Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Gays In The Military

With the new Congress and a new Administration coming into office this month, the next two years mark the most likely time for a change to Congress' "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy towards gays in the military. I'm torn on the issue myself; like most people, I served with shipmates who were gay, and had no problem with it. (I also served with people who weren't really gay, but decided they wanted to get out really quick and chose to use "the phrase that pays".) That being said, I understand that there are people who would have real problems living in close quarters with homosexuals.

Were Congress to repeal DADT, I would support a clause that gives everyone else in the military a option to get out with whatever type of discharge would normally deserve if they feel they can't accept the change, without financial penalty; after all, they joined the military understanding that they wouldn't have to serve with those who were openly gay. This way, you wouldn't be making someone serve "against their will" with those whose sexuality they abhor. After the grace period ends, however, they'd need to toe the line and follow orders.

What do you think? Will DADT be repealed before 2011? Should it be?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I share each of the personal views on "gays" you have expressed. Even better, your proposed easy out for straights claiming breach of contract is somewhat equitable.

Will our Congress approve anything as sensible? Not even a chance!

Which oppressed minority group will be favored next? Convicted felons cannot be so far behind.

1/08/2009 9:14 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought you weren't posting anything political until the drugs wore off.

1/08/2009 9:30 AM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...

The thing they overlook the current mores of most Americans. Do we force females to shower with males? No because they would feel uncomfortable, so you have seperate facilities or hours. This then leads to male, homosexual male, female, homosexual female, and other as required facilities or designated hours. The majority of the public can think anything it likes, but they don't have to live with the decision and they get to go home at night and shower alone or with their significant other of their choice. I have the same opinion as you do Joel about serving with homosexuals. The easy out won't work because it would decimate the force and ruin recruiting. The openly gay dog doesn't hunt as long as there are seperate facilities for females because you open the door to whole bunch of discremantion issues.

1/08/2009 9:56 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the time is right to repeal-- gays should be able to serve openly. I understand that there is a level of discomfort among some, but is the discomfort really any different than that felt when the armed forces integrated its ethnic groups? I really don't think so.

I think your idea of (temporarily) allowing people to quit simply because they don't want to serve with an openly gay person seems completely unworkable and misses the point. What would happen, for example, if an entire unit wants to quit because a member is openly gay? Where is the leadership on this if people can simply quit? Also integration problems do not go away once the grace period has expired-- it is better to deal with these up front.


1/08/2009 9:58 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel the same way about 'gays' that I feel about women on submarines; in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a boat on patrol, would it really enhance unit morale and performance to introduce sexuality into the mix?

Do you really want two people playing 'kissy-face', when they are supposed to be charging chemicals to the secondary?

1/08/2009 10:12 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

People don't have to dating to cause problems on a watch or in a unit...

What happens, for example, if a CO assigns shore-watch duty to a JO so he can carry on an affair with the JO's wife? Does this ever happen? What keeps it from becoming a frequent problem?


1/08/2009 10:22 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a former COB I can anticipate a multitude of problems if DADT is repealed. The good commands will make it work. Personally I don't care, as long as there's no shipboard romance (keep the sonar shack door open girls).

One question though. If his includes transgendered as well which uniform do they wear - male or female?

1/08/2009 10:28 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I got out in 1990, but while in we had a cook's "lover" come down to the boat just before a Pac to tell the CO what was what. The CO said, "Thanks for the info, but I need a cook and SN~ is going with us." Everyone already suspected the guy, but he didn't bother anyone and, to my knowledge, no one bothered him. To say that no one bothered him meant that no one had anythign to do with him. And that's precisely how I would handle Obama's change today. You wanna be here, fine. I'll work with you, but only when required. Beyond that, I don't have to like you, don't have to associate with you and don't have to respect your lifestyle CHOICES.

And one more thing, if open homos are permitted to serve in the military, then they should be forced to endure sexual harassment training aimed specifically at them. This includes, just as hetero males can and have been prosecuted for, that homos can and will be prosecuted for sexual harassment for leering, lewd comments, etc.

Personally, I subscribe to the Andrew Dice Clay philosophy that I can't understand how one man can find love . . .

1/08/2009 10:29 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shunning a shipmate is not the answer. That causes different problems that are probably more dangerous than two sailors dating.

I don't know what you would do about transgendered people. The uniform is one thing. What would happen if the military was required to perform sex change ops? I hope this doesn't happen.


1/08/2009 10:38 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am always amazed how all straight males think they are irresistibly attractive to homosexuals. Quick news flash: most of your guys are both ugly and slovenly and wouldn't get the time of day from your average homo.

1/08/2009 10:46 AM

Blogger J120 Bowman said...

With the economy in turmoil and Iraq in the mix, I doubt Obama will have the time or want to expend the political capital to repeal DADT.

Also, while Obama told the gay community what it wanted to hear during the election, he selects a pastor for his inauguration that is openly against gays. Coincidence?

Nothing is going to happen to DADT.

1/08/2009 10:57 AM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...

Like I said before, it comes down to the same reasoning that females are not on subs and shouldn't be there, no space or privacy. Why should women be the only ones that get special treatment as sexual vitims? We keep them from having to be put in uncomfortable situations, such as showering with a man, but men would be forced to endure such trama no questions asked. If you allow openly gay then you have to remove all sexual restrictions in the military or else you are descriminating against one group over another. Let it be a free and open group with zero hangups because everyone is a professional and there would be no issues like prostitution rinks and suck face on watch.

1/08/2009 11:40 AM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...

rings vice rinks

1/08/2009 11:41 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the hell does "openly gay" mean? If I recall, I never "openly" talked about my s*x life when I was in the Navy because a) it was nobody's damn business, b) my wife would not have appreciated it, and c) IT WAS NOBODY'S DAMN BUSINESS.

For that matter, I never "openly" declared the fact that I was a heterosexual.

