« | »

AP Sobs: Some DADT Restrictions Remain

From a foot stomping mad Associated Press:

Gay ban repealed, but restrictions remain

By Robert Burns, AP National Security Writer
December 20, 2010

WASHINGTON – While President Barack Obama this week is expected to clear the way for gays to serve openly in the military, the new law won’t go into effect immediately and unanswered questions remain: How soon will the new policy be implemented, will it be accepted by the troops and could it hamper the military in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Funny how the AP and the rest of our media masters didn’t ask these questions when they were pushing for repeal.

The historic action by Congress repeals the requirement, known as "don’t ask, don’t tell," that for the last 17 years has allowed gays and lesbians to serve, but only if they kept quiet about their sexual orientation. Ending that policy has been compared in its social implications to President Harry S. Truman’s 1948 executive order that brought racial equality to the military.

The country’s foremost champions of the homosexual agenda, the New York Times, made this ludicrous comparison, so of course the AP and the rest of the news media will parrot it.  

After Obama signs the legislation — passed by the Senate on Saturday — into law, the Pentagon must still certify to Congress that the change won’t damage combat readiness.

How did we already get the impression that the Defense Department had already determined that this repeal would only help the military? Could it be the the news media misrepresented some earlier reports on the subject?

And never mind that the same news media has told us constantly that this will boost recruitment and improve the military immeasurably.

So, for the time being the restrictions will remain on the books, though it’s unclear how fully they will be enforced. Some people believe gay discharge cases will be dropped as soon as Obama signs the law. Military leaders, who have been divided on the issue, gave indications that the policy change will be aggressively pursued [sic]

Because the lawsuits will be fast and furious.

In the 17 years since the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy went into effect, views toward the gays in the broader society have evolved

Once again notice how the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy just "went into effect." You would never know that President Bill Clinton is the one who came up with the compromise and signed it into law. At least you would never know that from our news media. 

Gay marriage is now legal in five states and the District of Columbia. Opinion surveys say a majority of Americans think it’s OK for gays to serve in uniform

This is of course another big lie promulgated by our media masters. Everywhere ‘gay marriage’ has been on the ballot – even in California – it has gone down in flames (so to speak) with overwhelming opposition.

But our news media will continue to lie to us in their efforts to convince us that ‘gay marriage,’ like repealing ‘DADT’ is wildly popular. 

Peter Mansoor [sic], a retired Army colonel who commanded a brigade in Iraq, said he believes the military — from top commanders to foot soldiers — will accept their new orders.

"Pretty much all the heated discussion is over and now it’s a matter of the more mundane aspects of implementing the law," Mansoor, a professor of military history at Ohio State University, said in a telephone interview..

Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center [sic], a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara said only three steps are needed to assure a smooth and quick transition: an executive order suspending all gay discharges [sic], a few weeks to put new regulations in place, immediate certification to Congress that the new law will work. But he said the military may require months of education and training well into 2011.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has supported the change but has stressed a go-slow approach, said "successful implementation (of the new policy) will depend upon strong leadership, a clear message and proactive education throughout the force."

They need to get their story straight (so to speak). If everyone is so eager to accept these changes, why the need for months of re-education and indoctrination?

While gay rights activists say the complications and uncertainties are being overblown [sic], others predict problems…

What could possibly go wrong?

Just how long will it be before heterosexual soldiers start claiming ‘sexual harassment’? Or will such claims now be considered ‘hate crimes’?

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, December 20th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

29 Responses to “AP Sobs: Some DADT Restrictions Remain”

  1. bill says:

    Things like you can get AIDS from using the gay’s gas mask … LOL

    • U NO HOO says:

      “Still, think of all of the heterosexual soldiers who can now sue for discrimination unless they are allowed to live and shower with female soldiers. After all, if men aren’t supposed to worry about showering with homosexual men, then women shouldn’t worry about showering with men.”

      …and AIDS says it all.

      There was and is a reason that the slur used against gays was one of disdain and derision…being gay is not healthy and is anti social.

