Bi / homosexuals in the military.

[piercedcurious]

Hi, I'm bi and in the military. I just recently re-discovered my latent attraction to men and am curious how many more of us are in the military and how you handle it. I have had fantasies about a couple of my co workers but that is it. Thanks!

[rissababynta]

If you are in the military, please, please do not log onto this site or any like it from a computer that anyone can trace to you. Unless, that is, you want to be discharged. Just like porn, the internet is the quickest way to be found out.

I sincerely hope that the rules change. It would be the only Obama promise that I would be happy if he kept. It will probably not happen, however.

Pasa

Pasa, it is not like that anymore. There are plenty of openly gay and bisexual people in the military now. They don't discharge you for that anymore.

However, there are some ignorant people in the military and they might make life a bit rough for you so, it still might be a good idea if you try to keep it to yourself as much as possible. Unless, of course, you don't mind the chance of a few dumb asses making your life miserable for a while.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

All I can tell you is, keep it in your mind, And in your pants Darlin. Gays and Bi's still arent truly accepted in the military, so tread softy, Baby. Be careful to who you confide to, and keep it out in town, not on base.
Just my humble:2cents:
Cat

[Long Duck Dong]

I served in nz with some gay / bi service men and women and I am bi myself....

I handled it the same as I handle normal life.... I did not let sex or sexuality interfere with things .... I seperated them.....

on a training exercise with explosions etc, the last thing going thru my mind was who was cute and who i would like to fuck etc..... cos the last thing I wanted going thru my head, was a live round.....

at the end of the day I have the PoV, that I was there as part of a unit, and everything depended on us working as a team and a unit, and not letting personal aspects seep into it that could create conflict within the unit....
and personal bias or attraction can be very dangerous in a unit and in the field.... specially if you are prioritizing things around who you are more likely to fuck cos that can cost lives

[lovebimarriedman]

When I was in the service, I had sex with another military member. We only did touching, sucking, and stroking each other off ...
Before this incident, I had a good looking friend in the same unit. I felt attracted to him, but I was so afraid to do or say any thing .... because I did not want to be discharged. I remembered one night we stayed at the hotel in the same room. He said that his mother thought that He was gay. I should have gotton that hint ... and made a move forward to him , but I did not ... I still regreted up to now
Good luck to you!

[Caaveman]

Pasa, it is not like that anymore. There are plenty of openly gay and bisexual people in the military now. They don't discharge you for that anymore.

When did they change that? My son got sent home from the marines when he admited that he was gay, back in 2009.

[darkeyes]

at the end of the day I have the PoV, that I was there as part of a unit, and everything depended on us working as a team and a unit, and not letting personal aspects seep into it that could create conflict within the unit....
and personal bias or attraction can be very dangerous in a unit and in the field.... specially if you are prioritizing things around who you are more likely to fuck cos that can cost lives

Can c wy ya sez wot ya dus 'ere, Duckie.. am a pacifist, but do kno history is fulla instances a peeps layin down ther lives for friends an luffers..in an outa the military.. surely hard as peeps mite try.. personal bias will always cum inta how peeps act.. the bullet through the head thing for a start..don havta b gay for sum 1 2 shoot ya deliberately wen they r onya own side... but equally.. r peeps not gonna go 2 gr8er lengths outa friendship an loyalty 2 1 or more they care bout than, than peeps they don like 2 much? Yet equally..history is fulla instances wer peeps hav laid ther lives down for peeps they don think 2 much of... many human beins can an do act selfishly..yet millions also, as history has proved, can an do act selflessly..

..our actions r determined very much by likes an dislikes.. in every walk a life.. peeps r advanced cos of it an hav ther lives ruined cos of it.. personally..me thinks its a case a swings an roundabouts... an thats wer ur arument..an those who wud like 2 ban gays an bi's from the military... fall flat on ther faces...:)

[rissababynta]

When did they change that? My son got sent home from the marines when he admited that he was gay, back in 2009.

That is strange considering that I know of several people myself just from my husbands unit that are open about it and his NCO's talk to them about it and everything.

I suppose if someone makes a big enough stink about it and takes it as high as they go, they can always get around it, like they do so many other things that are supposed to be a certain way. In general, the military does what it wants when it wants. Which is still why I don't think it is necessarily a good idea for people to air out their laundry when in the military, and they have to be careful.

