Military Discharged 770 Last Year for Being Gay

[Tsyroc]

SAN FRANCISCO (June 20) - Even with concerns growing about military troop strength, 770 people were discharged for homosexuality last year under the military's ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy, a new study shows.


Dr. Aaron Belkin's study found that the Army was responsible for about 41 percent of all discharges.

The figure, however, is significantly lower than the record 1,227 discharges in 2001 - just before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since ''don't ask, don't tell'' was adopted in 1994, nearly 10,000 military personnel have been discharged - including linguists, nuclear warfare experts and other key specialists.

The statistics, obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center and analyzed by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, offers a detailed profile of those discharged, including job specialty, rank and years spent in the service.

''The justification for the policy is that allowing gays and lesbians to serve would undermine military readiness,'' said Aaron Belkin, author of the study, which will be released Monday. ''For the first time, we can see how it has impacted every corner of the military and goes to the heart of the military readiness argument.''

''Don't ask, don't tell'' allows gays to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts.

The study, which analyzed discharges between 1998 and 2003, found the majority of those let go under ''don't ask, don't tell'' were active duty enlisted personnel in the early stages of their careers.

Of the nearly 6,300 people discharged during that seven-year period, only 75 were officers. Seventy-one percent of those discharged were men.

The study found that the Army, the largest of the services, was responsible for about 41 percent of all discharges. The Army has invoked ''stop-loss'' authority to keep soldiers from retiring or otherwise leaving if they are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Lawmakers' votes to increase troop strength reflected the concerns voiced by families of military personnel whose tours in Iraq keep getting extended.

About 27 percent of the discharges came from the Navy, 22 percent from the Air Force, and 9 percent from the Marines.

Hundreds of those discharged held high-level job specialties that required years of training and expertise, including 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists and 49 nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare specialists.

Eighty-eight linguists were discharged, including at least seven Arab language specialists.

Brian Muller, an Army bomb squad team leader who had advanced training on weapons of mass destruction and served on a security detail for President Bush, said he was dismissed from duty after deciding to tell his commander he's gay.

''I didn't do it to get out of a war - I already served in a war,'' Muller, 25, said in an interview. ''After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable.''

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said the loss of gays and lesbians serving in specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have been in those jobs in the first place.

''We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service,'' Donnelly said. ''There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual.''

There are currently about 1.5 million people serving in active duty in the military, and another 1 million in the Reserves.

AP-NY-06-20-04 2150EDT

[Vympel]

Don't you just love a conservative advocacy group sticking its fingers in its ears and blatantly lieing about "there are enough people in the military" (while 'stop-loss' orders are going on and re-enlistment rates are, at most recent report, not being met) just to satisfy their ideological leanings? 770 men removed for fucking nothing (well, fucking something, but that's a bad pun).

[Tsyroc]

Don't you just love a conservative advocacy group sticking its fingers in its ears and blatantly lieing about "there are enough people in the military" (while 'stop-loss' orders are going on and re-enlistment rates are, at most recent report, not being met) just to satisfy their ideological leanings? 770 men removed for fucking nothing (well, fucking something, but that's a bad pun).

I liked that bit myself.

Personally, I always thought I heard entirely way too much about other people's sex lives (sea stories) when I was in the Navy. I think if the military cracked down hard on stuff like that for everyone they'd be one giant step closer to a "who gives a shit / none of my business" attitude when it comes to people's sexuality. It would certainly make the atmosphere more professional and that seems to be the right direction they need to go if they are going to stop disqualifying homosexuals from military service.

[Exmoor Cat]

Well, I'm sure they can find jobs over here in the EU - both the UK and Dutch military are overstretched and could do with such skills.

[salm]

Well, I'm sure they can find jobs over here in the EU - both the UK and Dutch military are overstretched and could do with such skills.

is it possible to join their forces if you´re not a citizen of their country?

[Exmoor Cat]

AFAIK, no unless you're commonwealth, however, there are ways round it - MOD Civilian Contractor for instance - esp on linguistic skills. Also naturalisation works.

[TheDarkling]

Commonwealth or Irish.

[Durandal]

Why doesn't the Army just be honest and say they don't want gays because they're afraid of gay men seeing the straight men naked in the shower? Seriously, all this is is high school football player, jock bullshit. "Undermine readiness" my ass.

[Zaia]

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said the loss of gays and lesbians serving in specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have been in those jobs in the first place.

''We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service,'' Donnelly said.

Riiiiiight. Because discharging roughly 4,000 specialists over the years wouldn't affect military readiness either. They're still people doing jobs--people you now have to replace, you dumb bitch. They're not irrelevant.

Anyone know the law to which she's referring?

[Stormbringer]

Why doesn't the Army just be honest and say they don't want gays because they're afraid of gay men seeing the straight men naked in the shower? Seriously, all this is is high school football player, jock bullshit. "Undermine readiness" my ass.

I think there's a fair amount more to it than that. I'm not in favor of the discrimination either, but that's a vast oversimplification of the issue.

[Tsyroc]

I think there's a fair amount more to it than that. I'm not in favor of the discrimination either, but that's a vast oversimplification of the issue.

At one time the excuse for discriminating against homosexuals was that they were a bigger security risk. In otherwords, someone would find out about their secret and then blackmail them into doing stuff for the commies.

That reason has disappeared and now it's stuff like readiness (because he might see me shower, or we'll have to share a foxhole).


What's really annoying about this stuff is that in the US it was the military that pushed integration of the races well before most of the rest of the country. It made sense and if someone had a problem with it the military could deal with it.

Funny, that they can't do the same with something that's even less obvious than a person's race.

[The Kernel]

Why doesn't the Army just be honest and say they don't want gays because they're afraid of gay men seeing the straight men naked in the shower? Seriously, all this is is high school football player, jock bullshit. "Undermine readiness" my ass.

I think there's a fair amount more to it than that. I'm not in favor of the discrimination either, but that's a vast oversimplification of the issue.

How is it an oversimplification? Durandal is right, this is all about testosterone infused soldiers feeling uncomfortable about openly gay men seeing them naked in the shower and the Armed Services making the decision to validate this discrimination. I don't see the issue as any more complicated then that.

[Stormbringer]

I think there's a fair amount more to it than that. I'm not in favor of the discrimination either, but that's a vast oversimplification of the issue.

At one time the excuse for discriminating against homosexuals was that they were a bigger security risk. In otherwords, someone would find out about their secret and then blackmail them into doing stuff for the commies.

Which is largely a bogus issue and doesn't have anything to do with this.

That reason has disappeared and now it's stuff like readiness (because he might see me shower, or we'll have to share a foxhole).

The fact is, not everyone is going to be comfortable living in the sort of communal living set up the military has, with some one who is a homosexual. That's not a little issue and it really does go far beyond the sort of petty crap that Durandal's talking about.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why doesn't the Army just be honest and say they don't want gays because they're afraid of gay men seeing the straight men naked in the shower? Seriously, all this is is high school football player, jock bullshit. "Undermine readiness" my ass.

I think there's a fair amount more to it than that. I'm not in favor of the discrimination either, but that's a vast oversimplification of the issue.

How is it an oversimplification? Durandal is right, this is all about testosterone infused soldiers feeling uncomfortable about openly gay men seeing them naked in the shower and the Armed Services making the decision to validate this discrimination. I don't see the issue as any more complicated then that.

Because they're afraid that gay men will be seriously injured or murdered once they let on that they are gay. The military doesn't need those kind of problems....

[The Kernel]

Because they're afraid that gay men will be seriously injured or murdered once they let on that they are gay. The military doesn't need those kind of problems....

Ahhh, I see, so they are protecting them eh? Isn't that some of the same reasoning that was used to exclude blacks and whites from going to the same schools?

[Durandal]

Because they're afraid that gay men will be seriously injured or murdered once they let on that they are gay. The military doesn't need those kind of problems....

Oh what a fucking load of shit. This is the military, not some free-for-all, redneck circle-jerk. Soldiers are expected to maintain discipline. If some asshole, homophobic soldiers can't keep themselves from abusing their gay comrades, then they're the ones who should be thrown out of the fucking Army, not homosexuals.

[Elfdart]

I've noticed that almost every time someone comes on TV and frets thusly:

"If gays are allowed to serve, they might see me naked and get a boner."

or similar nonsense, it's painfully obvious that they ain't anybody's fantasy, gay or straight. Of course one look at the primates who worry so much about this sort of thing tells me that the only people lusting after their hairy backs and calloused knuckles have had too much to drink. *

Stormbringer, is it that unsettling to be in close proximity to homos? Is this fear or hatred that much more disturbing than it was for a racist cracker from Mississippi to have to bunk next to a black guy years ago?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Because they're afraid that gay men will be seriously injured or murdered once they let on that they are gay. The military doesn't need those kind of problems....

Oh what a fucking load of shit. This is the military, not some free-for-all, redneck circle-jerk. Soldiers are expected to maintain discipline. If some asshole, homophobic soldiers can't keep themselves from abusing their gay comrades, then they're the ones who should be thrown out of the fucking Army, not homosexuals.

Unfortunately, it is not a load of shit. Yes, it is unfair. It is simply just easier to have the don't ask don't tell policy. In order to throw a soldier out for abuse that would require the abuse or worse to have already happened. This brings unwanted media attention to the military, which it does not need.

As for discipline;

While I was in tech school we had many underage drinking incidents, fights, and DUIs. It was such a large problem that most of our weekends were spent in lockdown. It's an unfortunate fact that a majority of enlisted soldiers aren't very intelligent, and with lack of intelligence comes abundance of intolerance.