  2. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Socialists always look at the military as one giant social experimentation test-tube. I got out in 1992 and was so glad of it. Gone were the days of being able to go to the club on Friday night without having some do-gooder cross-check your social habits the next week and cast a stigma on you. Also the fact that colorful language, a typical and historical characteristic of military life was systematically eliminated with disciplinary action. And so much more. In other words, a huge behavior modification using Pavlov’s dinner bell and other stimuli and I got fed up with people just being obedient to the obvious tampering. There are a great many people in the military who are more than willing to adhere to socialism and well, quite frankly, they’re in the middle of it and prefer to be told what to do and, even worse, love using the rules and regulations (now called “guidelines”) to hamstring anyone they don’t like. It’s a very special form of bullying. And, the military has a large proportion of people who would consider themselves “victims” and take advantage of every opportunity to get out of work, go on special assignments, etc. because they can justify it. Every unit has them and they are useless. But they get promoted and cause problems wherever they go. Very unfortunate.

    • TerryAnne says:

      Right on the money, Rusty!!

      However, the fact that I’m forcing myself to stay in is not for what you say. I’m trying out a Dagney Taggart experiment. :)

    • Mithrandir says:

      Political Correctness forced almost 100% of the white male first-contract types out of the service, when I was in.

      One black guy got on base as an E-2. He had a broken arm, we went away for extensive training, and when we got back, he was an E-4! We were told that promotion slots opened up, but couldn’t send them to the field for other guys, so they gave it to whomever was in garrison.
      The real answer, I found out later was, that not enough black lower enlisted were getting promoted, so they boosted this guy’s rank up 2 levels in less than 2 months!

      Other cases were severe alcoholism and other offenses, but b/c they were black, they weren’t kicked out because of racial quotas. Meanwhile a couple of white surfer dudes from Hawaii smoked a little marijuana, and were drummed out the next month.

      (Too many to list but some cases of racial harassment were investigated, and many were not. Guess which ones were ignored?)

  3. retire05 says:

    How long before the U.S. Army issues new posters showing PFC Bradley Manning with the words “Be All You Can Be” under his picture?

    This was not an action foisted on our military by military gays. It was strictly a movement by the civilian gay community who have no intentions of ever joining the military. It was agenda driven, not equality driven.

    But why not let Hillary become a Marine now? We must end all discriminatory practices. No more restrictions on age (age discrimination) or Hillary’s weight (discrimination against fatties). You say you’re deaf, blind, wheel chair bound? No problem. Handicapped Americans cannot be discriminated against. And let’s change our fire departments and police departments, as well. No more physical requirements to join those.

    And then, I fully expect to see the Democrats marching for full equality in the NBA and the NFL by demanding they hire a 5/2″ Asian woman as a linebacker.

    What people don’t understand is that gays, by their very nature, are not well suited to the military. But hey, since when did having the mindset that was condusive to military life ever a requirement?

    So I fully expect the progressives, who want true social reform, will march to force the NBA and NFL to hire 5’2″ Asian women for their first string. No more discrimination against those who do not have the physical, or mental, attributes to sink a basket or make a touch down. WE MUST HAVE TRUE EQUALITY IN ALL AREAS OF OUR SOCIETY. No exceptions.

    • proreason says:

      There is an even deeper reason than the gay agenda.

      Underneath it all is a relentless attack on every single principle the country rests on: family, faith, love of country, individualism, freedom, responsibility, work, national strength.

      Gays in the military weaken the military in many ways. The entire gay agenda is a direct assault on families and faith. Will it bring down the country. Hardly.

      But these ‘gay issues’ are just minor skirmishes in the full frontal assault on the powerful free society that stands in the way of the Totalitarians vision. And the assaults are always framed as ‘justice’.

      You can’t shatter a solid steel ball with any number of sledgehammers. But if you can find a few minor cracks and get wedges in them, with patience, you can destroy a seemingly indestructable object with a few tap hammers.

  4. untrainable says:

    “Some people believe gay discharge cases will be dropped as soon as Obama signs the law.” Yeah, just like when the healthcare law was signed, suddenly all healthcare was free. Remember?

    So if you break the rules and then after you break the rules they change the rules so that the rule you broke isn’t a rule anymore, then you’re no longer guilty of breaking the rules.

    That smacks of stupid. It is also incredibly familiar coming from this regime. If the rules don’t suit you, change them. Or break them, and when someone notices, write a retroactive executive order. Too bad Nixon didn’t think of this. He might still be president.

  5. proreason says:

    Now even the president could be himself in the military.

    If they would accept him.

    Which of course, is ridiculous. He would have to be able to demonstrate a base level of human competance.