I had a friend that was in the Army years ago who was prescribed some meds and they made him completely pass out. The way he passed out, he was face down in his pillow. Someone walked in the room (someone who did not like him and was a higher up) saw and insisted that he witnessed him trying to kill himself. After psych evaluations and meetings with NCO's, the other guy continued to make drama out of the situation and within two months, he was dishonorably discharged for attempted suicide.

Like I said, military does what it wants, when it wants.

[Realist]

Rissa, was that a Dishonorable, Discharged for Psychological reasons, or Less Than Desirable Discharge? I think the Marines may be held to a different set of rules, too. They are more strict in almost every incident.

Military: I was in the military in the late '50s and in the '60s...also worked for them until '93. If you were caught in any same-gender sexual situation, it was almost a "done deal" that you were gonna be sent to Leavenworth.........and a Bad Conduct, or Dishonorable discharge.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Clinton and Obama policies being revoked, after they're gone.

[12voltman59]

I don't exactly understand what kicks in "don't ask, don't tell"----but I would imagine if they find that you went to any web site that deals with homosexuality in any fashion--it can kick off a "DADT Discharge"

It is amazing to me-----as a vet---just how many guys and gals in all the services were gay/bi---if only the "brass" really knew the extent of how many "gay" people serve---it makes DADT a joke really----they have scores of GLBT type people serving and they don't really seem to know it--and this is nothing all that new----this goes back to at least WWII.

I had read not long ago of two men--they were both officers back in WWII--they met then---started their relationship during that war (very clandestinely) and are still alive and together to this day.

I do urge the OP----do keep your head down----while you surely have lots of other guys who feel as you do----no doubt there are ones in your own unit or ones you work with-----its not anything you can openly discuss----if you do find somebody to "play with"---do take care-----you don't want someone who is an ahole to rat you and a play partner out.

[wildwestgoob]

I think that the main point 12-volt is that they DONT know... and dont WANT to know.

That is the way most families I know handle the situation.
Here in the south anyway, they dont ask, we dont tell, everyone gets along just fine.

Indeed, keep *both* your heads down while you are on active duty.
Think of it as being married to a straight woman....
(running for cover)


:rolleyes:

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

I agree Voltie and Real. But from my own experiances from working with my Vets, you Never openly admit that you are Gay, Bi, or Lesbian. The military will tell you one thing on that but act on another venue. And, you still have to be careful...not everyone is as accepting as everyone things. You dont want to wind up with a "Blanket Party" and have the shit beat out of you for being "Queer" It still happens, Ya'll. Prejudicial insecurities still rules, m'loves....:(
So OP. Keep yer wits about you, Hon, and just be careful.
Cat

[darkeyes]

Jus b clear..we talkin bout the military a the US 'ere.. sum countries hav no bar on bein gay or bi... UK for 1 nowadays.. an otha european countries..

.. am not 2 sure bout ther attitude 2 trans peeps tho... think sumhow ther mite jus b a lil quibble or 2 in ther case by the powers that b....:(

[MarieDelta]

Jus b clear..we talkin bout the military a the US 'ere.. sum countries hav no bar on bein gay or bi... UK for 1 nowadays.. an otha european countries..

.. am not 2 sure bout ther attitude 2 trans peeps tho... think sumhow ther mite jus b a lil quibble or 2 in ther case by the powers that b....:(

Actually the Brits just get the surgery (http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/929)(and the hormones) and move on re: trans folk. Same with Canadians (http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/928). Other Countries, I'm not so sure about.

[darkeyes]

Actually the Brits just get the surgery (http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/929)(and the hormones) and move on re: trans folk. Same with Canadians (http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/928). Other Countries, I'm not so sure about.

Ta me luffly Trollop... shudda pikked up on it but nev hav.. silly me... muuuaahh!:tong:

[rissababynta]

Rissa, was that a Dishonorable, Discharged for Psychological reasons, or Less Than Desirable Discharge? I think the Marines may be held to a different set of rules, too. They are more strict in almost every incident.

Military: I was in the military in the late '50s and in the '60s...also worked for them until '93. If you were caught in any same-gender sexual situation, it was almost a "done deal" that you were gonna be sent to Leavenworth.........and a Bad Conduct, or Dishonorable discharge.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Clinton and Obama policies being revoked, after they're gone.

I'm not sure Realist, all I know is that he was mad that he would never get a chance to use a GI bill because he said he was dishonorably discharged.

[ziggybabie]

Pasa, it is not like that anymore. There are plenty of openly gay and bisexual people in the military now. They don't discharge you for that anymore.

