Mac

Seems like it would conflict with the military’s arguments regarding gay soldiers and officers and why they shouldn’t be around in the military to being with like disrupting morale and cohesion, effectiveness, etc. But what happens in regard to that argument when it involves non-military personnel involved with or around in the military?

What about the United States President? He/she also serves as the Commander in Chief right? What does that then mean if a president were known to be gay? That he/she could not serve as Commander in Chief due to the military’s policy ban against homosexuals? How would that work regarding the constitution of the United States and who is allowed to be president?

Also I should point out that this anti-gay policy doesn’t just apply to the branches like the air force or army, it applies to all armed forces, like the coast guard for example.

Strangely, it doesn’t apply as far as I know of to other parts of the government that still require forced intimacy at times and good group morale and cohesion, like the police force, fire fighters, etc.

Civilians are not subject to DADT. They are covered by civil service rules that prohibit discrimination on non-merit factos such as race, sex, age, etc… The protection for GLBT employees derives from the Executive Order signed by Clinton which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation; on the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex; and the OPM ruling that states sexual orientation and gender identity are non-merit factors. Decisions affecting terms and conditions of employment must be made on the basis of Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs)and may not be made taking into account non-merit factors.

Also, considering the military’s policy against homosexuals and WHY does this also mean that the President would not be respected as Commander in Chief if he were discovered or known to be gay? AGain, you know unit cohesion and stuff, what if soldiers felt uncomfortable or distracted trying to protect or serve under a president they knew was gay? What about the military’s own policy regarding it then?

Does this create a conflict constitutionally regarding the role of president and it’s availability to gay U.S. Citizens then?

I don’t agree with the anti-gay policy at all I was just pointing it out and what it means.

My last question in the original post was more rhetorical. The military and it’s policy just doesn’t make sense to me because you can’t have people saying it’s ok for homosexuals to serve as long as nobody knows you are a homosexual when the policy itself says you can’t be in the military if you are:
1. a homosexual
2. doing anything homosexual – anywhere and anytime private life or not.

It’s akin to the leader of Iran’s statement when he said there are no homosexuals in Iran like there are in the U.S. .

It’s completely illogical and so stupid.

Oh, and it’s incredibly demoralizing and dehumanizing for the gay people that still manage to be serving in the military! They only might die for the country and never mind the stress that might cause their gay loved ones not to mention benefits and support, but who the hell cares right?

Nice job American government. It’s incredibly angering and stabbing in the heart AND back of everything that is suppose to be good about this country.

The military and government should never have authorized DADT to begin with because it just made everything worse and conflicted. Either let gays serve in the military openly or just say they aren’t allowed to serve at all, but don’t put in some half-assed policy that makes a mockery out of the ideals of our country and military and an incredibly dehumanizing standard for gay people willing to die for it.

It really makes the military look unprofessional and like a complete joke, especially when other countries WE WORK TOGETHER WITH AND FIGHT TOGETHER WITH do allow gay soldiers to serve.

Yeah it is, look in the U.S. Code Section 654 (b) 3. I included it’s excerpt below.

Here are some excerpts from the U.S. Code section 654 – Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces:

“The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

…

The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

…

Policy. – A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

1. That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings,…

2. That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding,…

3. That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

…

The term ‘homosexual’ means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’.

…

The term ‘homosexual act’ means –
(A) any bodily contact actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and (B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).

…

“

But it would be very naive of me to compare my own coming out to the President of the United States saying on national television that gay people should be treated with “dignity and respect.” I don’t have that bully pulpuit. And neither do any of my friends.

I think we often speak of “visibility” in very simplistic terms. Pride parades and circuit parties might make us “visible” to the scandalous tabloids and evening news crew. It doesn’t give us “visibility” in the broader vision of securing full citizenship though. When it comes to visibility, not all venues and forums for publicity are created equal.

Remember that before Clinton, nobody from the White House would even acknowledge the existence of LGBT people in the public sphere. Although the “gay movement” was well under way by the late 1970s, you wouldn’t know about it from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. From Carter to Bush Sr., the presidency maintained a strict communications blackout on the issue. When the White House did refer to us, they’d do so without mentioning us by name.

Clinton changed all that. He had openly gay friends. He actively campaigned for our votes. He’d mention us prominently in speeches and press releases. His adminsitration changed the way the media dealt with us.

While the former president has rightfully received low marks for the dismal practice of caving into GOP / Dixiecrat demands (and throwing us under the bus in exchange for passing “more important” legislation)… he did put gay issues on the national agenda for the very first time. And that was a big deal at the time.