  6. Mae says:

    There is absolutely no reason the average polygamist should not serve in the military or transsexuals or cross-dressers or those who have relations with their daughters or those who appreciate sheep. What is the reason for keeping them out? Are we not treating them as second class citizens?

  7. retire05 says:

    I would suggest all of you study the school of thought called Critical Theory. Basically, Critical Theorists felt that in order to bring about Marxism, you had to first destroy society and sociatal norms, such as religion, family, etc. In other words, tradition thinking and values were antithetic to Marxism and the only way to bring Marxism about was to change the attitudes of the populace.

    So take a loot at the age of the typical Senator or Congressmen, especially those from the east and west coast. Critical Theory was taught to them in tony universities since the 60’s, and now we are seeing the results of that. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, both Critical Theorists, although they would deny it. Alinsky was also a Critical Theorist, as were Cloward and Piven.
    Tear down the norm to create the socialist utopia.

    You have to teach people that government, not God, or any Higher Power, is the answer to their problems. And if the peons are kicking and screaming, shove the changes down their throats until they finally accept those changes as the norm.

    Read the Communist Manifesto and tell me how far we are from reaching Marx’s dream?

  8. Coco Q. Rico says:

    I posted this on the other DADT thread but I will post it here too:


    This is a piece I wrote, basically laying out the main areas that must be addressed to ensure the safety and well-being of gay troops after the repeal. After the repeal they cannot leave, so it’s essential that recruiting and administrative separations are conducted with an understanding that being gay in the military, especially for men, is exceptionally difficult.

    • retire05 says:

      Coco, I read your article yesterday, and while you made some valid points, a couple of things jump out at me. So here goes:

      if the majority of the military is so accepting of serving alongside of gays, who are openly gay, why the need for new measures to address the safety and well-being of gay troops? If there is no sensitivity problem, why the need for the military to now instate sensitivity training?

      Gays have had a way out, and you propose a new way for them to leave the service since that door has been closed with the repeal of DADT, so what did gays gain? Now they will be forced to stay in the service where they may have learned, after joining, that they are not emotionally suited for. If you are a gay man, you understand that many gay men never really deal with their sexuality until after highschool, and by then they could be enlisted already. It will be too late then. “You’re gay? You stay.” will be the new response from C.O’s.

      And what happens when hetero soldiers feel intimidated by a gay roommate? (the straight soldier tells his Top he feels intimidated, the gay soldier says the straight soldier is lying because he hates gays, you know the drill) Private quarters? Oh, that will work out well. Rooming with another gay soldier? Well, then, do we allow men and women to room together? That should make the parents of 18-19 year old soldiers happy. The military cannot afford private quarters for all soldiers. So what’s the answer? If we are to allow gay soldiers to bunk and shower with straight men, then does true equality not require that we allow men and women to bunk and shower together?

      I have asked multiple times this question of different people: did you not know the DADT rule when you joined? Did you not accept that rule when you joined? If you did, and I am sure you did since I have read the material given to a prospective enlistee, why do you feel you have a right to change what you accepted to when you signed on the dotted line (enlistment papers)? If your job was in the private sector, and you had accepted the terms of employment when you were hired, and then demanded those terms be changed to suit you, you would either be out of a job or you would have to accept those terms. You don’t get to change a contract in the middle of its execution simply because they are no longer convenient to you.

      You signed the contract. You knew the terms. Now all of this whining on the part of the gay community just makes you look bad, even to many Americans who have gay brothers, sisters, children, neices and nephews. And the Democrats, pandering to you for your vote, just closed the door on any gay who enters the military only to learn they can’t accept that life style.

    • Mithrandir says:

      DADT was a perfectly acceptable DMZ for gays serving, and heteros not knowing about it. I can think of 100 categories people group themselves by, but feel no need to have it publicly known.

      Now, with the repeal, gays won’t be terminated, BUT they may NEVER be terminated from the military. Why? Because liberals are controlling racial bean-counters! These are the people more concerned about OUTCOMES, rather than merit. These are the people that brought you affirmative action and racial quotas for every public and private institution. If you don’t comply, there is harassment and lawsuits.

      ~Don’t lie to yourselves here, the gay issue in the military is another smoke-screen for liberal strangle-hold of another American institution. They have been working to snuff-out talk radio under the guise of “fairness” for a few decades now, and we all know who that is meant for.

