Army fired 11 soldiers in Jan. as openly gay

**Terminator** · 03-12-09, 08:18 PM

WASHINGTON – The Army fired 11 soldiers in January for violating the military's policy that gay service members must keep their sexuality hidden, according to a Virginia congressman. Democratic Rep. Jim Moran said he has requested monthly updates from the Pentagon on the impact of the policy until it is repealed.
In a statement released on Thursday, Moran said the discharged soldiers included an intelligence collector, a military police officer, four infantry personnel, a health care specialist, a motor-transport operator and a water-treatment specialist.
"How many more good soldiers are we willing to lose due to a bad policy that makes us less safe and secure?" asked Moran, a member of the House panel that oversees military spending.
The Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy was instituted after President Bill Clinton tried to lift the ban on gay service members in 1993. It refers to the military practice of not asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members are banned from saying they are gay or bisexual, engaging in homosexual activity or trying to marry a member of the same sex.
The military discharged nearly 10,000 service members under the policy in a 10-year period, from 1997 to 2007. The number fired each year dropped sharply after the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, when forces were stretched thin. Whereas more than 1,200 were dismissed in 2000 and again in 2001 for violating the policy, about half as many — 627 — were fired in 2007.
The Pentagon has not released its 2008 figures.
The White House has said President Barack Obama has begun consulting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen on how to lift the ban. But the administration won't say how soon that might happen or whether a group of experts will be commissioned to study the issue in-depth, as some Democrats have suggested.
Likewise, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill support repealing the ban but have not promised to press the issue immediately.

**MacLean** · 03-12-09, 10:12 PM

Without arguing the policy because I just don't feel up to rehashing this - if the rule says don't ask and don't tell, then buck up and follow orders or face an Article 92 discharge.

They really mean that UCMJ stuff, troopers.

**Retdetsgt** · 03-13-09, 07:23 PM

Agree. It's not like the rules are new and no one understood them.

**Billy Mack** · 03-13-09, 10:57 PM

I don't think they run them through any sort of UCMJ action. Don't they just chapter them out? If I recall properly, there's a specific chapter for it and they go out with an honorable discharge.

Of course, I got out in 93, so I'm a bit dated.

**213th** · 03-13-09, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Billy Mack

I don't think they run them through any sort of UCMJ action. Don't they just chapter them out? If I recall properly, there's a specific chapter for it and they go out with an honorable discharge.

Of course, I got out in 93, so I'm a bit dated.

There is an actual article they can be charged under for having oral and anal sex (article 125 i believe) but other then that I believe just for being openly gay without engaging in for said activities it would be a courtmartial under 92 or 134

**MacLean** · 03-13-09, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Billy Mack

I don't think they run them through any sort of UCMJ action. Don't they just chapter them out? If I recall properly, there's a specific chapter for it and they go out with an honorable discharge.

Of course, I got out in 93, so I'm a bit dated.

When you "chapter" them out, the "chapter" refers to the article.

92 or 134 - depending on how pissed off they are.

**Billy Mack** · 03-13-09, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by 213th

There is an actual article they can be charged under for having oral and anal sex (article 125 i believe) but other then that I believe just for being openly gay without engaging in for said activities it would be a courtmartial under 92 or 134

That seems like a waste of judicial resources.

The chapter I was referring to was in the AR on separations when I was in. I don't remember the reg.

The chapters that I recall were Chapter 13, Unsuitable for military service; and Chapter 14, misconduct. I want to say Chapter 15 was for homosexuality.

**Billy Mack** · 03-13-09, 11:36 PM

I was thinking of AR 635-200. It looks like it's pretty much the same in the relevant part.

**MacLean** · 03-13-09, 11:45 PM

Ahhh, roger.

**IndianaFuzz** · 03-15-09, 10:48 AM

Its not always as easy as it seems though. To comply, gay servicemen basically have to lie all the time. Isn't that a violation of the UMCJ? That's a dilemma....does the gay soldier violate the rules, or does he/she violate the rules to keep from violating the rules? It's a catch 22, to which the only right answer (which isn't really right) is to never join the military in the first place.

**213th** · 03-15-09, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by IndianaFuzz

Its not always as easy as it seems though. To comply, gay servicemen basically have to lie all the time. Isn't that a violation of the UMCJ? That's a dilemma....does the gay soldier violate the rules, or does he/she violate the rules to keep from violating the rules? It's a catch 22, to which the only right answer (which isn't really right) is to never join the military in the first place.

The policy is to not ask, but that doesn't mean it's okay to be in if you're gay. They tell you in MEPS that they can't ask you if you are gay, but if you are you aren't allowed in the military.

**Rhino** · 03-15-09, 01:26 PM

Maybe one day those archaic laws will catch up to the 21st century. But until then, UCMJ is UCMJ. You knew it was against regs going in, so I'm not inclined to look at you as some sort of martyr.

I wonder how many of them were just claiming to be gay to get out of service.

**Retdetsgt** · 03-15-09, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Rhino

I wonder how many of them were just claiming to be gay to get out of service.

Bingo! I think we have a winner!

I know of a couple of guys that did that way back when. I don't think they got an honorable though, but a general.

**Billy Mack** · 03-15-09, 02:35 PM

I always thought the "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" policy was a bit silly.

When I was in the Army (1987-1993), there were some pretty openly gay guys around. No one seemed to mind all that much. One of the gay guys in my company, told me that there were a lot of gays in. He said, "There are fluffy E-9s walking around this post."

From what I hear, after the new policy went into effect, Chapter 15s went up.

**chewy** · 03-15-09, 04:19 PM

I understand following the letter of the law as it were but I think the military is archaic in it's thinking on this subject. It's absolutely asinine that they are discharging perfectly good members just because they happen to be gay. Grow TFU and move on. I've worked with gay people in LE for years in the Coast Guard, DEA Task Force and here with Customs. Never once did we get into a gun fight then end with them trying to hump me. It's only a problem in the mind of management, not in the real world or in the field. The way we keep going around fighting everyone in the world you'd think the military would just be happy people still want to volunteer, no matter what sexual orientation. If you’re sooooo worried about someone working with you being gay then obviously you need to check your sexuality because you are obviously threatened by it which means… well, you’ll have to figure that out on your own!

**MacLean** · 03-15-09, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by chewy

I understand following the letter of the law as it were but I think the military is archaic in it's thinking on this subject. It's absolutely asinine that they are discharging perfectly good members just because they happen to be gay. Grow TFU and move on. I've worked with gay people in LE for years in the Coast Guard, DEA Task Force and here with Customs. Never once did we get into a gun fight then end with them trying to hump me. It's only a problem in the mind of management, not in the real world or in the field. The way we keep going around fighting everyone in the world you'd think the military would just be happy people still want to volunteer, no matter what sexual orientation. If you’re sooooo worried about someone working with you being gay then obviously you need to check your sexuality because you are obviously threatened by it which means… well, you’ll have to figure that out on your own!

All of that may be - or may not be - depending on your take on the reasons.

The fact is, that the military is a law unto itself.

The rules are hard and fast and spelled out for everyone, and the system only works if the rules are followed.

You are proposing a change to the rules, ok.

Surely you are not proposing that they just start ignoring the rules?

**Morris** · 03-18-09, 01:42 AM

The military, in viewing sexes and sexual orientation, is in the horse cavalry days still.

It's time for a full review of the UCMJ and the thoughts on homosexuals in today's society. Can they honorable serve? Is it necessary to even be concerned about their orientation? Can they do they job when the SHTF?

Considering how many studs or straights in the military keep getting their peckers into trouble, one would think we ought to start looking thoroughly there. Or at least the prudist and puritanical aspects in regards to sexuality.

**MacLean** · 03-18-09, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Morris

The military, in viewing sexes and sexual orientation, is in the horse cavalry days still.

It's time for a full review of the UCMJ and the thoughts on homosexuals in today's society. Can they honorable serve? Is it necessary to even be concerned about their orientation? Can they do they job when the SHTF?

Considering how many studs or straights in the military keep getting their peckers into trouble, one would think we ought to start looking thoroughly there. Or at least the prudist and puritanical aspects in regards to sexuality.

I actually don't disagree.

I served with people I know flat out were homosexual, both male and female.

My point is, lets not get upset when we enforce the rules. Change the rules or shut up.

**swaggon** · 03-18-09, 09:59 AM

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.

**Morris** · 03-18-09, 09:04 PM

So do open heterosexuals (who are involved in more sexual indescretions and criminal activity while serving) have no place in the military as well?

Novel concept: straight or gay, most people have a level or professionalism while in the workplace that means they usually don't flirt, engage in sexual language or liasions.