Quick question for the military folks

CitationLover

Aw, Nuts!
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Posts
3,316
Total Time
1500+
Why does Congress and the Senate have to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell? I thought the President was Commander in Chief and could set policy for the military while Congress pays / or doesn't pay the bills.
 

Pirate

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Posts
1,901
Total Time
Many
Because DADT is mandated by federal law. It's not a policy issue it is a leagal issue.
 

CitationLover

Aw, Nuts!
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Posts
3,316
Total Time
1500+
Because DADT is mandated by federal law. It's not a policy issue it is a leagal issue.
Didn't Clinton enact it with his first federal act? This is what was confusing to me.
 

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
Clinton did it in 1993, he was going to do the full monty on Gay's but after the "Gay Pride Parade" in Jan of 1993 on the Mall in DC (anyone remember that freak show), he backed away from full gay support.
 
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Posts
43
Total Time
69
Congress is still and has always been the body that creates the rules/regulations for the military as written in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;....

The president is really just a final decision maker on how the military is employed in a time of war which only Congress can declare, but the we've all seen how that works over the last 70 years....
 

andyd

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Posts
312
Total Time
ATPmin
Well the debate is over now, Congrats to all who were serving in silence. For all the naysayers you are about to find out how much of a total non-issue this was/has been all along.
 

jet2work

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Posts
196
Well the debate is over now, Congrats to all who were serving in silence. For all the naysayers you are about to find out how much of a total non-issue this was/has been all along.
Hopefully so, however I have my doubts.

Does any homosexual in the military honestly believe that living in the open will enhance their military career? The military is a place that values conformity (eg. Uniforms, Grooming Requirements, Height Weight Standards etc..).

My fear is that eventually, homosexuals will become a protected class in the military. In the end (no pun intended), some of them will advance to positions that they are not qualified to serve in, but because of others' reluctance to weed them out, they will be passed and promoted.

When I went through flight school in the 80's we had protected classes too. A few of those individuals were given second and third chances, while the rest of us were not. That bred resentment and distrust. Everyone in those classes ended up being painted with the same brush. That ended up hurting the vast majority of those in the protected class who were capable and qualified. Does anyone remember the Kara Hultgreen experiment?

I cannot imagine someone going through Seal Training, Ranger School etc. not being weeded out for being obviously deficient, because officers and NCO's are afraid of their careers being impacted.

I'm sure that there are many gay servicemen and women serving admirably. I'm sure that DADT was not the best answer for them. I'm not sure that it's repeal will be the best answer for anyone.
 

Bjammin

Cease Buzzer
Joined
May 13, 2004
Posts
585
Total Time
>6000
Hopefully so, however I have my doubts.

Does any homosexual in the military honestly believe that living in the open will enhance their military career? The military is a place that values conformity (eg. Uniforms, Grooming Requirements, Height Weight Standards etc..).

My fear is that eventually, homosexuals will become a protected class in the military. In the end (no pun intended), some of them will advance to positions that they are not qualified to serve in, but because of others' reluctance to weed them out, they will be passed and promoted.

When I went through flight school in the 80's we had protected classes too. A few of those individuals were given second and third chances, while the rest of us were not. That bred resentment and distrust. Everyone in those classes ended up being painted with the same brush. That ended up hurting the vast majority of those in the protected class who were capable and qualified. Does anyone remember the Kara Hultgreen experiment?

I cannot imagine someone going through Seal Training, Ranger School etc. not being weeded out for being obviously deficient, because officers and NCO's are afraid of their careers being impacted.

I'm sure that there are many gay servicemen and women serving admirably. I'm sure that DADT was not the best answer for them. I'm not sure that it's repeal will be the best answer for anyone.

I AGREE 100%!!! Thanks for posting that. I have been in the military for 23 years, both E and O, and have seen this time and time again. You are absolutly correct and people will be less safe because of it.
 

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
I AGREE 100%!!! Thanks for posting that. I have been in the military for 23 years, both E and O, and have seen this time and time again. You are absolutly correct and people will be less safe because of it.
The Navy had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy back in the old days. But this policy concerned Booze on board a ship at sea. Many of us had bottles in our room, where we had a safe, that only we could know the combination. This safe was about the size of two fifths. After a long day of being at sea, to sit down have shot of scotch to relax with a book was an escape of being in jail on this steel tub. It was keep private, maybe shared with a buddy, but no drunken tirades in the passageways. Some of the fighter pilots let it go out in the passageway going into Hong Kong; they were put in hack for the HK visit. My concern is now that it is OK to be open and gay, it will be like removing the booze policy and the parties will move into the passageways, but there will no punishment. I am concerned about the gay activists, the one who paraded in the “Gay Pride” parade in January 1993 will now step out into the passageways to push the gay agenda. If any action is taken against them then it will be pursued an anti-gay punishment. On a personal level, I could care less if you are gay, just don’t push your life choice on me. This is all part of the Gay agenda to gain the same protection under EEO that race; gender and age now enjoy.
 

Hobit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2003
Posts
395
Total Time
1
The sad thing about this issue to me: People who haven't/can't/won't serve can't grasp that the main focus in the military is about the MISSION. NOT some individuals 'feelings'. WTFO, how many more distractions are the non-hackers going to lay on the shoulders of those who stepped up and raised their hands while others took care of them selves. Amazing!
 

Hamburger

*************************
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Posts
1,158
Total Time
5000+
I am concerned about the gay activists, the one who paraded in the “Gay Pride” parade in January 1993 will now step out into the passageways to push the gay agenda. If any action is taken against them then it will be pursued an anti-gay punishment. This is all part of the Gay agenda to gain the same protection under EEO that race; gender and age now enjoy.
Yeah, that 'Gay Agenda' that All Men Are Created Equal...:rolleyes:
Last I checked, that was an America Agenda.

Rest assured that the same UCMJ regulations that apply to every facet of a straight soldier's behavior will also apply, and I guarantee that none of the gays will come back from the cruise pregnant.
 

CatfishVT9

Anti-Democrat
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Posts
466
Total Time
???
I wonder now how the slackers will get their free pass out of the military. Most of the discharges I know of were "self disclosures" and surprizingly happend just a few day before a deployment.
 
Top