    • Coco Q. Rico says:


      I was against the repeal. I tried repeatedly to get my voice heard because I’ve seen things in the Army that made me certain the repeal was a bad idea. That environment is incredibly dangerous for gay men which is one of the reasons that the discharge chapter existed all along. I didn’t know that until I arrived at IADT and saw the reality, which the recruiters did not represent accurately to me. I signed knowing about DADT and assuming that if it got to be more than I could handle with my sexual orientation issues, I would be able to leave. Let me make it clear that I agree with you about the way gays are whining too much, and I think the gay community grossly mishandled the debate about DADT. I wrote to many Senators, two gay publications, the LA Times, and the NY Times, explaining in succinct terms what I went through in service and how long-lasting the trauma has been. The problem is that the military and the GLBT community both had an investment in covering up the things that traumatized gay men in the military, including the bulk of those DADT discharges, which dealt with people who would have ended up committing suicide had they been forced to remain in that antigay environment.

      What’s important now is to move forward from the debate stage — DADT is gone. So don’t nitpick with me about why I signed up or what it meant when DADT was in place. What do we do now? I’ve thought a great deal about it and I think the most important thing is to make sure gay men do not respond to this debate by getting into contracts they won’t be able to break, and which will likely expose them to more sever hardship than should be demanded of a servicemember. You ask what gays have gained. I don’t know. I didn’t want the repeal. I thought fighting for it was a mistake because I’d been gay in that environment and saw the sabotage, beatings, molestations, and two suicides, all without commanders being able to intervene and often with NCOs encouraging it.

      My basic answer to you is that I spoke up when the time was appropriate — I publicly opposed the repeal when that was an extremely unpopular and dangerous position to hold, especially since I am gay and still awaiting my discharge, and I am on multiple medications dealing with the aftereffects of what happened to me in service (which I hope you can respect my hesitancy about discussing openly here.)

      Please don’t refer to “gays” as if I am one of the people who fought for the repeal. The pro-repeal gays were basically focusing on officers and people who had comfortable jobs, ignoring the thousands of DADT cases that involved scarred and traumatized gays at the enlisted level who would have killed themselves or easily died in battle. I am also not in league with Belkin who wants to rush this through.

      Lastly, a lot of blame falls on defense leadership. They screwed up the PEntagon study and focused entirely on whether the repeal would harm mission readiness or unit cohesion. That was the wrong focus. That gave the pro-repeal gays ammunition to prove it wouldn’t affect unit cohesion. But nobody was concerned about the emotional well-being of gay men caught in the dangerous situations that will arise here.

      I hope that answers some of your questions, and I thank you for reading my piece. Please continue to engage the debate and be thoughtful about the lives at stake.


    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      “and assuming that if it got to be more than I could handle with my sexual orientation issues, I would be able to leave.

      Thereby putting your sexual “orientation” ahead of your service to country. This is my basis for my lack of respect for you.

      A thinking person would not be actively seeking an “out” before they signed. It’s a prenup. It’s crap. It allows for lack of commitment on the part of the contractee. It’s an easy out. Do the rest of the heterosexual recruits have such a safety net? NO! My god the number of people I ran into in the military who said this “wasn’t like the brochure” had no such fall back plan but they stuck to their end of the bargain. They completed their service honorably and got out.

      I detest people like you.

    • Coco Q. Rico says:

      Hi Rusty,

      Yes, heterosexual people have many outs. There are Entry Level Separations, separation chapters for everything from pregnancy, family hardship, general discharges, a lot of things. I served honorably and got out based on a medical discharge.


  9. JohnMG says:

    …..”After Obama signs the legislation — passed by the Senate on Saturday — into law, the Pentagon must still certify to Congress that the change won’t damage combat readiness. ……..”

    Gates……”will depend upon strong leadership…….”

    This is a shot fired across the bow of current Commanders. Meaning, ‘If you push back, you’re outta here.’ Gates and Mullen=Judas Priests

    Ready! Fire! Aim!

  10. DW says:

    Do my tired old eyes deceive me, or is that Medea Benjamin sitting behind Colonel Klink in the photo above?
    Now why would Code Pink have an interest in this? Last I heard, they’d like to see the military done away with altogether.
    Oh, wait a minute…

    • Steve says:

      You’re right, of course. That’s the arch harridan for hire. Naturally, she and Code Pink are obsessed with boosting military recruitment and strengthening the services in general.

