Mil Recruiters told to accept gays.

[SirNitram]

Link

WASHINGTON – A Pentagon spokeswoman says recruiters have been told that they must accept gay applicants, following a federal court decision striking down the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said Tuesday that top-level guidance has been issued to recruiting commands informing them that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule has been suspended for now. Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium could be reversed at any point.

Last week, a federal judge ordered the military to stop enforcing the 1993 law banning openly gay service members. The Justice Department is appealing the decision and has asked for a temporary stay.

Clawing a little further each time.

[Thanas]

So how does this work?

"You're hired". 5 seconds later: "Oops, you're gay. You're out."

[ClownPrinceofCrime]

The ruling means that for the time being, openly gay soldiers can't be kicked out for being gay. This is just extending it to also letting openly gay people apply to the military.

[Gil Hamilton]

However, until the ruling is actually set in stone and doesn't get reversed on appeal, it wouldn't be a good idea to come out of the closet or tell the recruiter.

[Stark]

Wouldn't being openly gay make army life suck, though? What kind of openly homosexual individual would want to join a strongly bigoted institution?

[Mr Bean]

Wouldn't being openly gay make army life suck, though? What kind of openly homosexual individual would want to join a strongly bigoted institution?

Strongly bigoted? Care to justify that as anything other than your personal opinion?

[Stark]

No? There's a question mark there for a reason. If the US military is a fine place for homosexuals, what's with all these stupid laws? Is the army less bigoted than the civilian population?

[RogueIce]

If the US military is a fine place for homosexuals, what's with all these stupid laws?

Holdover from whenever the laws first went in? DADT as a policy came to be during Clinton's presidency, but homosexuals not being allowed to serve predates that by a fair bit, though I don't know when the anti-sodomy law was placed in the UCMJ.

Is the army less bigoted than the civilian population?

It probably varies greatly depending on each unit. And of course your chain of command. I've heard of units where everybody "knows" somebody is gay and doesn't care, thus nobody officially knows the person is gay. That sort of thing.

[Stark]

Hats why I ask- if someone is openly gay enough for a recruiter to pick it, isn't that going to he a problem, even if your commander isn't bigoted if the organisation or rules are?

[RogueIce]

Hats why I ask- if someone is openly gay enough for a recruiter to pick it, isn't that going to he a problem, even if your commander isn't bigoted if the organisation or rules are?

Yep, though at least if the commander isn't bigoted you could probably count on some help if you're being harrassed.

Of course repealing DADT by court order isn't the end of it anyway. Sodomy is still a crime in the UCMJ, which means gay soldiers can serve but technically can't have sex. Though admittedly it is extremely unlikely anybody would ever be charged for it because you'd also have to go after straight soldiers for getting BJs as well.

[SVPD]

That isn't the only problem. DADT is acutally just a policy that tells the military how to enforce the law. The law that actually prohibits gays from being in the military is 10 U.S.C. § 654, which was not, AFAIK challenged or ruled upon in the lawsuit.

Thus it is possible that this ruling could massively backfire and allow the military to still kick gays out, without even the protection of DADT which prohibited asking about orientation.

I don't know if that's terribly likely if recruiters are being told to accept the openly gay (no point in going to the trouble to bring them in then boot them out), but it is a risk.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

Does anyone know what the precedent is on the military using ex post facto situations after a policy change? I'm not really familiar enough with the history of military policy to come up with a suggested example; possibly something having to do with military spouses on-base, I vaguely recall that being a bit of a contentious issue some time ago.

Basically what I'm asking is, if someone imprudently outs themselves / gets outed during this moratorium, is it likely that information could come back to bite them in the ass indirectly if the moratorium gets un-moratoried, or would they have to make a fresh admission after that?

[SirNitram]

Link

Oct 19 (Reuters) - A federal judge formally refused on Tuesday to let the Pentagon reinstate its ban on openly gay men and women in the U.S. military while it appeals her decision declaring its "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional.

A day after tentatively siding against the Obama administration, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips issued a written decision denying a government request to lift her own injunction barring further Pentagon enforcement of the ban.

President Barack Obama has insisted he stands by his 2008 campaign pledge to end "don't ask, don't tell," but his administration had urged the judge to allow more time for a political remedy to the issue rather than a court-imposed one. (Reporting by Steve Gorman; Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Peter Cooney)

Stay rejected.

[Lonestar]

So how does this work?

"You're hired". 5 seconds later: "Oops, you're gay. You're out."

Doubt it's like that. I know of more than a few instances when a gay servicemember was outed by the command and then it was determined that because s/he didn't actually do the outing, s/he couldn't get removed from service.