What? Do you think because someone is a homosexual that they are going to walk around the workplace telling you stories and details about their s*x lives?

Heterosexual men are the only ones who are known to act in such a childish manner (read: small pee-pee syndrome).


As long as homosexuals conduct and hold themselves to the same standards of conduct and performance as everyone else, I could give two sh*ts.

Everyone else needs to suck it up.

1/08/2009 1:39 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Everyone else needs to suck it up."

Precisely why proponents of open homos serving are pushing it.

And as far as "shunning" creating a problem - tough $hit. You want to push your abnormal behavior as normal in an afront to common sense, then be prepared to deal with the consequences.

1/08/2009 1:47 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sandy Salt has the issue right, thus the reason Bill Clinton settled for DADT. Should this change, the submarine force would have the biggest challenge due to the confined spaces. DADT is enough already!

1/08/2009 1:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Everyone else needs to suck it up."

Precisely why proponents of open homos serving are pushing it.

And as far as "shunning" creating a problem - tough $hit. You want to push your abnormal behavior as normal in an afront to common sense, then be prepared to deal with the consequences."

As I read the post, the guy was shunned not because he talked about his sex life, but because someone else talked about it. All it took was someone to say that this guy was gay and he is shunned. That's bullsh*t.

1/08/2009 2:19 PM

Blogger John Byron said...

There's nothing like a topic like this to bring out the inner homophobe...

1/08/2009 3:04 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sandy Salt says "The thing they overlook the current mores of most Americans."

But I'm not sure in what regards. Do you mean most americans of age to serve, or those who actually do serve. Most Americans of my generation (I'm 33) don't really give a crap as long as we don't have to keep talking about it either way.

The problem isn't with the average person, who just wants to do their job. It's with the people who can't let it go. With gays who are frustrated that they can't talk about or have anyone talk about who they are, and with the folks who don't want to have to face up to there actually being gays around.

Odds are, in twenty years nobody's going to care and DADT will phase itself out. But until then, it's still a case of a lot people who want DADT vs. a small number of people who want it gone, and a large majority of people who don't want to even deal with the issue at all.

Obama's not going to be in any hurry to touch it.

1/08/2009 3:19 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy crap people whine a lot. Just let gays serve and be done with it. Our boat has no less than two people who we "think are gay" and although we joke about it just like we joke about everything else no one seems to have issues with it. Calling it a "lifestyle choice" is just hilarious -- sex with a dude isn't even an option for me, let alone something I could "choose" to do simply to piss conservatives off.

1/08/2009 3:30 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

To answer your questions, yes and yes.

So now gays are just a step above convicted felons? What are we going to compare them to next, terrorists?

As far as it being a choice to be gay, maybe some of you consciously debated between which sex you would be attracted to, but it has never even passed my mind about even being attracted to men.

Also, I don't think Obama would have to use much political capital to repeal DADT. Those that will oppose such an effort to repeal it aren't going to be the ones whose support Obama is dying for. I think many of you are living in an echo chamber and don't realize that most of the public is against DADT and to them one's sexuality really doesn't matter. However, I think new policy would need to be implemented carefully since their is obviously a lot of opposition as shown here, but it is clearly the right thing to do.

And not to mention the money that is wasted when trained men (and women) are forced out for something that has no impact on their ability to perform their job (some being in great need).

I disagree with people being able to get out of their commitments. I don't remember anywhere in my oath or in the papers I signed that said the military I was joining would always and forever be free of openly gay people. Those people need to be able to work with people they may feel uncomfortable around. I don't think they should feel uncomfortable, but it's their right to be.

1/08/2009 3:58 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read somewhere on-line last fall following the release of letter signed by 100+ retired flag officers to abolish DADT, a response from an Obama campaign spokesperson to wit, and I parapharase here: "While Obama supports gays in the military, his approach will be, If JCS wants it, he'll let them have it."

sounds like a smart approach, and lesson learned form the Clinton adminstration.

With the economy falling apart Obama has too much serious stuff on his plate to be spending political capital on this issue.

My two cents, and keep a zero bubble......


1/08/2009 4:07 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Shunning" works. There was a time when people were ostracized or "shunned" for poor choices. In short, it was a positive example of peer pressure. But apparently, days of shame are over. Whatever you want, let it all hang out.

Just a few short years ago the APA had homosexuality rightly classified in the DSM, but due to political lobbying and infiltration by flamers themselves, the classification was removed. Once homos are openly accepted, what current mental disorder will be politically okayed? Will it be pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia . . .?

Guranteed, homos will not be prosecuted for harassment. Case in point, I was a a navy nuke and have been a commercial nuke for years. At my plant a recently hired retired Navy MC was the recipient of email, IM and netsend messages of the raunchiest nature. Coming from a former squid, calling something raunchy is saying something. At first, it was thought to be another guy on shift just "joking" around. Turns out it wasn't, it was a flamer longing for some strange. (Sad part is the flamer is married.) To make a long story short, the perv was basically told, "Now you stop that." Had this been a male sending this stuff to a female, the sender would have been fired on the spot in accordance with policy. But since the flamer is a flamer, he's protected. So much for equal treatment.

1/08/2009 4:19 PM

Blogger Unknown said...

I hope that DADT is repealed. It makes absolutely not sense. Frankly, neither does your suggestion to allow people out based on that. Practically, how many situations are there where you have to serve with people with whom you do not agree? My husband has complete IDIOTS on his boat; can he get out for having to deal with them? What about the people that proselytize, knowing my husband has no interest in listening (but few other places to go on a sub); can he get out because of that?

The "pushing" that many people are doing, to have equal rights recognized, is to not get anything special: it's to be able to enjoy the same rights as everyone else they're serving with in the military. Why shouldn't our friend be able to bring his boyfriend to the command picnic, when wives and children can come? What if two lesbians, one in the military (or both!), want to adopt, but the agency would have to talk to their command as a part of the background check?