I don't like the policy the military has but it isn't done with concern towards the well being of morale in the military, which would also be effected.

[Elfdart]

Because they're afraid that gay men will be seriously injured or murdered once they let on that they are gay. The military doesn't need those kind of problems....

Oh what a fucking load of shit. This is the military, not some free-for-all, redneck circle-jerk. Soldiers are expected to maintain discipline. If some asshole, homophobic soldiers can't keep themselves from abusing their gay comrades, then they're the ones who should be thrown out of the fucking Army, not homosexuals.

On a similar note, isn't it interesting that according to many right-wingers, teenagers are to be expected to "keep it in their pants" sexually and can be tried as adults if they commit crimes because in both cases, they are considered mature and responsible enough to be held accountable for their actions? But just a year or so later, they can't be trusted to serve alongside women or gays because they can't control themselves?

I call bullshit, Kamikaze Sith.

[General Zod]

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said the loss of gays and lesbians serving in specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have been in those jobs in the first place.

i'm amazed that this bitch didn't recognize the hypocrisy of her own words. the whole don't ask/don't tell policy allows homosexuals to serve in the military, even though it's not exactly a fair policy in and of itself. She's effectively arguing that they shouldn't be allowed simply because they're homosexual.

''We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service,'' Donnelly said. ''There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual.''

and amazingly she never attempts to explain how it's incompatible with military service or how it hurts military function in any fashion whatsoever.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Because they're afraid that gay men will be seriously injured or murdered once they let on that they are gay. The military doesn't need those kind of problems....

Oh what a fucking load of shit. This is the military, not some free-for-all, redneck circle-jerk. Soldiers are expected to maintain discipline. If some asshole, homophobic soldiers can't keep themselves from abusing their gay comrades, then they're the ones who should be thrown out of the fucking Army, not homosexuals.

On a similar note, isn't it interesting that according to many right-wingers, teenagers are to be expected to "keep it in their pants" sexually and can be tried as adults if they commit crimes because in both cases, they are considered mature and responsible enough to be held accountable for their actions? But just a year or so later, they can't be trusted to serve alongside women or gays because they can't control themselves?

I call bullshit, Kamikaze Sith.

They can serve alongside women just fine. However, they don't have to bunk next to women, I could see a whole shit storm of problems happening if that was allowed.

The same logic is applied with gay men. When you sleep in a dorm, or barracks with roughly 60 people anything can happen at night and you'd never know who it was. Unless somebody talked but then it would still happen, I bet there'd be an incident in every unit.

I spent six weeks living with 60 other people, and there is one intolerant asshole in every group. Like I said before sure the one who abuses a gay soldier would be kicked out, but that would be after the fact which is something the military does not want.

[The Kernel]

They can serve alongside women just fine. However, they don't have to bunk next to women, I could see a whole shit storm of problems happening if that was allowed.

The same logic is applied with gay men. When you sleep in a dorm, or barracks with roughly 60 people anything can happen at night and you'd never know who it was. Unless somebody talked but then it would still happen, I bet there'd be an incident in every unit.

I spent six weeks living with 60 other people, and there is one intolerant asshole in every group. Like I said before sure the one who abuses a gay soldier would be kicked out, but that would be after the fact which is something the military does not want.

So instead it is better to send a message that intollerance is A-OK?

[Kamakazie Sith]

They can serve alongside women just fine. However, they don't have to bunk next to women, I could see a whole shit storm of problems happening if that was allowed.

The same logic is applied with gay men. When you sleep in a dorm, or barracks with roughly 60 people anything can happen at night and you'd never know who it was. Unless somebody talked but then it would still happen, I bet there'd be an incident in every unit.

I spent six weeks living with 60 other people, and there is one intolerant asshole in every group. Like I said before sure the one who abuses a gay soldier would be kicked out, but that would be after the fact which is something the military does not want.

So instead it is better to send a message that intollerance is A-OK?

I don't see it as intolerance. I see it as a necessary evil, and whether you like it or not it is mostly there to protect gays.

[Plekhanov]

The fact is, not everyone is going to be comfortable living in the sort of communal living set up the military has, with some one who is a homosexual. That's not a little issue and it really does go far beyond the sort of petty crap that Durandal's talking about.

The fact is that the British and many other European armies have had openly gay soldiers for a while now and the last I heard the British armed forces still seem to be functioning pretty well, if our servicemen and women can get past this “discomfort” why can’t yours?

[The Kernel]

I don't see it as intolerance. I see it as a necessary evil

You probably would have seen Jim Crow laws as a necessary evil too 40 years ago, but that doesn't make them right, nor justified.

, and whether you like it or not it is mostly there to protect gays.

Spare me. If openly gay men in the military found they had a problem with intollerence, they have many avenues open to them. They don't need you tossing them out in order to "protect" them.