What does military DADT do to us civilians?

[FredinSJ]

Hi, today's headline:

US military milestone: end to ban on gay service


http://news.yahoo.com/us-military-milestone-end-ban-gay-201231682.html

So now our soldiers & sailors & military people, no longer have to jerk off under the covers and they can date or marry same sex. Good regular sex is good for the soul. If you can't find a regular GF or opposite sex partner, doesn't it make good sense to open the doors to gay/ lez relationships for the military? They will feel healthier, happier, and shoot better at our enemies! A Quality of Life issue, esp. where they put their lives on the line, FOR US BACK HOME.

Now.... how does that new ACCEPTANCE impact us in the gay or bi lifestyle? and swingers who are st8, bi and gay? Brothers & sisters in the Lifestyle?

DADT = Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy which is now GONE. Free to be who you are in the military..... and in the US too.

Comments appreciated.

--FredinSJ and wife, bi bi swingers in NJ

.............................

[Long Duck Dong]

make it legal and send them off to countries where its a death sentence to be gay.... good move.... give the enemy another reason to generate hatred against the us..... and having served in the military myself.... there is more than one way to deal with unwanted elements....

I have no issues with DADT being repealed, far from it.... but saying its my right to be gay, doesn't stop bullets or extremists.... and something simple such as a pic of you and your male / female lover in your wallet, can make the difference between being a hostage in a war zone and coming home in a coffin.....

be out, be proud, be what you want... but to our soldiers overseas... be safe, be discreet and be on the next plane home again, in one piece and alive.....

there are some people that will understand what I mean....and others that will argue it cos they have no idea

[elian]

Well, I am proud of the DoD and all of the people who fought to move this forward.

It made me very happy to hear that years of institutionalized crap are at least officially over. I was bracing for someone to bring up the topic at work around the lunch table but it never happened. Maybe it's a good thing - let it just end. I think one of the first institutions to integrate racially WAS the military so hopefully, eventually when straight and gay soldiers serve together side by side some of the homophobic people will realize that gay people are just like everyone else..you're putting your life in the hands of a gay person and guess what? They did what every other solider would do..that's a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

Clinton originally tried to repeal the historical ban on same sex soldiers, but I think the 90's was just too early (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWdL9mrYNmQ It seems stereotypical now, but back then there was no gay ANYTHING on TV so they were actually very progressive)..the country was just not ready to even ACKNOWLEDGE gay people then. The fact that he wanted to make same sex service legal in the military, along with an idea about universal health care really didn't make him very popular in rather conservative areas of the country.

Of course, I just recently watched "Philadelphia" and cried like a baby..geesh..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl4B9AU45P4

[Jobelorocks]

Well now they need to change UCMJ so that it isn't against military law for people to have sex other than missionary position with the opposite gender. Unfortunately, it is still illegal for military personnel to have sex with the same gender. What people do not understand is even though there is no more don't ask don't tell, military law still prohibits it. So if they serve out of the closet, they can be court marshaled for having gay sex.

[12voltman59]

Forgetting all the bullshit morality arguments of "gays" serving in the military---to me it simply reflects the reality that like in life in general---"queers" have always been a part of the military and will always be a part of it so you had simply might as well just "GET FUCKING REAL" and let them serve openly.

If they serve openly and conduct their sexual lives, just as heterosexuals service members must, according to certain standards and such, then having "gays" serve in the service is no BFD (Big Fucking Deal).

I have had a relationship with an older gentleman who served over 20 years in the Army as an artillery officer, with the bulk of his service being in the mid to later Vietnam War era. He said he had all kinds of relationships in those days with other guys, both officers and enlisted and at one point---had a clandestine relationship for a time with a senior officer in another command---a man who later became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--the highest position in the United States Military and retired a four star general with on one ever being the wiser that he was a man who even though was married---liked to have sex with other men.

Openly allowing "gays" to serve in the military is of course not an easy thing for some to accept----but the fact is--it is simply nothing more than recognizing that "gays" have long served in our military, do serve and will continue to serve--changing the policy simply makes it possible for them to openly and proudly do so without the negative impacts that having respected service members who are quite competent and vital members of their units, get booted from the service simply because of their "sexuality."

The one problem with the change in the policy though---the reality is that depending upon the outcome of the 2012 US presidential, Congressional and Senatorial elections----this new open policy is sadly most likely going to be a very short lived one since the Tea Bagger Party types have called on overturning the policy and once again "banning" gays from openly serving--I even heard of a suggestion floating around the net that there be a Constitutional amendment to permanently bar gays from serving in the services--I hope that is just a false rumor, but knowing the way those idiots think---its probably not----and if its true--so much for those people being real "lovers of freedom" since I am sure that any such amendment proposal would probably also call for other restrictions on the freedoms and rights of GLBT people--I mean---we are such a threat to "American safety and security" with some of this crowd saying that "gays" are as much a threat to America as are the Al Qaeda type terrorists.