However, there are some ignorant people in the military and they might make life a bit rough for you so, it still might be a good idea if you try to keep it to yourself as much as possible. Unless, of course, you don't mind the chance of a few dumb asses making your life miserable for a while.

x a billion.

you have to remember that there are a LOT of close minded hardcore Kool-Aid drinking Republican type blind nationalist bigots in such an organization. It's a VERY conservative organization, traditionally.

[TaylorMade]

x a billion.

you have to remember that there are a LOT of close minded hardcore Kool-Aid drinking Republican type blind nationalist bigots in such an organization. It's a VERY conservative organization, traditionally.

There are many Democrats who think the same way too. Obama has defended DOMA in court. . .Clinton started the whole mess even after his promises to the gay community.

These attitudes and their actions are not confined to a single party or side of the aisle.

Assuming one side and one side alone has our interests at heart is how we become ballot cattle. . .milked of our cash and votes every two to four then sent out to pasture. Fiscal conservatives are learning this...it's time we should too.


*Taylor*

[Realist]

Think what you will, ZIGGYBABY, but it if wasn't for "the close minded hardcore Kool-Aid drinking Republican type blind nationalist bigots in such an organization", You'd be speaking German, Japanese, Russian, etc, etc.

I'm not saying anything's perfect here, but compared to the rest of the world's population, we have more freedom and benefits than most do.

Get out and travel some, go to other countries, as I have, and you'll soon have a greater appreciation for this country. I've been to some wonderful places with friendly people, but when you line 'em up side by side, this country will come out ahead most of the time.

[darkeyes]

e
Think what you will, ZIGGYBABY, but it if wasn't for "the close minded hardcore Kool-Aid drinking Republican type blind nationalist bigots in such an organization", You'd be speaking German, Japanese, Russian, etc, etc.

I'm not saying anything's perfect here, but compared to the rest of the world's population, we have more freedom and benefits than most do.

Get out and travel some, go to other countries, as I have, and you'll soon have a greater appreciation for this country. I've been to some wonderful places with friendly people, but when you line 'em up side by side, this country will come out ahead most of the time.

Have always wanted to be multilingual hun.. but on this I think you do talk such tosh. If you truly believe it was conservative blind nationalist bigotted hardcore that stopped that think again. WW2 wasnt won by right wing nationalist political ideoligies.. it was lost by them. The cold war was not won by right wing philosophies either.. it was won by a bankrupt stalinist cock up losing out to a politically mixed political alliance which changed from right to left frequently. Even within itself, that alliance of right and left, at least in western political terms, alternated continuously within the nations of the west, yet allying with each other against what they conceived as the greatest foe..

It is much more complex than I have outlined realist. But that in itself is a more accurate picture of the reality of why we do not speak German, Russian, Japanese etc than u outline. In any case.. it is doubtful whether in half a century had they crushed the west, that the germans or russians or japanese or anyone else, could have extinguished English as the predominant laguage in our countries. Had Germany won in 1945, that could not have been done either, nor in 1918.. we may have of necessity become more multilingual that we are.. but our first languages would still essentially be what it is now.. :)

[Darkside2009]

I can barely understand her Scottish irritable vowel syndrome, the poor Germans have no chance.

[darkeyes]

I can barely understand her Scottish irritable vowel syndrome, the poor Germans have no chance.

Assumin u talkin bout me...me shud care cocoa ... an wots it 2 do wiv germans???? Me bowels r jus fine tyvm!

[TaylorMade]

I can barely understand her Scottish irritable vowel syndrome, the poor Germans have no chance.

<snerk> Punny.

*Taylor*

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

I can barely understand her Scottish irritable vowel syndrome, the poor Germans have no chance.


LOL If'n you caint understand Frannie, then you damn shore aint'a gunna be able to understand no Native American Redneck Speech, are ya?

Snoggs and cuddles Frannie me luff..
Yer Cat

[Doggiestyle]

I can barely understand her Scottish irritable vowel syndrome, the poor Germans have no chance.

Yes Darkside,,,,,,, :bigrin: the "irritabele vowel syndrome" :bigrin: I like that, thats a funny one allright.

There for a short while recently she (darkeyes) made a few post(s) that were in real, read-able and understandable english. Looks like she quit now, musta got back on her meds, HUH? :bigrin: ,,,,,,,,,,,, just kiddin now me luffies. :rolleyes: Ahhhh but can you stand it?