There are enough sexual escapades on Navy vessels - same sex or not - that "preventing intimacy" is a ridiculous reason for continuing this policy. Allow qualified personnel to serve; get the eff out of the bedroom.

1/08/2009 4:24 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

always love the comments from wives whose husbands serve on boats, and think, therefore, they are privy to all the inner workings...stfu, please.

1/08/2009 5:12 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You say "get the eff out of the bedroom" but it is a different story when the bedroom gets underway.


1/08/2009 5:15 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tara, Your arguments have no logical basis. Anyone, homo or not, can marry. It just so happens that just as I can only marry a member of the opposite sex, this also applies to everyone else. It's EQUAL treatment.

But to a more important point, how will this issue be handled when open homos are allowed to San Franciscoize the Navy - as PEBO is certain to order? They will be allowed to serve, they will be coddled, and they will be given preferential treatment - after all, they'll be a protected minority. Just don't expect others to not notice. They will notice and will react accordingly. Understandings will be reached at the deckplate level. "I don't care who you do off of this boat, but try to pull that here and you'll get your a$$ stuffed in the TDU."

1/08/2009 5:39 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've sailed on three MSC ammo ships over the last five years. There have been gay civilan crewmen/women on all these ships. All three ships also had Military Detachments of up to forty with Helo's embarked. No one,including the military detachment, seemed to care one way or the other about sailing with gay crew members with one exception. On only one ship did I observe any sexual harrassment. It was directed at a gay crewman by a retired Navy man. It was reported (with substantiating witness statements from straight crewmembers) through the chain of command to the ships master. The harrasser was "paid-off" immediately for return to the mariners pool with pending disciplinary action under federal civilian personnel rules and regulations.

A larger problem from my perspective are onboard hetero--sexual relationships. On all three ships I sailed on these caused considerable comment, distraction, and on occasion disciplinary problems involving local police, and immediate "pay-off" for return to the mariners pool with pending disciplinary action under federal civilian personnel rules.

My experience, again, limited to MSC ships is that gay crewmembers did their jobs quite well, and pretty much kept their private lives below the radar screen. I wish I could say as much for heterosexual couples "coupling-up" aboard ship without a care about who knew or the distractions/comments it was causing.

My two cents, and keep a zero bubble......


1/08/2009 6:21 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has been my observation that in general, younger people are more comfortable with gays than their elders. There are exceptions, but I do think that there has been a generational change that will help openly gay people to integrate seamlessly into the military.

1/08/2009 6:40 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

They should only partially repeal DADT. By that, I mean they should only allow lesbians to serve on, juicy lesbians with nice racks.

I served on four boats and all had 2-4 gays at any given time. Nobody really cared. A non-qual is still a non-qual.

Now back to the lesbo's...

1/08/2009 7:11 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Joel about the repeal of DADT but not so much the early out for those that don’t like it.
I was on four boats and there were gays on board.
Face it. Statistically speaking, if one in ten have homosexual tendencies and there are 120 on board, 12 of your shipmates are either open or in the closet.
Also, here in San Diego, I have probably a dozen or so friends who are gay or lesbian and I can say without a doubt that being so does not make one a pervert.
There are already rules and regulations about not having sex on board a Navy Ship. That being said, it happens all the time. It did on the Boxer, on the Sub Tender I was on and it happened on dependents cruises we had on the boat. I have a shipmate who knocked one out with his wife in the Diesel.

That Damn Good Looking Aganger From Iowa

1/08/2009 7:34 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good range of comments, some decent, some bizarre. That's cool, this is just the right forum for it.

That being said, repeal of DADT will happen. Likely after 2010, perhaps during.

(Economy and other issues are too important to deal with right now.)

DADT repeal is long overdue. We have a UCMJ, and if you can't abide by professional conduct towards your shipmates, (whether gay/straight/male/female)you will be dealt with, on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, because the force is relatively young, there may be some problems. However, there are none foreseeable that can not be handled by a squared away command.

I very much doubt you will see entire units looking for an exit. If so, I would wonder had they ever really focused on their mission at all.

Now to the political part of this -- will the right wing, having been stung by losing the Congress and the White House in fairly short order, decide to "plant their flag" on this issue? If so, it could be a rough implementation (via Congress).

Of course, the recent marriage brough-ha-ha in California and other states is fresh in people's minds as well.

Time will tell.

So, here is a decent plan:

1. Look at Fortune 500 companies for some ideas on how they implement non-discrimination policies. Why? Because they did so to attract & KEEP talent, talent that the services can ill afford to ignore/lose.

2. Check out same on how the UK and other European forces have implemented their policies, so we have a good idea on how it has affected their (if at all) militaries.

3. Publish the implementation POA&M. Give those whose dedication to their country really hinges on this single issue...the time and the chance to find employment elsewhere.

4. Put a module in your POSH NKO training. Train your EEO reps.

5. Pay special attention to USNA & NROTC students, after all these students are widely recognized to be leaders in training. Training is key.

5. Then, lay down the law (without taking away CO's authority) that they will be treated as any other Sailor. Period.

6. Next, move on to more important issues, shipbuilding, aviation acquisition, China, etc.

I think you will find that this will be an easier transition than you think.

1/08/2009 8:27 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"10%" is a fallacy concocted by Kinsey and parroted by his flaming legions as a convenient self-justification.

And yes, younger generations are more accepting of deviant behavior, but why? I would say that it's due to the pervasive "socilaization" and dumbing-down (also known as brainwashing) conducted in publik skools. And that is precisely why my chilluns are home-educated. They receive a far superior education with personal attention and devotion - without the leftist indoctrination. If some leftist wants their children indoctrinated, do it at home.

[For those of you feverishly concerned about "socialization," 1) Should I really want the MTV crowd socializing my children, and 2) Tim Tebow.]