This is just one such example: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4444956&page=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as2UxkGPHQU

This woman is not the only politico to say such things, former US Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania is once again a Republican candidate for president has said similar sorts of things: http://www.bilerico.com/2011/05/rick_santorum_doesnt_know_the_meaning_of_personal. php

I will look it up--but I think that most of those running for the Republican nomination have called on reinstating DADT should they win the presidency next year.

[Jobelorocks]

Does anyone know the rules of the UCMJ? Even with the repeal of DADT... Queer people in the military can still face court marshal and face punishment or even discharge for being queer. It is still illegal in military law to have gay sex. Why doesn't anyone seem to realize this?

[12voltman59]

Does anyone know the rules of the UCMJ? Even with the repeal of DADT... Queer people in the military can still face court marshal and face punishment or even discharge for being queer. It is still illegal in military law to have gay sex. Why doesn't anyone seem to realize this?

Apparently some changes might be coming in regards to that---

A discussion board on this issue:
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/27819558/m/3130060762001

A forum for "gay" service members that deals with legal issues, this page specifically talks to the issue of repeal of DADT and the UCMJ: http://www.sldn.org/pages/dadt-before-and-after It is a summary page but if you look around--there is a link to a much longer guide for service members to check out.

[Jobelorocks]

I found that second link very inaccurate... The UCMJ still prohibits all same-gender sexual acts. Since it is still illegal for them, they are still not allowed to practice same sex acts. Luckily most military members are ignorant to this so it won't be enforce as much, but it still can be.

[12voltman59]

I found that second link very inaccurate... The UCMJ still prohibits all same-gender sexual acts. Since it is still illegal for them, they are still not allowed to practice same sex acts. Luckily most military members are ignorant to this so it won't be enforce as much, but it still can be.

I think that what is going to happen--the official policy will be that as long as service members conduct themselves in a discreet way in regards to "gay sex"---they won't pursue any sorts of charges--as the pieces do say---for heterosexuals many sex acts are also against the UCMJ and they don't pursue those charges individually--only charging them if it relates to other malfeasance the service member has committed and that sexual activity is related to such bad acts.

It will basically be a version of Don't Ask Don't Tell--"if you don't tell us what you do in the bedroom--we sure as hell are not going to ask or even want to know, just practice good judgement and don't let your sex life interfere or impinge on your service duties."

I think that most if not all those who are gay in the military can do that--look at my friend I talked about--he said he got more sex with other guys in the service with other service guys and he did that at a time doing so could get your ass locked up in Fort Leavenworth at hard labor for a long time! OR---while in custody waiting for a hearing---such a person would tragically "slip in the shower" and hit their head against the wall, killing them!!

I think that those folks who are "gay" serving in the military now are going to do what they have always done---do what they do in their private life and not "advertise it" that they are "gay" since even if the "brass" might be more lenient now--there are still those guys who serve in the ranks who might do their own sort of "Star Chamber" kind of thing to "the queers."

Discretion is the better part of valor in this case to be sure!

Just because DADT may have come to an official end--for now---we are not going to see drag queen shows and things like that in the mess halls and gyms of our military bases and ships!!

[Realist]

As one who was both in the military and worked for them for over 30 years, I would still be very cautious about who I came out to.

Regardless of the rules, the attitudes of certain individuals and units are not conducive to peaceful openness.

Just as in a civilian society, there will probably always be those who vehemently oppose gay and bisexual behavior.

Regulations are one thing, but ingrained prejudices are difficult to sway. Different things can trigger violent reactions...Some people are always looking for scapegoats to blame for a myriad of issues. Those with a weak resolve may be encouraged by strong-willed individuals to follow their evil examples. We've all seen how mobs can be caught up in the emotions the loss or winning, of ball games.

Regardless of regulations, radical speakers who incite others to do things they'd never think of doing on their own........that is a scene we've all seen on TV. Alcohol, and/or drugs, as everyone knows, can cause a person to lose their inhibitions, ignore regulations, and do harm to others.

No, I would think twice before I'd broadcast my bisexuality, until I was satisfied that I, and those like me, were safe from harm!

[12voltman59]

As one who was both in the military and worked for them for over 30 years, I would still be very cautious about who I came out to.

Regardless of the rules, the attitudes of certain individuals and units are not conducive to peaceful openness.

Just as in a civilian society, there will probably always be those who vehemently oppose gay and bisexual behavior.

Regulations are one thing, but ingrained prejudices are difficult to sway. Different things can trigger violent reactions...Some people are always looking for scapegoats to blame for a myriad of issues. Those with a weak resolve may be encouraged by strong-willed individuals to follow their evil examples. We've all seen how mobs can be caught up in the emotions the loss or winning, of ball games.

Regardless of regulations, radical speakers who incite others to do things they'd never think of doing on their own........that is a scene we've all seen on TV. Alcohol, and/or drugs, as everyone knows, can cause a person to lose their inhibitions, ignore regulations, and do harm to others.

No, I would think twice before I'd broadcast my bisexuality, until I was satisfied that I, and those like me, were safe from harm!

Realist--exactly the point I was trying to make--thanks.

With the end of DADT--in effect--it just means that as policy and such--the military brass is not interested in actively booting people and expending the time and resources to do so just because members are "gay"---I can assure you though--in a conservative environment like the service--you are one dumb cluck if you openly flaunt that you are "gay"-it has been such all these years and with DADT gone--that is not going to change.

[elian]

The article in the UMJC about sodomy doesn't say anything about masturbation - would that still be considered "indecent acts with another" ?

Also, "officially" sex is not supposed to happen between male and female troops, even married troops, but obviously it does. If they don't allow sex between male and female troops then obviously they wouldn't allow it with homosexuals either.

Yeah, I'm not saying that things are going to magically change overnight but have to celebrate small victories where you can, I'm sure there are plenty of folks unhappy about this wish they could reverse the decision - too bad for them.

[welickit]

There have always been gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the military. Simple fact. Been there done that.

As for the UCMJ it can't and won't change until federal law is written to make it possible. Once the law passes you can't be charged under UCMJ. Not even under the catch all Article 15.

[12voltman59]

The biggest thing with sexual conduct in the military--it tends to not be actual sexual acts that would trigger UCMJ charges and hearings---it is how and if such sexual activity affects a person's performance in the service and if such activity has any direct impact on unit performance and readiness--I know that we had a few senior petty officers get in trouble because they wound up having things with girls under their command with it being a direct violation of rules that those superior in rank don't have relations with those under them--but even that didn't warrant anything as serious as a full on court martial--in the Coast Guard we had what was called "Captain's Mast" or non-judicial punishment. I am sure the other services have similar programs.

In those cases---the parties in question might have their rank or pay reduced, restriction of "liberty" time (time off), being transferred to other units and negative remarks entered into the person's service record which can have their own negative consequences in terms of career advancement.

While NJPs were used for minor things--it was really rare for there to be an actual full on Courts Martial even for offenses as serious as people doing drugs---in those cases--they usually opted to merely boot a person from the service "at the convenience of the government" and give them a less than an honorable discharge.

Just like in the civilian world with criminal trials--they seem to try to avoid holding UCMJ hearings if at all possible since they do tend to be a rather expensive affair---I really doubt in these times of even the military facing really major budget cutting--unless a person has totally done some bad stuff--they are not going to charge them under the UCMJ for having gay sex unless the person is stupid enough to do it in public and the story hits the media or something like that.

I do wonder though--does anyone know if under DADT----the people got booted after they held a Courts Martial against them or did they simply get booted in a special DADT hearing of some kind?

[Realist]

I know the military has been getting less strict, as a rule, over the past 20 years.

When I was in the Army, in the late '50s, two soldiers in my troop were caught in a sexually compromising situation. An NCO caught them and immediately turned them in. I did not know the specifics of that case, but both of them got sentenced to time in Leavenworth....I have no memory of length of their incarceration, but I believe it to be years!

I believe, at that time, if you got sentenced for something minor, that was not a dishonorable charge, you'd be confined over there and not sent home. Or maybe got an "article 15" and company punishment. That would be considered "bad time" and did not count toward your service time. But, being caught in a same-gender sexual act, was NOT considered MINOR, then!

Before I retired in '93, incidents of soldiers getting caught seemed to be treated less strictly where I was. (I was in a training/school environment) It might have been different in combat units. However, I've heard that some commanders came down harder on them, than others.

You'd think the UCMJ would be uniformly applied...as in UNIFORM Code Of Military Justice, but I think there was leeway in how strictly, or leniently, they were judged. I'm sure the severity of the charges had a lot to do with the degree of punishment.

One supply clerk, who I used to deal with all the time, was involved in some kind of sexual situation with another male, on duty, and was given a "less-than honorable" discharge.

When he was clearing post, I asked him if he did what he was charged with?

He would only say, "Hey, it felt good, so I went with it."

It didn't seem to be a big deal with him.

I'd like to hear from present military about their thoughts/experiences.