DADT repealed

[GreenLantern330]

Just watched the live feed and the Senate voted to repeal DADT 65 to 31. I, personally, was indifferent to it and just hope the implementation is done correctly and isn't rushed. What are some of everyone else's thoughts on it?

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/18/132164172/-dont-ask-dont-tell-clears-vital-hurdle

 

[FlyingOnFumes]

Senate Just Passed "Repeal" of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/17/senate-faces-historic-vote-military-gay-ban

I thought DADT was a policy and not a law, but the ban of homosexuals serving in the military was the actual law in question?

Seems like the media is confusing DADT with the law...

 

[GreenLantern330]

I just created another thread for it too. My b, didn't see this one.

 

[HuggyU2]

My thoughts? Unfortunate.

 

[Floppy_D]

That explains the cheering I heard when I drove by the AF's 479th hangar earlier.

 

[helolumpy]

It's part of Title 10 USC, therefore it's federal law.

The restrictions are mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). The policy prohibits people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "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." (10 U.S.C. § 654(b)) The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specifies that service members who disclose they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct shall be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces" (10 U.S.C. § 654(e)).

 

[HH-60H]

merged

 

[RedFive]

I think I posted just as you merged these. Weird.

This is a good reference if you ever want to look something up:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode

Isn't this going to be somewhat awkward at the next Navy/Marine Corps ball? *shrug*

 

[Flying Toaster]

Accepting the unfortunate reality it's happening, what changes are going to be required? Are they just going to tell everyone to suck it up and deal with certain "things"? Is it going to be all encompassing, or restricted to certain positions, i.e. no subs, combat, etc.?

 

[wlawr005]

This is all political BS. Homosexuals still won't receive any of the benefits that their married counterparts do because federal law doesn't recognize same sex marriages. So take out BAH, Tricare, and all the other benefits of being married in the military, and nothing has changed. BUT, the common American believes that this is a landmark day in civil rights and non-partisan politics.

Bottom line, the more things change...

 

[Uncle Fester]

I personally doubt this is really going to change military life all that much. The gay men and women I've known in the military were mostly interested in being able to have friends from the command over to their house without having to hide their 'roommate,' or invent stories as to why they aren't married at 40, stuff like that. Yeah, there will probably be some eyebrows raised at the dates some folks show up with at the next command dining-in. There will probably be some incidents on deployment. But we managed to racially integrate the armed forces at a time when the Klan was still a power to be reckoned with and segregation was law through much of the country. By comparison, this is mostly going to be a shrug-and-carry-on non-event.

 

[Spekkio]

My non-military friends were shocked to learn that DADT was a work-around for the fact that it is illegal for gays to serve in the military, and that DADT just made the whole gay/straight thing a non-issue in the course of day to day work. You do your job, and no one cares what you do on liberty or leave as long as you don't break the law.

If gays are concerned about not getting married benefits, repealing DADT isn't going to change that.

 

[The Chief]

,,,, Homosexuals still won't receive any of the benefits that their married counterparts do ....

Not yet, but many more battles to fight .. I predict that in ten years, or 17 years, or so ......

But what do I know. I said that integrating women into the Navy would be a problem. I said that we would end up with different rules for men and women, different grooming standards, different PT standards, monthly time off periods, day care centers on ships ...... so I was wrong, it all never happened.

I like what General Amos said; to the effect: "..... you tell us to do it and we will do it ..... ". It will be done.

 

[GreenLantern330]

merged

Thanks for merging!

To everyone else, it's really interesting to see your opinions, since I am still just a civilian. I appreciate everyone's shared thoughts on the subject thus far. I don't know anyone in the military, unless you count the academies, so I was genuinely curious to see current service members opinions.

 

[eas7888]

I've served with a number of people who have been openly gay amongst their peers. Personally, I have never had a problem with it, and I don't foresee there being a significant problem with it. Will there be conflicts with closed minded people who don't accept others? Yes, but we have this already in many other forms, I don't see this being a big change.

People who want to be intolerant will always be intolerant.