As far as being gay / bi in the military,,,, I would keep that one quiet. You could presently cause yourself a lot of trouble now and later? Who knows what the future policies will become. If you keep it in the closet you will discover that blending in with the rest of the world is a lot eaiser too. Works for me!

Your friend, :doggie:

[darkeyes]

So ya don like Fran huh? o well.. no matta.. will jus nip down pub lata an drink mesel 2 death..ahhh death by cognac...luffly!!!:tong:

[ziggybabie]

There are many Democrats who think the same way too. Obama has defended DOMA in court. . .Clinton started the whole mess even after his promises to the gay community.

These attitudes and their actions are not confined to a single party or side of the aisle.

Assuming one side and one side alone has our interests at heart is how we become ballot cattle. . .milked of our cash and votes every two to four then sent out to pasture. Fiscal conservatives are learning this...it's time we should too.


*Taylor*

yeh, I know what you're saying and agree. I don't have much faith in a 'party' or even any particular political ideology. All I meant was that as an organization, the military in general happens to be a very conservative biased and it's often not the good moderate kind. Not saying Reps are the ONLY ones. Just that it VERY likely might not be a safe environment to 'come out' in.






Think what you will, ZIGGYBABY, but it if wasn't for "the close minded hardcore Kool-Aid drinking Republican type blind nationalist bigots in such an organization", You'd be speaking German, Japanese, Russian, etc, etc.

I'm not saying anything's perfect here, but compared to the rest of the world's population, we have more freedom and benefits than most do.

Get out and travel some, go to other countries, as I have, and you'll soon have a greater appreciation for this country. I've been to some wonderful places with friendly people, but when you line 'em up side by side, this country will come out ahead most of the time.

I wasn't attacking 'our country' or soldiers. I was attacking certain attitudes and blind faith in 'tradition' and authority. Which, despite what Fox News or some people say, is not the same thing.

[darkeyes]

LOL If'n you caint understand Frannie, then you damn shore aint'a gunna be able to understand no Native American Redneck Speech, are ya?

Snoggs and cuddles Frannie me luff..
Yer Cat

Meant 2 do this las nite cat me luffly...

MUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuaaaahhh...snogs...huggles..snuggle s an lotsa lix.....:tong:

...as Cat an Fran they turn sum trix....;):bigrin:

Slaggin Franspeak gives sum sum kix..

Don give a bugga 'bout stones an stix :bigrin:

Tee hee...

[darkeyes]

..but it don haff kinda lose pointa the thread...:tongue:

[rissababynta]

Meant 2 do this las nite cat me luffly...

MUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuaaaahhh...snogs...huggles..snuggle s an lotsa lix.....:tong:

...as Cat an Fran they turn sum trix....;):bigrin:

Slaggin Franspeak gives sum sum kix..

Don give a bugga 'bout stones an stix :bigrin:

Tee hee...

What the hell was the the Franspeak rap?
Cool beans haha.

[darkeyes]

What the hell was the the Franspeak rap?
Cool beans haha.

Mayb shud finish it huh Riss?? tee hee.. verse bout u an me doin.. well..summat rude... but luffly...:bigrin:

[Darkside2009]

I digress, the Hamely Tongue would need a thread all to itself. In the meantime we'll just have to stick her and the weeuns heeds in the schuck to clear their minds.

I suppose the logic behind the ban on Homosexuals in the services was they didn't want anyone getting distracted from their job when that distraction meant that they or others might get killed.

Since it was primarily men that fought in the combat zones the same worry would not have been an issue for heterosexual servicemen.

Back in the days when an army had a baggage train of camp followers, the same worry about distraction of the soldiers from their duties applied.

I think their have been a few cases in the modern British Navy where women have been allowed on board and it has caused problems. This has led to people being discharged.

In peace time I suppose it poses a bit of a headache for the Services, in a war it could be positively dangerous to have Personnel distracted from their duties.

So no, I don't think it is simply the Services being conservative or right-wing as suggested. I think the job has enough risks without adding any to them.

[rissababynta]

I digress, the Hamely Tongue would need a thread all to itself. In the meantime we'll just have to stick her and the weeuns heeds in the schuck to clear their minds.

I suppose the logic behind the ban on Homosexuals in the services was they didn't want anyone getting distracted from their job when that distraction meant that they or others might get killed.

Since it was primarily men that fought in the combat zones the same worry would not have been an issue for heterosexual servicemen.

