Update on DADT PolicyFollow

Look again, there's probably 3-4 more, atleast.

Me too, though probably for a completely different reason.

I was going to say this, but TLW beat me to it. Sure, the list of remaining discriminations looks appalling to someone who wants equal rights for homosexuals, but as far as I'm concerned, this is a really good first step. In fact, in hindsight, it'll probably be the hardest, largest step that was overcome, in the end.

Yes, in the meantime, it's going to be hard on gay couples who have one or two members in the military. But having the right to admit your EXISTENCE, and still serve your country, and maintain good relations with your fellow soldiers, is the very most important thing.

Edited, Jul 1st 2011 11:52am by Aripyanfar

I'm sorry, but did you completely misunderstand what this whole thread is about? It's about policies that will go into effect once DADT is repealed. These are not true right now.



Not only is this comment dumb as hell, but it doesn't even address he issue. Chaplains are allowed to tell a gay service member that you he's evil and, if he dies in combat, is totally going to hell. That's the issue. It has nothing to do with relations with homophobes.

Not to mention the fact that homophobia and ***** sexual desire usually go hand in hand. A chaplain insulting homosexuality to a homophobe isn't going to do anything but throw fuel on the fire, since they are likely homophobic due to self hate in the first place.

[EDIT]



I know that. I just didn't expect them to fall back on DOMA so they didn't have to provide any marriage benefits even to those legally married in their home states.

Hell, even if I had thought they wouldn't get the financial benefits, I definitely wouldn't have imagined they'd be barred from family housing.

Edited, Jul 1st 2011 1:31pm by idiggory

Hence why I said it's stupid and a waste of time to do this state by state. If it's good enough in NY, then it's good enough in California. We're just wasting time and money. Make a decision already and go with it. If you have a problem with it, repeal it later.

Guess I missed it then because what I read was that this was from an in-processing briefing, which is a "Current state of things" briefing.

As I said, DADT is still in effect so no, nobody gets anything. Until it's changed, the military probably won't do anything about it. The DoD isn't exactly known for being proactive about stuff like this.



So Chaplains have been berating gay service members? This is documented in a recent lawsuit somewhere? Or are you somehow confusing military Chaplains with civilian bible thumpers and making a completely ignorant assumption about their personal beliefs?

How about looking at it from a slightly less hostile aspect. A Chaplain is probably going to be addressing hate crimes, discrimination, and general risks of living openly, all of which would be painting the service member's choice to live openly in a bad light. You think that maybe this is going into place to protect the Chaplain from getting screwed while discussing topics that are likely going to be a bit sensitive for awhile?



So lolgaxe tells you pretty much what I did and you still missed it.

Nothing's being done or offered since things still haven't gone through. When the DoJ officially removes DADT and things don't change, then you can *****. At this point the only thing you're doing is getting pissed over something that hasn't even happened.

So many little things have gone back and forth since this started that they are trying to get rid of any misinformation. When I said an in-processing briefing was a "Current state of things" briefing, I literally meant "As of right now, today, this is what's going on."



When homophobia has the potential to cost people their lives, it's a pretty serious ******* issue that needs to be addressed. You do realize that any level of mistrust between service members in a deployment scenario has the potential to compromise everyone involved? I think a homosexual being paired with a homophobe in a deployment scenario has a lot of potential to create an aura of mistrust. This is exactly why CO's have the right to relocate people on a case-by-case basis, but since a homophobe isn't likely to out themselves until a problem already exists, the risk is still there.

You also need to understand that premarital counseling from a Chaplain is a lot more than a compatibility check, it goes into various aspects of life that a military spouse will have to deal with. If the Chaplain isn't allowed to cover the negative aspects without having to worry about getting brought up on discrimination charges, they can't do their job. It isn't about pushing them into the closet, it's about making them fully aware that they are going to have to come completely out of the closet, whether they want to or not. Homosexual couples aren't simply going to be allowed to live together, they're going to be thrown into the spotlight. There are events where a military spouse is required to attend.



And this is the part you're needlessly getting upset over. Yes, they're planned, for right now. As things change, the policies will change. These are "Cover our ***" policies until something official is implemented, which won't happen until DADT is no longer in affect. Since everything is still up in the air right now, any service member who outs themselves is screwed, which is a situation that has already happened. When the decision to repeal DADT was first announced a few people outed themselves because they were told by higher ups that DADT was dead. While I don't have details about what happened to them specifically, they royally screwed themselves since DADT was still in affect.