      Just as the NYT is.

  11. Mithrandir says:

    Last week at a Harvard library, even damaging gay books is investigated as a hate crime.

    Gays don’t want tolerance, they want ACCEPTANCE, and if they can’t get it, they will force it upon you any way they can.

    “We are at WAR!” –Remember how precious and powerful that line was to get everyone to stop doing or saying whatever the government didn’t approve of? –That doesn’t stop liberals from undermining our military, and forcing political correctness at a time of WAR! (Ruling Class Rules: None for them, all for you!)

  12. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center [sic], a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara said only three steps are needed…

    And what, pray-tell, are his qualifications to tell the military how to do it? Is it his decades of military service? His close ties with the military? Or is it that he’s read/written so many books/articles on military customs and courtesies? Or did he watch “Patton” on TV one rainy afternoon on TMC?

    I’ll bet it’s none of those; Just a self-important cock-sure attitude that he’s smarter than anyone else. His “title” and his “experience” count for shit-all with me. Another academic who smokes a pipe and loves to “postulate” to any college sophomore willing to sit and listen to his verbal masturbation.

  13. canary says:

    For a look into gay soldiers reaction to the gay news.

    The Washington Post: Gay troops cautiously optimistic following ‘don’t ask’ repeal
    Dec 18, 2010
    By Ernesto Londono

    KABUL – The gay Army lieutenant’s heart had been racing all night…


    Here you can witness all these gay soldiers that everyone already knows are gay. One says they can now file discrimination because they are passed over being gay (they know he/she is gay somehow)

    The specialist that’s gay brother can now join, and their gay father won’t feel uncomfortable at military
    functions? What does their gay daddy do, that the gay brother doesn’t do to make the family uncomfortable.

    And for all those broken hearted gays out there get over it. The divorce is rate is terrible, and you shouldn’t be smooching and fondling your lover in uniform anyways.

    And a gay Captain & 12 other gays go to a pub to celebrate? Obviously, they had no trouble finding
    plenty of gays to go to bars and dance.

    crying, hearts racing & thumping. Sounds to me that nothing has changed. Gays never had a problem in the military. Now there will be humping and thumping. Tattoos will have men with naked men tattoed on their arms, or I’m gay tattooed on their foreheads. Uniform codes will change. They’ll insist on some
    gay military symbol or pin.

    • Coco Q. Rico says:

      Sorry I changed my mind and deleted.

    • canary says:

      Rico, I’m sorry, I believe every post on the subject I mention that gays in the military have never had to hide. I could wright a book about how non-gay soldiers are treated when they do not go along with sexual passes by gay military leaders.

      I just now read your article I believe. There is a problem on the Chaplains and counseling. You see many churches believe they will no longer be able to preach that homosexuality is not the way God intended man or woman to behave, just a He was against man having sex with beasts. Humans can spread diseases to animals, and scientists still believe humans received AIDS from animals in Africa. So, I do hope Chaplains of different faiths do not have to give up their religious beliefs, and their purpose turn into counseling gay’s sexual problems.

      Now I believe the Chaplains, counselors, shrinks, should absolutely not give immediate access to gay men, or women.

      Instead, first, I believe their priority is first to the dying, the severely wounded, those depressed from losing their eyeballs, faces, body parts, those who watched their buddies get killed, those that are traumatized by real deadly experiences.

      Second, I think the lonely soldiers who don’t have the luxury of sexual chances that gays have. In other words the man who misses his girl friend, or wife, needs guidance, before the gay man that can find another piece of pretty easy. As I’ve said we already know there are plenty of gays that make it clear they are gay; for decades.

      Third, the soldiers who have to deal with unwanted passes from those of the same sex, will get it worse than already is. The sexual harassment from Lt. Buff Dog slapping a female on the butt, or demoting her because she complained, need guidance and mental support first.

      And gays do not have to worry about being called mental cases. Decades ago, men who wanted out of the army, tried to to get medical discharges, mental discharges, going to the extreme of showing
      photos of themselves having gay sex with other men. We got a real laugh at out of those. We told them they weren’t really gay, they just wanted out. So, gays want it both ways now. They are normal, but want to be treated special.