Back in the days when an army had a baggage train of camp followers, the same worry about distraction of the soldiers from their duties applied.

I think their have been a few cases in the modern British Navy where women have been allowed on board and it has caused problems. This has led to people being discharged.

In peace time I suppose it poses a bit of a headache for the Services, in a war it could be positively dangerous to have Personnel distracted from their duties.

So no, I don't think it is simply the Services being conservative or right-wing as suggested. I think the job has enough risks without adding any to them.

Wherever that nail is, you have hit it.

[piercedcurious]

Wow that's one heck of a can of words i opened what i was mostly interested in was are there others like me that are members on this site. I am VERY careful about keeping my secret. I appreciate all the concern and advice y'all have given. Once the policy changes I'll get a good feel for the attitude of co workers and supervisors before i decide to come out.

[darkeyes]

I digress, the Hamely Tongue would need a thread all to itself. In the meantime we'll just have to stick her and the weeuns heeds in the schuck to clear their minds.

I suppose the logic behind the ban on Homosexuals in the services was they didn't want anyone getting distracted from their job when that distraction meant that they or others might get killed.

Since it was primarily men that fought in the combat zones the same worry would not have been an issue for heterosexual servicemen.

Back in the days when an army had a baggage train of camp followers, the same worry about distraction of the soldiers from their duties applied.

I think their have been a few cases in the modern British Navy where women have been allowed on board and it has caused problems. This has led to people being discharged.

In peace time I suppose it poses a bit of a headache for the Services, in a war it could be positively dangerous to have Personnel distracted from their duties.

So no, I don't think it is simply the Services being conservative or right-wing as suggested. I think the job has enough risks without adding any to them.

Heed... heid.. head
Weeuns..Weans..bairns..children
Shuck...shugh..shite..

Ya hav got the spellin a Hamely (Homely) rite, sweets.. wich is nice.:) Assume the spellin ya use is Ulster.. not takin pee honest.. jus clearin things so foriegn peeps know wot we talkin bout.. tee hee.

My turn 2 digress.. :bigrin: Hav lil kissie.. muaaaahh!! :kiss:

[TaylorMade]

I digress, the Hamely Tongue would need a thread all to itself. In the meantime we'll just have to stick her and the weeuns heeds in the schuck to clear their minds.

I suppose the logic behind the ban on Homosexuals in the services was they didn't want anyone getting distracted from their job when that distraction meant that they or others might get killed.

Since it was primarily men that fought in the combat zones the same worry would not have been an issue for heterosexual servicemen.

Back in the days when an army had a baggage train of camp followers, the same worry about distraction of the soldiers from their duties applied.

I think their have been a few cases in the modern British Navy where women have been allowed on board and it has caused problems. This has led to people being discharged.

In peace time I suppose it poses a bit of a headache for the Services, in a war it could be positively dangerous to have Personnel distracted from their duties.

So no, I don't think it is simply the Services being conservative or right-wing as suggested. I think the job has enough risks without adding any to them.

Yeah, this. :)

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

Now, my pacifism and the fact that I don't like or approve of the military is well known in these forums. Yet for all the progress of the last half century, it does rankle when those who should know better appear to apologise for the discrimination and oppression of our kind within the armed forces by the state as somehow justified.

Sometimes we all take some unpredictably strange and unexpected positions in the fight for true equality for all in our world...

[12voltman59]

The bottom line about "don't ask, don't tell"---to change that policy--Congress would need to act to change it since they created the rules on that---DADT is not simply a military polilcy that the president could be ordered changed---it is law.

You would think that with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and a president that got the highest margin of victory in a generation----who is ostensibly--so "liberal/progressive/left of center"---the law would be easily changed. (but obviously--I am wrong----I guess the Dems must have all gotten castrated, at least in the political sense!!)

I don't know for sure--but from what I have gathered by the number of retired military brass who have retired in recent years who have spoken and written on the subject--it seems that if you had a president and Congress that changed the policy and gave marching orders to the military brass: "We are going to allow gays to open and actively serve in our military!" It would happen pretty damn quick. They have to know that many service people, past and present are and were "gay." Some of the recently retired Generals and Admirals are actually advocating that Don't Ask , Don't Tell end as soon as possible.

The transition and implementation to a gay open service policy, I would say, would be much easier than it was when the military did two things in the past that at one time seemed "impossible"--first---the military integrated blacks fully into the services and then some years later---they opened service up to women.

