Bornstein: Battling with — and under — the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy

In a way, though, Alexander's army was don't ask/don't tell as well. It's true that the members of his Sarissa and Companion Cavalry practiced similar lifestyles, they were also not the kind of military that either flaunted that kind of relationship publicly, seeing as they were nearly all married (so was Alexander, by the way) to women either back home or women they had come into contact with on their campaigns.

As for this article, I believe Lauren certainly has hit upon some very interesting practices in the military, but there is an unexpected side-affect of this policy. The Uniform Code of Military Just (UCMJ) policy does not technically discriminate against homosexuals specifically, as I recall the policy forbids fellatio and sodomy. There have been documented cases where (usually in the heat of a divorce), a spouse might actually tell their significant others command about such an act occurring, therefore resulting in administrative punishment for them. Literally, this policy affects both gays and straights alike.

The most effective means of altering this policy without incurring significant opposition from the military establishment would be for the Supreme Court to rule marriage as a right that is had by men and women, and to be exercised at their own discretion. Allowing this change to first occur in our civilian society would then require the military to conform in order to allow same-sex marriages to be recognized for active duty and veteran benefits. Over time, this policy would naturally produce the small change required in the firmly "conservative" stance of the military.

I use the word "conservative" not as a political label, but in a social context. If you don't agree with this statement, then feel free to look at what else is subject to punishment by the military: drug usage of any kind results in immediate separation, inappropriate attire such as flip-flips and baggy clothes are not permitted; even the wearing of contact lenses and the freedom to die your hair is prohibited with very few exceptions. With minuscule rules that dictate the daily lives of our nations fighting service members, it is easy to see where the extreme reluctance would come from when asking a General or Admiral what they believe in affecting a (what many in the military consider) a radical change in their policies that have existed formally or informally ever since its inception.

As a former member of the military, I have long-defended this policy as one that was the best compromise for the times we lived in. That being said, there is no doubt that times are changing, but the smartest (and fairest) way to change an institution such as our military (as a Federal institution) should be made to repeal the DADT policy when and ONLY when the Federal Government as a whole protect the institution of same-sex marriages for the civilian population as a whole beforehand.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by crm114 on April 19, 2010 at 2:02 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Bornstein: Battling with — and under — the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy

The difference is not who you love but what arouses you sexually. Would you have women and men showering together? I know it sounds silly but ask most women and they would rather not be put in that situation because they know that just about all men will be checking them out. Don't men have the same right? Unlike you I am a veteran of the U.S. Navy and I did have gay sailors serving under me (no rimshot please). One, I and my work center knew about and the other was a surprise. The former was one of the hardest working guys in my shop and none of us would have said anything against him. That is not who DADT is targetting or protecting others from. There was another sailor on the ship whom we all suspected but no one knew for certain. You could say that he was a flaming character (flaming=flamboyant). All was okay even when he got himself circumcised so he could show everyone (yes, he did) but things took a bad turn when he fondled a sleeping sailor next to him. He had some rights because it took two weeks to discharge him during which time he stayed in the same bunk next to the same sailor. What happened to the rights of the victim? Your position is to guarantee gay sailors the near right to do their thing. You have to understand where straight people come from and what our rights are. 15 years ago there was a case in Kansas City where a gay man grabbed a straight man on an elevator (yes, grabbed him by that part) and when the door opened you had a very hurt gay man on the floor. The local gay activist wanted the victim to be charged with a hate crime. I always counter what would you say if a straight man grabbed the goodies of a female athlete on an elevator and she laid him out but good. Would there be an outcry of hate crime against the victim?

The military needs protection not from the "normal" gay person who does their job well and quietly but the radical gay person who pushes the envelope and creates chaos.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on April 20, 2010 at 2:18 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal