight) because the soldiers might have to be in this situation again when they are deployed, and need to be used to it.

But for the more advanced trainings, really I think they just need to put some walls up, and give everyone their own rooms, and I think that the policy should be the same for every couple, gay or straight. But I don't think DADT is the reason the lesbian you live near gets MORE rights, that just isn't logical.

You're not familiar with how training in the military works, so it's more than a little presumptuous of you to say that DADT is not the reason they basically lived with each other. It, along with the fact that evidently they were comfortable breaking the no fraternizing rule, is why they spent their training together in the privacy of the dorms.

And clearly you still aren't understanding.

"you don't get to sleep in the same room with someone you'd want to have sex with. I mean, hell, it's even more torturous to be around someone you'd LIKE to have sex with and can't"
It would become an issue if a lesbian living with a straight girl were able to walk down the hall to her girlfriend's room, when the straight service members don't have the same luxury.

"I think no matter what, at least for basic training and maybe parts of OCS, anything involving a barracks type situation shouldn't be segregated (gay from straight) because the soldiers might have to be in this situation again when they are deployed, and need to be used to it."
So gays should be allowed to room/visit with their partners, but straights shouldn't? Or are you saying everyone should be allowed to run around willy-nilly and all discipline by way of taking away soldiers' liberties should just go out the window? That's not how the military works. The military is about earning your liberties by learning your place in the system and obeying rules. If someone wishes to be free, they should stay a civilian.

I don't think you have a clear idea of how to successfully mix strict training rules with an overturn of DADT, and I doubt Obama has a clear idea either. Not that I'm blaming you, I don't have any ideas about making it work either. It's something that will most likely take longer than 2 years to figure out.

By the way, I'm trying my best to explain the military training system in a clear way, but I know it's hard to describe to someone who hasn't experienced it. Maybe HF will come back to the thread and do a better job explaining it than I'm doing.
All I'm saying is that the media never explains DADT policy in a way that is fair or completely truthful, and the military is NOT as anti-gay as most people assume it to be. And it's not like I'm the enemy and I'm arguing to keep DADT around forever, I'm NOT. I just know that a lot of people can't fully understand how difficult a process it will be because a lot of people have no idea how the military works.

I absolutely support the repeal of DADT, but I am also very glad that Obama is choosing to work with the Pentagon, Congress, and etc. to make it happen, instead of attempting to repeal it unilaterally. In the end, I think doing it that way will be the best method of making sure it sticks with the least amount of resentment.

Sorry, just a foreigner here, but ... morale/morals? who knows, maybe you did mean that "a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to standards of cheerfulness/well-being", but somehow, I think you meant "principles" or "rules of conduct".

ok ok ok wait, what about bisexuals?

where do we put the bisexuals?? They can't be with the men, the women or each other!

and karlotta, morale was used correctly.. it doest mean "cheerfulness" in this context. It's difficult to explain because the notion that homosexuality is a risk to army morale is complete BS, but this itself is not an uncommon standpoint of conservative organizations/groups.

I think it's a good idea for Barack to take this slowly in order to gain a consensus, I personally wouldn't want to be in any job where I couldn't be out (and accepted), but I still think that if any other gay people want to be in the service, they should be able to.

Foxie- my point is that these lesbians are breaking your rules of fraternization, and that really seems to have nothing to do with DADT. DADT clearly isn't keeping gay people out of the military, so it seems like what it is doing is making the military pretend there aren't gay people, therefore it must be hard for them to punish the lesbians you know for fraternizing, since technically there aren't even supposed to be lesbians in the military in the first place. And yes, people HAVE been kicked out of the military for being openly gay.

So if anything, repealing DADT would allow the military to punish everyone breaking the fraternization rules.

This has been hashed and re-hashed a thousand times here.

Foxie is in the military, HF has been in the military, why exactly can't we just accept that they know more than those who HAVEN'T been in the military?

Foxie and HF tend to disagree on most things, yet they are agreeing on this. Doesn't that tell us something?

Theres a lot of BS in the military, there's a TON of red tape and no matter how much we all like to think we know everything about it or how much we all like to think that its no different from civilian life, it IS different, A LOT different. So its not an apples to apples comparison and there ARE bigger things at play that the majority of Americans and esp. foreigners have NO IDEA about.

"So if anything, repealing DADT would allow the military to punish everyone breaking the fraternization rules."
SIGH. Only if they're able to figure out how to reconfigure training at large, which I think will be a huge challenge.
And yes, people have been kicked out of the military for being gay, never said it hasn't happened. It just doesn't happen very often. I can't think of anyone being kicked out for being gay, but I've heard accounts of gay members I know being discovered and basically being nudged, winked at, and sent along their way. I repeat, I'm not saying things are fair for everyone the way they are right now either. That doesn't change the fact that repealing DADT and then calling it a day is NOT the way to go. It will require careful planning, a lot of time, and a considerable amount of money to make things truly fair.