[Lonestar]

Doubt it's like that. I know of more than a few instances when a gay servicemember was outed by the command and then it was determined that because s/he didn't actually do the outing, s/he couldn't get removed from service.

Bigass caveat: The SLDN is still advising those not to come out until there has been a final policy change. IMO, there's enough evidence to suggest that anyone who comes out won't be discharged after the fact, but the SLDN is obviously a big believer in CYA.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

That isn't the only problem. DADT is acutally just a policy that tells the military how to enforce the law. The law that actually prohibits gays from being in the military is 10 U.S.C. § 654, which was not, AFAIK challenged or ruled upon in the lawsuit.

Thus it is possible that this ruling could massively backfire and allow the military to still kick gays out, without even the protection of DADT which prohibited asking about orientation.

I don't know if that's terribly likely if recruiters are being told to accept the openly gay (no point in going to the trouble to bring them in then boot them out), but it is a risk.

On the other hand, if the ruling that gets rid of DADT did so because not allowing gay people to serve is discriminatory and unconstitutional, then surely exactly the same reasoning would still apply to a straight 'no gays allowed' rule? The law might not have been directly challenged, the the precedent would still apply to the obvious and immediate lawsuit such a policy would produce.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wouldn't being openly gay make army life suck, though? What kind of openly homosexual individual would want to join a strongly bigoted institution?

Yes. It would. Which is why whenever I think about it, I think more and more that it should stay on the books. I waffle on this of course, depending on how angry I am that day, how much I have slept etc... still, this chain of reasoning really does bother me.

Because gay people cannot marry and have it be recognized by the feds, no gay marriage performed in the handful of states that do allow gay marriage will mean shit in terms of spousal benefits for gay men and women in the military. No base housing, survivor benefits. Hell, not even notification upon death, leave for medical emergencies, nothing. Moreover, the sodomy laws in the UCMJ are still there, so if a gay person is married, they can be charged with Sodomy, even if simply being known as gay wont get them discharged.

That is just the legal stuff. The whole reason this issue has the broad support that it does is because this nation has a hard on for sending young people into the proverbial meat grinder. Afterall, everyone deserves the right to die for their country, but only the Pure get to have fucking civil rights. The message the broad support for repeal really sends is not "Everyone is equal, including gays". It is "Yes, by all means, enlist. Fight and die for your country. We wont recognize you as a full person, but if you want to fight and die for us while being treated like shit in return, please do so. If you do a good enough job, we might even give you scraps from our table called civil unions so long as you dont flaunt your ungodly sodomy too much."

Fuck that. At least with DADT in place, there is no hypocrisy.

[Simon_Jester]

Bear in mind, Alyrium, that a broadly similar situation was in place in 1947 when Truman desegregated the army- which, today, is viewed as a key step towards finally putting a stake through the heart of Jim Crow.

Bringing an end to DADT won't make the military as gay-tolerant as you'd like, but it takes out the keystone of the discriminatory system: it forces the Army to make that choice about things like spousal benefits and notification on death for homosexual couples, rather than just say "What? Why would we do something like that? There are no gay people in the army; we know because we don't look for them and they don't dare to admit it."

At which point instead of just watching DoD and the military stonewall the issue, you'd begin to see a hundred little side battles fought over the question: some will be lost, and some won, but the social trends favor progress on the issue.

Right now the hypocrisy is still there, and it still affects gays in the military. It's just hidden, because the bureaucracy doesn't have to admit it exists. DADT lets them pretend there are no gays in the military and eject any gays who reveal themselves.

I'd argue that the eroding-away of institutional hypocrisy cannot begin until the cover that protects it is destroyed.

[eion]

I agree with you AD, it's unconscionable to allow GLB service members to serve openly while denying them the civil rights of other service members, but correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the study being carried out at the moment (the one the DoD claims is about HOW to implement the repeal of DADT and not IF to do so) is looking at spousal benefits and base housing requirements for GLB service members.

I'm fairly confident that DOMA will be repealed/overruled in a few years, but do you think that repealing DADT won't help with that? "Opponents want to deny soldiers' families the right to even be told of their death," would seem to be a fairly damning argument in favor of giving GLB service members full spousal recognition.

[Bottlestein]

Most of the problem are the fossilized generals. The idea that bigotted Privates will have "morale problems" is laughable. As one veteran neatly put it: When did the Generals start asking the Private for permission?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I agree with you AD, it's unconscionable to allow GLB service members to serve openly while denying them the civil rights of other service members, but correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the study being carried out at the moment (the one the DoD claims is about HOW to implement the repeal of DADT and not IF to do so) is looking at spousal benefits and base housing requirements for GLB service members.