      I do not judge anyone. I do not judge gay people. I do not judge believers, non-believers, it’s not my place and the bible says only God is our judge. But, I do have to follow my own morals or I would not be true to myself. So, I do not wish to be judged. We are all sinners. I have more respect for non-believers of God than I do for some so called Christians. I would hope God sees them as more righteous than the wolves in sheep’s clothing. So, don’t take what I say personally. Who needs real help are our mixed up youth whose heads are getting confused because of gay people telling the statistics they will be gay, or can choose to be.

      The whiner gay in the article I posted who snif snif quit having relationships because he was tired of sneaking around. Excuse me, can a soldier in his barracks just bring a girl in and have sex? Or take her in a closet late at night when he figures his fellow soldiers are asleep.
      Or is it always legal for soldiers to leave their barracks every night looking for a woman, while the gay men don’t have to hide ? Most the gay, like ole Butterfly that waved his hand, lisped, and swung his hips always hung around the female soldiers once, we agreed to call him butterfly instead of fairy. Now was not the time to fix something that wasn’t broke. And I guarantee it is the straight soldiers who will suffer the most. And it will some GI running to his lover and kissing & hugging in the middle of a battle, instead of thinking of the team as individuals working together for the best of the team, not ones selfish sexual desires during a war.

      How about a separate gay army.
      The gay’s would love it. It would be paradise for them.
      They’d have more chances to meet those of their own sex. They could have orgies, without offending anyone.
      If they don’t like it, than it means they don’t like straight people, and they want to rub their sexual desires in front of U.S. soldiers faces.

      I know there are gay soldiers who are heroes. I know gay soldiers have sacrificed their lives to save another’s live wars. At least they did so with dignity, and the knowledge of their fellow soldier. There just is no reason for this obsession by the gay & pink community.
      There are a few thugs that may beat a gay person, just as there are sexual thugs that kill children (and muslims that kill like animals their own). There is evil in every profession, form of authority, religion, school, doctors, lawyers. Life is not fair. I think this pity the gays is not the way they were once pitied. With compassion of feeling sorry for them for being different. But, they are no more discriminated or abused than anyone else in this world. They need to get over it, and get on with their lives. Gays marriage is all about money anyways.

  14. Coco Q. Rico says:

    Hi Canary,

    I answer most of your statements above, in a response to retire05. I thank you guys for at least reading my piece, since gay organizations have almost entirely ignored and buried my position on it.

    About the chaplains and counseling, the issue is that chaplains deal with almost all personal issues on the unit level. It’s hard to see mental health. I say in the piece that they may have to act as referrals if they don’t want to help gay Soldiers.

    I was against the repeal. So you seem to be assuming that I wanted this situation, which I do not. My fear is that the gay civilian community is going to move on and forget about this, and thousands of gay men are going to be stuck in life-threatening situations. I served my country and almost died doing so. My concern is for gay men who once had DADT as an option and who now are not being helped by anyone — the gay community ignores their plight because they only focus on heroes, while people like you who may not appreciate how hard it is to be gay, will simply sacrifice the gay servicemember without a thought.

    The military is not a safe place to be gay and I know that having been there. Gay men are not treated the same way as everyone by fellow troops; they are often the number one target and get abused. I do not ask for pity; I am asking for military policy and the gay community to evolve and adapt in order to make the repeal workable. You may see it as a debate that goes along with other politically correct issues but this is a peculiar issue in which gay Soldiers are going to be stuck between an unsupportive gay community and a hostile institution that resents them being there and may want to destroy them. Everybody who puts on a uniform counts and has to be cared for.

  15. canary says:

    Hi Coco. I hope you didn’t use that coin while serving.

    If gays can not handle the military, then when they ask a recruit if you are gay, most likely testing to see
    will be done to see if the gay person is stable. Because the military does not like paying medical pensions to recruits. They screen out pre-medical conditions like a broken foot, as they will be stuck with the bill if the foot easily breaks again.

    “The military is not a safe place to be gay and I know that having been there.”

    I found that it’s not a safe place for anyone period. And never saw the gays getting it worse.
    I recall 2 soldiers strung up by their own. One snitched on the Special Services. Women beaten and raped by male soldiers. Straight soldiers can be picked on too. It’s just the way it is. But, I truly did not see gays having a problem. So many were leaders that if a gay came on to you, nothing you could do.

    Coco, you may receive medical help, but at this time, those worse off deserve it first. There are suicidal hot-lines for military. There are support groups for vets that meet all over. Check with your local DAV about getting with the VA to set your own group up.