Thanks haus. I know I always thought DADT was bullcrap and unfair and should be done away with when I was a civilian, too. I never truly understood how complex an issue it is until I lived the military life. It's just one of those things that the media should portray fairly, then there would be less confusion and misunderstanding.

Haus- I can read the language of DADT, and I do know a bit about the military lifestyle despite not having joined, enough that I can have an opinion on it. I may not have been in the military, but it is a potential career, and I have taken the ASVAB and sat down with officers to speak about joining. As an American taxpayer, I have many opinions on things I don't directly participate in, and one of the many reasons I decided to go to law school instead of joining the military is because I am uncomfortable with DADT, and it made me reconsider whether it's an atmosphere I'd be comfortable in. I certainly respect the opinions of people who have been in the military, but my bf's brother, who is pretty high up in the military actually said to me, "we just don't like f*gs in the military." I know Foxie and HF are NOT like that, and are looking at this from the perspective of how difficult it would be to change the policy, but some people do have that attitude there. Or at least one person does.

Foxie- We clearly don't disagree. I never said that this wouldn't take careful planning, money and reconfiguring barracks. I never said, "just repeal DADT and everything will take care of itself." I just think that there has been a lot of excuse making, and many of these arguments apply to women in the Army also, ("they're a distraction, they disrupt the cohesiveness of the unit"). Sure, it takes time and money, and planning, but that shouldn't

But I will agree that former college coeds probably have a really difficult time understanding the military's hangup on sex. It seems a little old fashioned and archaic to ban conjugal visits during training and prosecute adultery, and I also think it's really scary to hear all that statistics of how often women are sexually assaulted in the military. It's a bit of an old boy's club, but I'm sure it will change with time.

I think the difference is that I still think it's worth repealing. I know that it will take money, time, and resources...but it's still worth it. The military IS an old boy's club. Women have had a hard time (still do to an extent)and before that African American men did, and now gays will, but that doesn't mean that progress can't be made. It just means that careful consideration and planning needs to occur in order to move forward. Obama wanting to move forward WITH the military is a good move instead of just decreeing it so. I do think that 2010 is a realistic goal for repealing DADT.

By the way if anyone has any questions about military life you are free to ask me. I know that it can be confusing to civilians sometimes.

Also I will be speaking from a Navy enlisted point of view. Each service has differences in policy and regulations.

I think its worth repealling too HF. What gets me is the people who think its like switching off the kicthen light. Its NOT that easy.

I think we disagree about 2010, I think it will take way longer than that just because of how long it will take to divert the funds to build the buildings. I mean think about when the last time whatever installation you were last on got a new building and how long it took to get, just using you as an example not point a finger!

And I think everyone has to be home before we can even look at the funds for that, so that will be 2010 at least... I'd guess that if they started working today, right now, it would take at least 8 years.

Plus 8 years would allow people plenty of time to get used to the idea because no matter what they say there are plenty of homophobes in the service. I'd rather give these people ample time to get out and therfore minimize incidents.

You have a point there with the building installation thing. LOL You know I honestly can't say how long it would or should take. I get what you're saying about getting everyone home first. I do think that they should START now with preparing for a repeal though.

2010 is PLENTY of time to at least have a solid plan prepared and perhaps begin setting things in motion. I'm really excited to hear the solutions they propose, I just hope they don't decide to get rid of the phase system. The phase system was a pain in the ass to deal with, but in hind sight it was truly for the best.

"does this mean if you want to dodge a draft you can just pretend to be gay?"

It's pretty hard to dodge a draft when there isn't one.

Thanks for the insight Foxie!!

It appears to me that what you would have to fight the most is the "the military just hates fags" attitude. Completely understand that you can't just flick a switch and have it be changed. And there are those gay folk that are going to push the boundaries if the policy is just unilaterally repealled. Some careful planning and training for both gay and straight service members will be needed. The services are disciplined organizations, and all who join are not necessarily realistic about their ability to follow the disciplines. As a gay man, I think the policy should be repealed, but you have to have a plan of action. It disturbs me that it has taken this long to recognize the need for it, and I worry that the "PLanning Process" will be neverending, but if they can come up with something that is fair to both gay and straight people (without bowing to stupid predjudices and block headed fears about gays) than all teh better.

I don't know. IMO, DADT should be more broadly applied. Don't tell me about your conquests (with whomever), and I won't tell you about mine. Let's keep sex completely out of the military. I understand that you have young men who have a lot of testosterone, but they are also supposedly professionals, and volunteers.