I'm fairly confident that DOMA will be repealed/overruled in a few years, but do you think that repealing DADT won't help with that? "Opponents want to deny soldiers' families the right to even be told of their death," would seem to be a fairly damning argument in favor of giving GLB service members full spousal recognition.

I have seen no indication that gay spouses and partners will be recognized during my research on the subject.

As for a damning argument... You would think that would matter. However the people who like DOMA are the same people who think we are sub-human monsters out to molest their children and lead them astray from Jesus.

Bringing an end to DADT won't make the military as gay-tolerant as you'd like, but it takes out the keystone of the discriminatory system: it forces the Army to make that choice about things like spousal benefits and notification on death for homosexual couples, rather than just say "What? Why would we do something like that? There are no gay people in the army; we know because we don't look for them and they don't dare to admit it."

Many years and a few lawsuits later, they may... just may... recognize state gay marriages. That is as far as they can legally go without nationwide gay marriage. Frankly, with the makeup of our courts and the absolutely fucktarded conservative resurgence in congress (thank you United States of Amerikkka), I dont think DOMA is going anywhere for a LONG fucking time. In fact, I would not expect the recently passed Hate Crime legislation to stick around for long.

[Simon_Jester]

I have seen no indication that gay spouses and partners will be recognized during my research on the subject.

As for a damning argument... You would think that would matter. However the people who like DOMA are the same people who think we are sub-human monsters out to molest their children and lead them astray from Jesus.

Absolutely. Their counterparts sixty years ago thought black people were mutant ape-men out to molest their daughters and lead them astray from racial purity, too.

In a society where the civilian culture is steadily trending in favor of tolerance- and it is; much of the portrayal of gays in society today would have been unthinkable if you went back two decades and outright illegal if you went back four.

Forcing people from the young-adult demographic to serve alongside members of the minority group in the military makes a shift away from discrimination against the minority more likely, not less.

Many years and a few lawsuits later, they may... just may... recognize state gay marriages. That is as far as they can legally go without nationwide gay marriage. Frankly, with the makeup of our courts and the absolutely fucktarded conservative resurgence in congress (thank you United States of Amerikkka), I dont think DOMA is going anywhere for a LONG fucking time. In fact, I would not expect the recently passed Hate Crime legislation to stick around for long.

It's not going to be fast. I'd be favorably impressed if it takes less than twenty years: that's about how long it took to get decent civil rights legislation in place for blacks after the desegregation of the military.

That doesn't make keeping a discriminatory policy in place to 'avoid hypocrisy' a good move. It's fine for preserving an unsullied 100-0 score of victories for cynicism, but that doesn't make it smart tactics.

A lot of the driving force behind the conservative backlash of the past few years (or, if you prefer, the intensification of a backlash that's been going on for the past decade and a half) is made up of, bluntly, old people. Look at the age demographics of the Tea Party and you'll see it; this was pointed out to me recently.

What's critical is convincing the next cohorts not to follow in their grandparents' footsteps, or at least not to unflinchingly march that road at all costs and no matter who gets hurt. It worked for convincing the troglodytes that black people weren't evil mutant ape-men; it will work for convincing them that gay people aren't evil satanic child molesters.

Repealing DADT is, if nothing else, a step towards giving a valuable clue to the next generation of troglodytes. That's progress, believe it or not.

[Sea Skimmer]

It probably varies greatly depending on each unit. And of course your chain of command. I've heard of units where everybody "knows" somebody is gay and doesn't care, thus nobody officially knows the person is gay. That sort of thing.

I’ve heard of a bunch of cases in which soldiers openly said they were gay, and the unit commander simply closed his ears, didn't have them discharged, and ordered them off to Iraqistan anyway. That kind of problem is exactly why DADT has become such a huge issue in the last two years. If the commanders won’t enforce it, the policy has to die because otherwise it is explicitly undermining the chain of command.

[Cecelia5578]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

Not so fast, says 9th Circuit:

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

(10-20) 16:26 PDT San Francisco, CA (AP) --

A federal appeals court says the military should keep in place its "don't ask, don't tell" policy for now.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday granted the Obama administration's request for an injunction suspending a California-based judge's ruling that found the policy unconstitutional.

The 1993 law says gays may serve but only if they keep secret their sexual orientation.

Government lawyers sought to suspend the ruling while appeals were pending, arguing that it would pose a major problem for the military. They said it could encourage service members to reveal their sexual orientation before the issue is fully decided.

President Barack Obama says he supports repeal of the policy, but only after careful review and an act of Congress.

EDIT: My pessimistic guess is that SCOTUS will also uphold the injunction, there's no way Congress will, in its lame duck session, overturn it, and we'll be back to square 1 till 2012. It really depends on which side of the bed Anthony Kennedy gets up on.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Not unexpected. This administration continues to politically shoot itself in the foot.