Also keep in mind that the stuff Alma listed may not be true for the entire DoD, or even that specific branch. If nothing official has come from the higher ups, then the base commander usually implements something until an official policy is reached. And since this has already caused issues, any temporary policies may be designed specifically to prevent further problems.

The point is that you're getting pissed over misinformed speculation and assumptions. Until something official comes down, the likely course of action is to protect service members. Believe it or not, the military is pretty big on protecting their own.

Not on Thursdays.

Except that it isn't that at all. These are the policies that will be put in place once DADT passes. Right now, you CAN be removed from the military for being openly gay. That doesn't change until the repeal is finalized, when these policies go into affect. Why is that so hard for you to understand?



First of all, no one has argued that homophobia isn't a risk. What you are failing to do is explain why giving chaplains the freedom to negatively address homosexuality somehow eliminates or mitigates this problem. On the contrary, all it does is make it MORE likely that homophobes will become more homophobic and more apt to distrust homosexuals.



First of all, discussing negative aspects of a relationships, and alleged negative aspects of homosexuality are very different things. Discussing the negative ways in which society treats homosexuality, and alleging that there are negative aspects to homosexuality itself, are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.

And that's such a ******** argument. "Well, we aren't recognizing gay marriage because then we'd need to see their gay partners at military ceremonies. And that's wrong." Thanks for all the judgement.

Furthermore, chaplains are there to support all troops. They are not permitted to negatively address someone else's religious beliefs, even if they differ from their own. There's NO reason why sexuality should be different. They aren't allowed to tell a Muslim-hater that he's justified because Muslims are dirty heretics. There's no reason he should be allowed to tell a homophobe that he's justified because gays are vile sinners.



You don't start briefing the lower tiered officers on new policies unless they are almost certainly going to be put into effect. They are no more "up in the air" than the DADT repeal is. Both could change, but they probably won't.



Read the link Timelordwho posted. It confirms what Alma posted.



Yeah. Tossing out dedicated, distinguished, decorated career personal with a less-than-honorable discharge so you cut off their livelihood as well as completely severing their rights to pensions and medical benefits they earned all because of a homophobic policy that was put into place because homosexuals were considered blackmail risks by communist parties (despite the fact that an out homosexual obviously can't be blackmailed with their sexuality) REALLY sounds like "protecting their own."

If I could even remotely believe that these policies were in place to save lives, you might have an argument (albeit a bad one, since our laws have long confirmed that the military doesn't have the right to oppress groups, let alone when its purely due to bigoted opinions). I don't see that as being the case at all, with the one exception of allowing commanders to reassign housing/showering schedules on a case-by-case basis (which should be the case for any conflict, not just ones stemming from sexuality). All the rest is just pure homophobia, using DOMA as its basis. It in no way affects combat performance.

And giving chaplains the right to negatively address homosexuality is only likely to increase conflict between ***** and non-***** persons.

Who're you?

No, it's impractical. You are talking about having to put in place a completely new system of election for the sake of a single issue. It would cost WAY more money to do that then to just deal with the appeals processes.

Especially because you need to begin with a massive political question of majority rule vs. electoral college. If 170 million people vote in favor of SSM, but they are heavily concentrated in 13 states, should it win?



Tell us how you really feel.

And no, laws have established that sexuality is under the protection of anti-discrimination laws.

The chaplain should be free to abstain from discussing issues if he wishes. He should not be free to use religious homophobic rhetoric when addressing the troops.

Many religions have very strict policies about what women are and are not permitted to do. Military service is almost certainly in the "are not" category. Are they allowed to negatively address female troops because they aren't in the kitchen? No, it violates military anti-discrimination mandates.

Here's a quote from a former chaplain that was issued after many religious institutions that provided chaplains petitioned that their "free speech" not be violated:



When you are in your own church, spout whatever crap you'd like to. But once you CHOOSE to take a gov't position, you are choosing to accept that there are certain things you may and may not say to the soldiers in your charge.

EVERY OTHER military protection is applied to chaplains as well, afaik. They aren't allowed to tell a Muslim soldier that he's a heretic, even though that's against their religion. There's absolutely no reason why homosexuality should be excluded, besides pure bigotry.