If DADT tell would go away--the rules for conduct of "gays" would be just like that for everyone in the service----you don't have fraternization between officers and enlisted ranks, no intimate relationships with people in your same unit--certainly not between senior and lower people in the same command or unit, no conduct unbecoming a commissioned or non-commissioned officer, etc. with serious legal sanctions per the UCMJ and also doing harm to your career.

Their are two barriers that prevent the end of "don't ask, don't tell" and they are first and foremost---POLITICAL and lack of will.

With the first part of that being the operative one----those in Congress on the "social right" have a vested interested in keeping the status quo when it comes to DADT----I am sure that they do realize--if the rule went away and gays were allowed to openly serve---the military would have no more than a slight hiccup at worst--the transition to openly accepting 'gays' would be fine and the sky would not fall.

With that happening so easily---it would negate all of their crazy, strawman, evil boogeyman, oooh gays are soooo scarey arguments and they would lose out in the "court of public opinion."

They need an internal boogeyman (along with the external "Islamoterrorists who want to kill us!") like "Evil Gays" to "fire up their base," to get them riled up, write campaign checks and get out to vote for them or candidates of their ilk.

For the other part of what I said above----for most people---this isn't all that much of an important issue at this time with everything else going on in our society, so the political will really isn't there for it.

I had hoped at this time last year, DADT would be one of those things that we would see be among the great winds of change (that Barack Obama was supposed to be) coming to Washington--but I sure as hell was wrong on that--MY BAD for sure!!!

Don't look for Don't Ask, Don't Tell to change anytime soon--"at this juncture in history"--if you like for progressive sorts of things to happen in society---the way things look right now----we will be lucky to hold on in the future to many of the "social rights" we have now, with those "social rights" including a panoply of things that not only include "gay rights," but abortion/reproductive rights and many others along this line.

We have a cohort of people in our society who actively fight to, if not eliminate such "rights," they at least want to greatly "set back the clock" on many of them.

[12voltman59]

WOW--the brassiest of the US military brass called today for a quick end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that boots gays from military service:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/mike-mullen-calls-for-rep_n_446067.html

[rissababynta]

WOW--the brassiest of the US military brass called today for a quick end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that boots gays from military service:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/mike-mullen-calls-for-rep_n_446067.html

I think he spoke very well about his opinion. Kudos to him.

[12voltman59]

It is funny---John McCain and other Republican Senators had said something along the lines---"if the military leadership comes to us and says they want to overturn don't ask, don't tell--we will honor that."

Today--they came to the Senators and they say--"no-that is a bad idea--can't do it!"

McCain saying that DADT is not "perfect, but it worked well!"

I wonder how well it worked when thousands of people doing good service were kicked out of the service for one reason and one reason only----it was found out that they were "gay."

[12voltman59]

I did not know about this, but back in 1993 when Bill Clinton tried to do away with the military's rules regarding gays serving in the military----the RAND Institute did a major study regarding the potential impact on changing the policy and how to implement it.

Of course--even Def Sec Gates and the Joint Chief Chairman yesterday said that "we need to take a year or so to study this and make the changes if that is what we decide to do."

The Rand study says the way to make the change is to simply "do it" and do it fast.

After hearing some people knowledgable about the way the policy change was done in the British military--they made the decision and it was done within a month or so.

Here is a link to a synopsis of the report at the Rand website--they do offer copies of it for sale or you can down load a PDF copy of the report too. I don't have time now to look at the report --maybe I will try to do so at some point--at least look at some of the sections that seem to be of interest.

Here is the link:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/

Wow--had to an a quick PS to this post--on the telly--they just had a news blurb that Colin Powell-who had been opposed to allowing gays to serve back when Clinton wanted to change the policy to allow them to serve--now says he favors doing away with DADT and allowing gays to serve!!! When the Dominos fall--they fall quick it seems----of course--we do have the PARTY of NO that is dead set against anything THEY don't like from coming to pass.

[jamiehue]

dISTRACTION...NAH. NEXT QUESTION.... LOOK ITS THE MILITARY....

[piercedcurious]

I could barely contain my glee when I heard the news today. Of course there are people in my office that are against gays in the military but one brought up an interesting question. What if a gay couple get married in DC the get orders to arizona? In one state their marriage gives them both health insurance and all the other benefits that dependents get but in their new base they don't have a legal marriage. I suggested that the military write in the regs that no matter where the couple might go that the military would always recognize them as a married couple. Hmmmm something more to think about. This definitely won't be quick if it is done right.