    I do agree with you, as I read up on it a little trying to find troops feelings and reactions, that the surveying of the troops feelings was a scam.

    Obama ignored the recommendation to study and get input from the troops. One reporter did a story on it. He spoke to hundreds of U.S. soldiers in the Middle East who never got their survey.

    suicides? More straights soldiers commit suicide.

    And perhaps don’t just stop with starting a a support group for gays who want to discuss the problems they had in the service. Perhaps, a group to let people know the problems they will face, and not just gays suffer the conditions you describe.

    God Bless you, CoCo. He loves you. Ask for his guidance.

  16. retire05 says:

    Coco, let me see if I am understanding your correctly: you are complaining that the recruiters did not tell you what the situtation was for gays in the military although you never revealed to them you were gay and they would have no reason to discuss that with you? Something smells with that story.

    Also, since DADT was passed in 1993, it is impossible that you were unaware of Title 10, 654 when you enlisted as it is clearly spelled out on the information ALL recruiters give you before you ever sign on the dotted line. As a matter of fact, the restrictions on DADT was outlined in two whole pages of a five page information sheet given to all potential recruits. So basically, you signed a contract you never intended on keeping.

    And why, if you did not inform either your recruiters, or the military, of you homosexuality, were you so badly mistreated?
    Again, something smells with your story.

    Basically, you knew the rules going in, kept your sexuality to yourself, knowing that you had an out if you couldn’t hack it. And the rest of the gays in the military all knew the rules when they enlisted. That’s the bottom line. You signed a contract, but said “Hey, if I can’t cut it in the military world, I’ll just out myself and get out.” That, IMHO, is dispicable and grossly dishonest. It doesn’t speak well for gay soldiers, if they have the same attitude you did.

    Well, the gay community has gotten what they have been lobbying for (mostly the civilian gay community who wouldn’t join if they were allowed to dress up like Folsom Street Parade freaks) and now those who want to serve, putting their sexuality after their love of country, will pay for it. The new motto? “You’re gay? You stay.” All because gays want to put their sexuality before anything else in their lives.

    You were dishonest. And for that, you do not have my respect. You are gay, and you entered a organization that is not like the civilian world in any way or fashion. You listed the reasons that straights can request severence, well, those are the very same options gays have. Only a straight soldier can’t go to the Top and say “Hey, sir, I’m straight and I want to be discharged.” Your mindset, hoping gays do not enter a contract they can not later get out of, is also disgusting. Perhaps that is one reason that most gay men are not suited to the military.

    You see, Coco, I don’t care if you are porking Ms. Piggy. What you do on your off-time is your business. But you drug you lack of comittment into the military. You made your sexuality a priorty. You put your person life before your military oath. And all the guys who leave behind their children, to serve at some FOB in Afghanistan or Iraq don’t have that option.

    You cheated the American citizens who were depending on you.

    Now, before you label me a “homophobe”, let me tell you this: no private citizen (someone not in the medical field) ever worked harder to help HIV/AIDs patients, almost all gay guys, more than I have, and did it when the belief was that you could catch HIV/AIDs from mere contact with a positive person. I have held their hands as they died. I have cried for them when their families would not come to their bedsides. I have taken care of their sick partners when they were gone. I went to bat for those who could not afford the life saving drugs (the AIDs cocktail) when they had no money and found groups that would pay for their meds. They were great people, but almost to the man, their sexuality defined them in all aspects of their lives. It was the driving force behind every thing they did, everything they thought. It was this defining of themselves that do not make them good candidates for the military.

    I’m sorry; I thought you had some salient points. But you enlisted knowing the rules but didn’t like them after you got in. And if you think that only gays get fragged in the military, you are fooling no one but yourself. What we are going to see, when all these gay soldiers feel comfortable “coming out” is more suicides in the military.

    For that, you can congratulate your civilian counterparts.

  17. proreason says:

    Personally, I prefer that the guys risking their lives to protect me be able to concentrate on killing the bad guys and staying alive, instead of whether the guy next to him is feeling unloved today.

    It isn’t bad enough that we refuse to say that 157 of the 157 people detained for terrorism in the US have been Muslims, now our 19-year old combat soldiers have to be sensitive to the sexual preferences of the people around them.

    If there is a better way to societal suicide, I don’t know what it might be.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »