Army fired 11 soldiers in Jan. as openly gay

I'm sorry but does it really matter? Working for the military in a LE capacity I can stated with a certainty that the law is not always followed to the letter in the military. Example a jr. enlisted man gets a DUI and is disciplined more harshly that a senior nco that received a DUI. This same senior nco sexually harassed a young female soldier I personally worked with. She filed a complaint against him but the only thing that happened was he was reassigned to another unit just a block away. This female was so intimidated by this guy she left the service. I my opinion
as long as their sexuality doesn't interfere with the job who gives a rat's ass. There was also a major that had 5 Congressional investigations ongoing at once against him from soldiers and civilians. The result he retired six months early with out even a letter of reprimand. I know for a fact that at least 3 or 4 of the complaints had merit. So you tell me where's the justice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaggon

I think open gays have no place in the Military. In so far as who cares? Why do I need to know, and why do you need to tell. I think it is as sophmoric as asking someone if they are a virgin, "bet you are" "no Im not". However, after this policy is finalized, mark my words, standards will begin to change as well. Take for instance sleeping arrangements, it is against policy to have men and women share berthing or barracks or whatever. The reason is: opposite sexes are protected from seeing each other naked and going down that path. Now, gays are attracted to their own sex so should gay men be in the female barracks and gay women be in the male side? Also, cops get special techniques for frisking members of the opposite sex (usually male to female), why? Well it is the appearance of something inappropriate when I am copping a feel. So, do gay guys have to use the back of the hand to frisk male bad guys or do we just keep our F***ING mouths shut and be professional. The dems always pander to the minorities.

---

Well at least in comparing the military situation to law enforcement, I'll relay my situation to try to relate it to someone being in the military and there being no DADT law in place. Your question about who cares is a good one. I think that's the attitude that should be in place, and it should apply across the board. No one has to know and no one needs to ask. The problem is that the normal life and conversations that people have will reveal the information anyway, as long as people aren't lying. I can tell very easily from fellow officers' regular conversations that they are straight. Should straight officers/soldiers have to not say anything that could convey their orientation? No. Some things said can be relatively easily articulated to be over the line. Those situations should be dealt with accordingly. But if Joe can mention he has a wife or girlfriend back home, then Bill should be able to mention he has a boyfriend or husband back home as well. There is a lot of everyday conversation that indirectly or directly conveys a person's orientation that should be perfectly fine to be said. And there would be such things that would be worthy of discipline.

I never "came out" to anyone on my dept. Someone else found out, and started spreading the "rumor" around. I never made a point of throwing it out there, but when asked about it I was honest. Now that people know, it's generally a complete non-issue.

As far as quarters, you do have an argument. I certainly could understand the idea that separating gay soldiers from straight ones is akin to separating straight soldiers from opposite sex straight soldiers. Though to take that out to the fullest, how can you have gay soldiers housed with each other? They might have inappropriate relationships with each other. You can't house them with women, because straight soldiers could claim to be gay to be with the women. People in the military, regardless of demographic and regardless of policies put in place by the military, can and do engage in inappropriate sexual behaviors. If someone wants to enough, they will find a way. But I understand at least trying to provide, by policy, an environment that seeks to minimize opportunities for such behavior. The military, or a dept. would have to find a solution that they find to be acceptable.

As for the shower situation.........I use the same locker room as the rest of the male officers. I seem to be the only one that cares about nakedness. By that I mean that I am always trying to make sure I am covered up, and I will not shower with another officer. The other officers seem to not have an issue with being naked in the locker room while I am in there. However, I generally make an extra point to not look at them naked, as I don't want anyone thinking that I am "checking them out". That is also why I stay covered up when others are in the locker room. I don't want anyone thinking that I am trying to be naked in front of them as a means of making an advance. I'd rather just avoid any chance of any claims. Since I'm the only one, and since I am completely trying to avoid anything remotely considered out of line, my dept. has not had to worry about the locker room issue. However, if we had another gay male officer that was an idiot, then the issue could arise if said officer would do something inappropriate. I pray that doesn't happen. Many rules that depts. have are only there because some idiot stepped over some line, and screwed things up for the others.

On my dept. I'm treated the same as any other male officer. My dept. has no policies that deal with GLBT officers, probably since I'm the first one the dept. has known about in dept. history. I still have to call in mileage when transporting women, as do female officers actually. I've not been told to do pat downs any differently. I think part of it is that 99.9% of the time, a person being patted down by me will not have any clue about me, and therefore not have concerns about my pat down being some kind of sexual advance. However, despite lack of dept. input on the issue, if a man I know is gay (or even highly suspect is) needs patted down, and I'm the only officer there to do it, I would do it like the dept. has male officers pat down women, just to play things on the safe side. I know that my actions are strictly business, but I would feel better not even messing with an issue of giving them a chance to make a BS claim against me.

My response here may seem to be trying to be "against" swaggon, but it's not meant that way. The only statement swaggon made that I really have issue with is saying that gays have no place in the military. Swaggon does bring up issues that are worth addressing. Repealing DADT won't just magically make things o.k. and easy. There will be rules and policies that will have to be made, removed, and/or changed to make situations work better. And my approach to my job is that I just do my job and be professional. I need to maintain my integrity. I don't bring up my orientation while on a call, unless there is a specific benefit in doing so. If a gay man is suicidal about issues related to his sexuality, knowing about me may help him out. If a gay person claims that the police are discriminating against him because he's gay, I can give considerable credibility to our claims that the police don't care about the person's orientation by telling them about me (and that since no one cares about me, no one cares about them). But if I'm making a garden variety OWI arrest, there's no need for me to bring the issue up.

Who I have to work on is my shift partner. He seems to be the one that wants to bring it up at times I don't think it needs to be brought up. But he is a work in progress I guess. I think he just is trying to be supportive, and gets a bit overboard with it. I try to temper him. But the way I do my job is to just do my job and try to keep it from being personal unless there is an articulable reason to bring up my background. Over the years, it works for me and for my coworkers. I'm more worried about just being a good officer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndianaFuzz

Well at least in comparing the military situation to law enforcement, I'll relay my situation to try to relate it to someone being in the military and there being no DADT law in place.

---

The military is not law enforcement, and does not compare.

Not jumping on your points, just pointing out that it really is a different world.

Having served 7 years in the Army, in all male units (infantry), I can assume that I have worked with at one time or another with a gay person. The fact that they are gay does not disturb me. I have known soldiers that have said they were gay to get out of the military..in fact the command stucture was so quick about getting these chapters processed, the soliders were out of the Army usually within 72 hours. They were placed under guard, not for any criminal activity on their part, but to safeguard them from those that wanted to beat them.

My opinion is thus: It is the militant gays that create the stir. It is the ones that cram their sex down others throats, act in ways that most call "flaming" and have little to no regard for others boundaries or ethics.

I simply want that man or woman to be professional in their apperance, demeanor and attitude towards others. If they can do the job with that level of professionalism, I care less if they are dress up and act like naked cowboys at their home or wave to ailen spaceships. Its when it crossess over to their professional side that I take issues, as what I feel is the Army's standpoint.

I have chaptered numerous soldiers out of the Army (AWOLs, drugs) so I am aware of the chapter proceedings and UCMJ. UCMJ is straight across the board, however it is like the laws of our states that we as officers adhere to: in most cases it comes down to the discrection of the officer as to how far they want to push a charge. The UCMJ does have its flaws, but it has its merits as well.

These soldiers knew what the risks were. They took these risks and are paying for them. In this day and age is it PC? No, but in many ways the military is not the place for a PC looking person to find employment.

Quote:

---

It is the militant gays that create the stir. It is the ones that cram their sex down others throats,

---

Tee-hee :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virginian

Tee-hee :D

---

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who saw that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndianaFuzz

My response here may seem to be trying to be "against" swaggon, but it's not meant that way. The only statement swaggon made that I really have issue with is saying that gays have no place in the military.

.

---

he did not say gays have no place in the military, he said that "open gays" have no place in the military.

other than that, great post

id rep you but i cant