1/08/2009 8:29 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Obama does leave the decision up to JCS to abandon DADT, I think Jay ought to be put in charge of implememtation of new policy.

OBTW, regarding Hetero--sexual relations onboard MSC ships I mentioned earlier, I forgot one. Two male deckies got in a fight over the affections of a female deckie. She settled the fight by stabbing her least favorite in the arm with her deck department issued knife. All they did was slap her wrist and transfer her from east coast to west coast ship.

Damn, just remembered about the female Second Mate that would only **** Ordinary Seaman under the age of 25. She was always waiting in his room after 1700 knock-off. It's tough out there on MSC ships....

My two cents, and keep a zero bubble.....


1/08/2009 8:42 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"It has been my observation that in general, younger people are more comfortable with gays than their elders. There are exceptions, but I do think that there has been a generational change that will help openly gay people to integrate seamlessly into the military."

I wonder... In my experience I think older people are more tolerant. Certainly I am more tolerant than I was when I was in my 20's (I am in my 40's), but I can't really say that I was ever very intolerant. I think it comes about because I have friends and family who have come out as gay since.

I think younger people may get more hung up about it, because they don't know anyone who is gay (at least they think they don't know anyone). So all they have is stereotypes to cling on to when someone is rumoured to be gay.

I think shunning is fine when it is truly corrective. The issue I here is that there is a lot of evidence that homosexual nature is not something that is "correctable." You might as well shun someone for having blue eyes for all the good it will do. This is why I think it is wrong to shun someone for simply being gay.


1/08/2009 8:48 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"10%" is a fallacy concocted by Kinsey and parroted by his flaming legions as a convenient self-justification.

I believe Kinsey more than I believe you...

1/08/2009 8:59 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can put up with the religious whackjobs underway, and I can put up with cones, so I'm guessing I can put up with openly gay ETs if it comes to that. We all get screwed; its about time the Navy hire some folks who will look forward to it.

1/08/2009 9:15 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I believe Kinsey more than I believe you..."

Do a little research on the perv and you may be surprised - if you're "open minded" as those on the left claim to be. Hint: Judith Reisman.

1/08/2009 10:05 PM

Blogger tngaston said...

I did my time, thanks, I simply can't vouch for subs, for obvious reasons (which I don't tend to agree with either, but that's another story).

As for the anonymous commenter who said that it's equal treatment because everyone can marry members of the opposite sex: really? You believe that? If you were forced to marry someone of the same sex, would you still consider it equal treatment if *everyone* was forced to do so? In addition, there are legal differences. If a gay American citizen wishes to marry a foreign citizen they can't: period. If they marry someone of the same sex...well, they can't. If they marry someone of the opposite sex, it's a sham marriage and punishable by fines/jail.

If the military wishes to attract and retain qualified individuals, they need to act promptly so that these same individuals will consider the military, instead of fearing that doing so would put themselves and their families at risk.

Then again, "logical" arguments including the word "flamers" are nothing close to that.

1/08/2009 10:10 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have no positive or negative feelings about gays in general...but they'd be irrelevant in any case. The military is not the place for social experimentation. Period.

The first, last and only question that needs to be asked and honestly answered in any major change to the military is this:

"How does the proposed change enhance combat readiness?"

If the intellectually honest answer to that question is just spin, then fuggedaboutit.

1/08/2009 10:40 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tara, Once again your post has no logical context. The previous post pointing out that there was no discrimination was spot on. Just because you don't agree with it or like it doesn't make your argument valid. As previously stated, anyone can marry another of the opposite sex. How is that discriminatory?

And relative to your most recent post, are you seriously positing that the military must actively seek out and recruit homosexuals in order to "attract and retain qualified individuals." Things must be pretty dire in the ol' nav if it's come to that. And even if it has, it probably has more to do with getting shafted with IA tours rather than a shortage of qualified personnel.

Thankfully you weren't on the boat. I shudder to imagine what it must have been like to have been forced to work with the likes of you. I'm envisioning one of those Broom Hilda tender chicks with a Sandra Bernhardt chip on her shoulder (or elsewhere).

1/08/2009 10:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone disagrees with you so you resort to personal attacks? That sure does lend credence to what you're saying...

As for it being social experimentation, I don't think it is experimenting anything. Gays are among you, believe it or not, maybe not so much in the military but out in the real world. Allowing gays to openly serve isn't going to make or break it, but they contribute just as much as you or I. The only way it will cause problems is for those that choose to make it a big deal that it really shouldn't be.

1/08/2009 10:56 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

If DADT is repealed, it seems that they'd also have to repeal the UCMJ article against Sodomy. That should result in an interesting debate in Congress.

1/09/2009 8:09 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

When was the last time someone was convicted of violating article 125?


1/09/2009 8:22 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So now gays are just a step above convicted felons? What are we going to compare them to next, terrorists?"

It depends on the numbers gays are claiming currently as a % of the population. Generally, there are more convicted felons than gays.

As to terrorists of the wahhabi islamist persuasion, they seem all to be gay on Thursday nights.

Gay may be the preferable path for those born goofy, but it is very rare for anyone to be born gay!

1/09/2009 9:04 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

-phw, you theem awfully thenthitive to thith ithue. Juth thayin' . . .

1/09/2009 10:10 AM

Blogger Patrick said...

1. Our people have better things to do with their time than accommodate every lifestyle choice under the sun. We could be preparing for war, playing video games, or doing almost anything else to improve readiness. Putting up with Supply Department crap is less of a waste of time and energy than accommodating the post-DADT openness.
2. Homosexuals lie and conspire as part of their self-defense. Expecting sexual harassment complaints to be treated when there is no expectation of honesty is delusional. This will lead to a lot of gay sailors swimming home.
3. A lot of young people join the military after sexual harassment events because they expect the DADT environment to protect them. Deleting DADT will impact recruiting and retention. We are at war and don't need additional disincentives to acquiring and retaining quality personnel, even if they are nervous around gay and lesbian people.
4. Toleration has limits and DADT is at the boundaries of those limits for a lot of service people. Taking away the fig leaf of DADT drives to a Too Much Information state so quickly it cannot be measured with the latest scientific instrumentation.

I've served with gay and lesbian sailors who I consider shipmates. My brother is gay and I consider his husband my family.

I also remember the gay sailors who got drunk or just stupid and put unwelcome passes on me because I am tolerant. They were insulting and intolerant of my heterosexuality. Their behavior cast a pall on my relations with my other gay friends to this day and it is infuriating to me that their lack of discretion and decency should be rewarded.

1/09/2009 10:17 AM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...


Agree that there will be many an interesting discussion in the Congress over this whole topic. I have zero issue serving with a gay person of either gender, but it still goes back to privacy and facilities. The reason there are no women on subs is the same reason the repeal will cost a lot of political capital. I have served with homosexuals and there was no issues, but I didn't have to shower with them either. If it is homophobic to not want to shower with someone because of feeling uncomfortable, then wis it ok for women to feel uncomfortable about showering with men? Like I said this is going to lead to many an interesting discussion in Congress.

Some of you may be right that in 20 years no one will care. There will be women on submarines with one shower, that everyone uses, but until then the status quo seems to be working just fine. In the interm, it could be amended to allow COs more room on whether to crap can the guy/gal based on good order and discipline.

1/09/2009 10:18 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

-phw, you theem awfully thenthitive to thith ithue. Juth thayin' . . .



1/09/2009 10:26 AM

Blogger Patrick said...


In certain, antiquated, circles, homosexuals are ridiculed for speaking in the manner of Sylvester the Cat, of Warner Brothers Cartoon fame. If you were born after the Vietnam war, you may have never encountered this kind of ridicule. Watching an uncut DVD of "Blazing Saddles" may better acquaint you with this form of "humor".

The purpose of the effort is to ridicule serious discussion. Discussions of this very important matter are frequently diverted into irrelevance by ridiculing serious concerns. If you have a serious concern, you are made fun of because you are almost certainly a closet queer. It's not the most despicable kind of behavior we see from gay activists, but it is one of the more common.

1/09/2009 10:51 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do they have separate facilities for gay and straight people at gyms or anywhere else? Obviously the answer is no. I don't see why the military should be any different.

"-phw, you theem awfully thenthitive to thith ithue. Juth thayin' . . .


phw, I think he is trying to insinuate that you're gay since obviously all gays talk with a lisp. To that anon, is it not possible that a straight person is actually standing up for someone different than them? Grow up..

As for repealing the UCMJ article against sodomy, it's not as if the rule is followed by straight people, so it is already pretty irrelevant.

1/09/2009 10:54 AM

Blogger tngaston said...

To "anonymous" (how interesting):

It IS discriminatory, in effect, if not facially. Laws discriminatory in effect are also against the Constitution. This is why laws requiring voters to own land, etc., were repealed.

And, no, I never said that the Navy should recruit homosexuals specifically. I'm not sure how you got that meaning. What I *said* is that the Navy should recruit qualified personnel and that repealing DADT would go far in helping to do so. It would be ridiculous to recruit on the basis of sexual orientation.

Joel: I think Art 125 is ridiculous. I imagine that 90% of the Navy is likely guilty of violations. :)

1/09/2009 11:57 AM

Blogger J120 Bowman said...

I almost took offense to Tara's implication that 90% of the Navy has violated (no pun intended) article 125. So like any good nuke, I looked it up.

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

So, after doing my look up, I realized that, yeah, there have been some times with the old lady when I slipped and sent her shooting across the matress in horror and saw her eyes light up like flood lights. So the "however slight" wording makes me guilty!

1/09/2009 12:20 PM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...

On your issue of separate facilities such as gyms and such. It is quite different to require cohabitation and a forced loss of privacy (showers) on people then the optional trip to the gym or elsewhere. You could avoid an uncomfortable situation if you choose to do so, which would not be the case in the military. But lets take you example to the ridiculous, why do we still have seperate male and female then?

1/09/2009 12:22 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tara: "facially?"

Freudian slip?

Your argument is still invalid. Everyone meeting state age, sex and relational delta requirements are permitted to marry. There is NO discrimination. To claim so is no different than for me to claim that there is discrimination that one can't marry a goat. There is no discrimination there either because no one is permitted to marry a goat.



Re: Sylvester the Cat

Ever seen any HGTV show? It's a stereotype because there IS truth to it. And I am too young to remember anything about the Vietnam war.

The assumed antiquated SSN vet

1/09/2009 12:26 PM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...

You need to read the explanation of article 125 to see how outdated it really is, though you are already quilty you would get off on failure to show intent.

1/09/2009 12:27 PM

Blogger tngaston said...

J120 Bowman:

I was referring more to the fact that "sodomy" encompasses both oral and anal sex, but thanks for sharing.


Anon (gosh it'd be easier if I could refer to you by a real name - unless that IS your real name?):

No, "facially" is a legal term, and not a slip, also I see how it could be confusing. :)

Legally, a law is discriminatory even if the effect is discriminatory, but the wording itself is not. You marrying a goat, no matter how important it is to you, is not a matter for the government as it can only govern contracts between two consenting adults. So, unfortunately, your little friend doesn't fall under the scope of the US government.

1/09/2009 12:32 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tara, Thanks for schoolin' me on facially. Seriously. However, we still disagree on "discrimination." I say treating people in the same circumstances the same is not discriminatory, you say it is and want to change the grond rules. In essence, your argument is that there should be zero discrimination. Taken to its absurd extreme, this would entail classifying all laws as discrminatory because someone, somewhere (according to your definition) would in fact be discriminated against. You're for changing the rules that civilized society has lived with since day one; I am opposed.

1/09/2009 12:43 PM

Blogger Srvd_SSN_CO said...

Why is everyone so homophobic? Good grief. Every other western Navy allows gays to serve. So what.

I am with Sen Barry Goldwater. "The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."
So what.

As for 'let me out it they let gays in', was that in your contract? How about if we illegally invade a country, want out then to? Ooops.

1/09/2009 12:49 PM

Blogger tngaston said...

You're for changing the rules that civilized society has lived with since day one; I am opposed.

How do you define civilized society? That affects a great deal whether there's evidence for this idea. Historically and culturally, a lot FEWER people/laws care about the sexual orientation of people than do.

I also never said there should be no discrimination. Doing so would create a very strange society indeed. In fact, even discriminatory laws can be accepted IF there is a compelling state interest. However, it's very difficult to find a compelling state interest here, especially given the laws on the books specifically denying that. In fact (to blatantly steal someone else's argument), DADT could potentially create a national security risk because of the higher potential for blackmail.

I would still like to know: would you consider it discriminatory if you were forced to marry someone of the same sex?

1/09/2009 12:50 PM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...

Why is always labeled homophobia when males don't want to shower with homosexual males, but it is perfectly alright for women to demand they don't shower with males? Label it like you want, but I think you are opening a can of worms that doesn't need to be disturbed.

1/09/2009 12:56 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: Separate facilities

Comparing men to women is different than straight to gay. Gay men have always taken male showers. Showering with other men would be nothing new. But for a man to take a shower with women would be new. You've probably showered with a gay man before. Now the only difference would be that he doesn't have to hide the fact that he's gay. He's not all of a sudden going to start making advances on you. If he was to behave inappropriately then action should be taken to correct it, but I doubt this would happen since he is already going to be concerned how he as a gay man is perceived.

If for some irrational reason you still felt so uncomfortable, you could shower at a different time. No one is forcing you to take a shower in some designated 10 minute window.

1/09/2009 1:03 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tara, No one is FORCING anyone to marry, thus your question is moot.

Despite me foing everything that I can morally do to prevent this, I'll be honest, it will happen. Open homosexuals will be permitted to serve in the military and there is nothing that I can do to stop it. Society in this nation will continue its downward spiral, and just as in other previous socieities that accepted the unnatural as natural, the USA will cease to exist. It may take a while, but the damage has been done. This is but a symptom of the problem.

As for the military, they will have to live with those decisions. And they will have to deal with the recruiting debacle, particularly for submariners. I can see it now, to refrains of the Village People's "In the Navy," two squids making goo goo eyes at each other on the con, then slipping down the hatch as the Full Speed Ahead commercial fades out. It will make for intersting schemes to come up to the manpower shortage that will certainly happen.

Even so, I will fight the good fight and my conscious will be clear.

1/09/2009 1:06 PM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...

You are missing the point, I don't give a crap about the actual showering part, but the discrimination aspect of it. Why should one sex be allowed to dictate certain requirements while the other just has to go along with whatever it thought up by politicians that never have to abide by the crap they shovel. Why should women be the only ones to claim a special status that requires sexual protection, but males are not afford the same rights. You see now the point I am trying to make. Why are women afford seperate facilities to protect them, while it is perfectly okay for men to be stripped fo that right. You are 100% correct that there is little that can be done about the whole issue because it will be decided in Congress and not here.

1/09/2009 1:16 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please explain to me how males are being discriminated against.

1/09/2009 1:23 PM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...

If women are afforded seperate facilities from men because of the convention of preventing sexual victimization of women by men. You would agree this is because men have sex with women and thus women demand that they not be forced to be put on display for sexual reasons. So, if men who are the sexual object of other men are so forced to be placed on display then that discriminates against males. If you want homosexuality then you have to afford everyone the same protection under the law. If women can demand that they not share a space with males then why can't they demand that they not share a space with homosexual females and the same for males and homosexual males. You see how that this begins to become very complicated and how people feel they are being violated. A woman can have a man arrested for using a ladies room, she can have a tranny arrested as well, but no man has that same right we have to basically allow anything goes because we are males.

1/09/2009 1:33 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You might argue that lack of morals/ethics will cause a collapse (ie Madoff), but I don't see how acceptance of homosexuals will do this-- unless you are saying God will punish us. Is this what you are saying?


1/09/2009 1:47 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys kill me!! The last submarine in the US Navy to have a communial shower for enlisted sailors was USS Tiru SS-416 which decommed in 1975. The Fleet boat enlisted shower was designed for two sailors to use the shower stall simultaneously. Thats the way it was in those days. With 65 enlisted sailors including CPO's we never gave it a thought about getting in there and getting out so we could get ashore!! BTW there were only two sinks as well. Come on!! when was the last time you had to use a communial shower?? Just another tired old argument. I heard the same kind of statements in the Navy in the late 50's about about serving with black sailors.

If every gay person were to turn green tomorrow morning at 0900 most of you would collapse in shock.

Get over it!!

My two cents, and keep a zero bubble.....


1/09/2009 1:56 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I just don't see any discrimination there. You say you don't give a crap about the showering part, but obviously you do.

And to reiterate, you have shared spaces with gay men before (or are now). You just may not know who they are. Don't worry, if DADT is repealed nothing is going to change besides gays not having to keep an innocuous secret, unless you want to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

It's just so tough being a man these days...

1/09/2009 1:56 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me restate what I said for clarity.

Anonymous said...
"...Society in this nation will continue its downward spiral, and just as in other previous socieities that accepted the unnatural as natural, the USA will cease to exist."

You might argue that lack of morals/ethics will cause a collapse (ie Madoff), but I don't see how acceptance of homosexuals will do this-- unless you are saying God will punish us. Is this what you are saying?


1/09/2009 2:04 PM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...

So, it is okay for women to claim victim status, but men are not afforded the same consideration. That is the point. Put an end to seperate facilities for women, then we can talk about non-discrimination because we are all humans, right? Be think headed as you please, but the fact remains that we keep men and women apart because of the sex thing, but when you add homosexuals into the mix (sex thing is still there) it makes no difference. So, you should also be arguing to abolish seperate facilities for females because we are all humans so what the heck is the difference. Are you seeing the hypocracy yet?

1/09/2009 2:07 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact of the matter is that if men and women shared the same facilities, men would say unwanted things and stare and it would become a problem. I do not believe that would be the the case if straight and gay men shared facilities. The difference between a man and a woman is much greater than the difference between a straight and gay male. And I'll say again, you have always shared facilities with gay men. Nothing is going to change in that respect. Your argument is a non issue.

1/09/2009 2:20 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sandy Salt,

I think you have a point-- personally I would have a hard time (no pun intended) ignoring a naked woman in the shower with me. Also I am very sure my wife wouldn't like it. I think most men in the Navy would have the same difficulty. So I think communal showers (where they exist) with men and women won't work.

I don't know how this gets accomodated with the repeal of DADT. Perhaps more privacy...


1/09/2009 2:38 PM

Blogger tngaston said...


Fine. Would you feel it's discrimination if you were only ALLOWED to marry someone of the same sex? What if those who married the same sex were allowed the family benefits, and those who married opposite sex were not?

If you don't see the discrimination there, uhm...I don't know what else to say.

1/09/2009 2:51 PM

Blogger Patrick said...


How about if we illegally invade a country, want out then to?

I would try not to be insulting in this response, but to what point?

The Constitution of the United States of America does not recognize the United Nations as a controlling entity. Check it. The bribery society on Turtle Bay is not the determining entity on the legality of US actions, and based on their epic failure regarding the Iraq Oil for Food Fraud, that's a good thing.

In 2002, the Congress of the United States endorsed continuing operations in Iraq due to the failure of the Saddam Hussein regime to abide by the sanctions they accepted as a condition of our stopping military operations in 1991.

Here's the insulting part: Stop passing off the lie that our deposing Saddam Hussein was illegal. You demean service members around the world who gave everything bringing peace to Iraq. If you actually served, instead of being a made today sock puppet, you'd understand.

1/09/2009 3:01 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ditto Patrick. - Rex

1/09/2009 5:35 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


I am going to stay out of the "boogeyman in the shower" debate, it is absurd beyond words.


Now, back to a real issue, the UCMJ:

IRT sodomy, o/a 26 Jun 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court, overturned sodomy laws, specifically by ruling, 6-3 for Lawerence v. Texas.

See below:

A ban on homosexual sex in Texas has been overturned by the US Supreme Court in what is being seen as a landmark gay-rights ruling.
The case was brought by two Texas men, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were caught having sex on private premises in 1998.

On Thursday, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said for the majority of the judges in the 6-3 ruling that the two men "are entitled to respect for their private lives".

Once the Supreme Court did that, it invalidated sodomy laws in all of the 50 states.

Basically, the U.S. is growing, and realizing that relationships between consenting adults should have a measure of privacy. Google the case if you want the specifics of the legal issues.

Basically, the Court realized that certain states were abusing the law (enforcing it in cases of gay couples, but not straight couples), so they fixed the problem. This is just one of several good reasons the Supreme Court can protect minorities (and another reason that "states rights" isn't such a good idea all the time).

Sodomy (Section 125) is at least one area where the UCMJ needs an overhaul, to catch up with the rest of the country.

For those of you who state that the military should not be a cultural "proving ground"...I would remind you that the military (even our all-volunteer military) is not something apart and "better" than the general society as a whole. It is a part of it. It may not completely reflect society as a whole (age/gender/race, etc.).

To those who say that readiness will or might be negatively impacted, that is just another straw man, and will be proven incorrect.

1/09/2009 5:58 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the thing about communal showers being outdated.. have you ever been in basic training?

1/10/2009 9:40 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess when the services integrated everyone should have been allowed to leave if they couldn't take it.

This whole gay thing is beyond absurd.

Back in the 1800s it was Catholics who were abused in the military.

Then there were those who couldn't serve with Jews

Then who of course came the blacks.

Finding a group to put in the bottom of the barrel is standard practice that it seems never gets old or outdated.

1/10/2009 7:42 PM

Blogger Bigbill said...

I have had the advantage of serving on subs as an enlisted for 14+ years before defecting to the LDO world and serving on carriers.

On subs, there were people we knew to be gay, but it was never an issue because it never affected the "workplace".

Carriers are a diffent story. The ship is a big social experiment with the mixing of men and women in an isolated environment with free time and many spaces for people to hang out. As a leader, I am responsible to maintain an environment of professionalism in the work place, but what happens away from the workplace in berthing, fantail, smoke deck, forecastle, etc aren't monitored 24/7. If a couple gets caught, they get busted, but I would say the chance of getting caught is somewhat low.

The repeal of DADT would add another variable to the social experiment. I think it is a poor idea. I think the outrage over this would be if Congress worked on a repeal instead of the economy.

1/11/2009 11:29 AM

Blogger Joel Croteau said...

I think DADT should be repealed and openly gay members should be allowed to serve in the military. I don't like the idea of allowing people to take a discharge on it just as it would probably be used by a lot of people as an excuse to get out early. What would make sense to me is saying "We will repeal DADT in four years," and anyone who reenlists in that time knows what they're getting into.

1/11/2009 10:46 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

An anonymous SSN vet has said many times now that our current laws are not discriminatory because every person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, there is no discrimination.

But currently, heterosexuals have the right to marry a person of the sex they are attracted to, while homosexuals do not have that right. Therefore, there is discrimination.

My point is that the above argument over whether or not our laws are discriminatory is moot, because the answer depends merely on the wording of the right. In my opinion, the wording should reflect what's actually important - the right to marry someone you're attracted to.

That right should be guaranteed to everyone, heterosexual or homosexual.

1/12/2009 2:09 AM

Blogger Sandy Salt said...

The idea of marrying whatever you are attracted to makes sense, but you have to make sure that you are very specific about it being another human. This opens the door to all kinds of weirdos that think anything goes. I am all for allowing the joining of two people in a legally binding contract for legal purposes, but you have to keep away from the "marriage" word because the fundamentalist have a cow. I have said it before the "State" should not be in the marriage business because that is a religious concept, but instead they should be in the legal contract business.

1/12/2009 8:35 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems like there are several different arguments going on at the same time here, and they should each be addressed separately.

1. Will DADT be repealed? Given the huge economic and security problems this White House and Congress are dealing with, I can't see a major effort to push through an issue that is so divisive with such little practical (or even political) benefit. I would guess that we'll just see looser and looser interpretations until DADT becomes effectively moot, by which time maybe most sailors will just not care about changing the policy

2. SHOULD DADT be repealed? I am a strong supporter of gay rights, but activists need to choose their battles carefully or risk sounding like a bunch of "foaming-at-the-mouth whackjobs" who are always searching for some new way to push their agenda on people who disagree with them. I'm not entirely familiar with the wording or implementation of the DADT policy, but it seems like as long as you don't publicly declare "I am a homosexual" you are pretty free to do as you choose. I can see where this would bother gay servicemembers, but in its practical everyday impact it is far less important than many other issues. Of course, should gay marriages be legalized, there would be huge implications for allowing openly gay men and women to receive the same benefits as hetero couples.

3. Gay marriage. I am kind of a traditionalist in my views on marriage -- I made sure that "till Death do us part" was included in our vows. But I have yet to hear a reasonable argument for not allowing gay couples to marry and receive the same benefits (and disadvantages)as hetero couples. The only reasons given for banning gay marriages are based on disapproval of homosexuality. The exact same reasons ("it's unnatural" "an abomination" "what's next: bestiality?") were used to justify criminalizing inter-racial marriages. And saying that gays are not being discriminated against is just disingeuous semantics. Under this argument blacks in the post-Civil War South had the same right to vote as whites, they just happened to not pass the Jim Crow voting restricitons. While it is literally true that gays have the same right to marry the opposite sex, they are in reality being deprived of the right to marry whom they choose.

4. If DADT was repealed, what would be the practical effects? Probably not too big in the Air Force (aside from some guys just being pissed off). But subs do entail a lot of unavoidable close contact, which is going to make a lot of guys VERY uncomfortable. While I don't think you would see much overt harassment from openly gay sailors (when you're in the minority in such a macho environment, you probably tread lightly) most guys wouldn't want to towel off in front of someone who might go rub one out after the show.


1/12/2009 8:40 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


SF Chronicle reported on page 1 today that Obama would be repealing the DADT policy!!!!

When you read the entire article you got a rehash of the debate over DADT. A sentence buried in the text saying and I paraphrase here, we got bigger things on the table right now like the ECONOMY so we won't be getting to this right away. Also noted that it's up to congress to repeal DADT. Also noted was SOD and CJCS comments and I paraphrase again, go talk to congress, it's their baby.

What I would expect from the SF Chron with a large gay readership in SF. Anyone else see this in print?

My two cents, and keep a zero bubble......


1/14/2009 11:58 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What I would expect from the SF Chron with a large gay readership in SF. Anyone else see this in print?"

It was also the subject of a article and "poll." Although the poll was hijacked by the pro-homo crowd. (a simple blog search reveals as much.)

1/14/2009 9:51 PM

Blogger Srvd_SSN_CO said...

Get over it Patrick. I assume your argument is that we can pretty much, as a country, do what we want. So, out of curiosity, why was it wrong from Iraq to invade Kuwait? Hussein said it was ok.

As for demeaning service members for stating we were wrong to invade Iraq, you really are dumb. It is possible to completely disagree with the use of the military while still supporting the military. I have Sailors that have been to Iraq, great guys.

The guy that sent them there is still an idiot and was wrong to do so. Completely false pretenses.

If you really think we invaded Iraq for world peace, then why haven't we invaded North Korea? They export missiles to all kinds of good people and they have nukes. A far bigger danger than Hussein.

1/16/2009 12:58 PM

Blogger T said...

I think one of the issues overlooked in this is the effect this will have on BAH and the ensuing argument about gay marriage.

Picture this:
1) Gay Sailor joins Navy
2) Gay Sailor has live in multi-year serious life partner type relationship on him.
3) Gay sailor financially supports life partner.
4) Gay Sailor says "Hey shipmates, me and my life partner are not legally married, but are married for practical purposes, so where's my BAH w/ dependents? P.S. Give him medical too"
5) Beginning of a path to the Supreme Court on discriminating against him due to being gay based on the grounds of the Fair Pay Law.
6) Single straight sailor wants the same benefits for his girlfriend.

Personally, I think the BAH rules SHOULD be equalized between married and single sailors, as it basically discriminates your compensation based on your marital status. For example, in my duty area a married guy at my rank makes over $200 more than a single guy, just for being married. While I'm not picketing on the streets, I'll freely admit that it most certainly bothers me.

2/17/2009 6:20 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Redtube Cams

3/02/2009 4:38 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

project free tv

9/04/2009 5:06 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point of all this is that you DID serve with "gays" when you were on that submarine. You perhaps weren't aware that you were serving alongside "gays" because "gays" were forced to serve in silence, most likely attempting to appear "straight" because that was what was expected. If DADT is done away with, "gays" will only have the right to be open about their sexuality. It's not like the military would change into an enormous gay sex party, Any professional, responsible, dedicated and devoted individual knows what is appropriate and what isn't in the work place, particularly the military, Seperate your personal life from your professional life.

2/02/2010 4:12 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home