McCain: Homosexuals present intolerable risk to troops, troops disagree

[Alonzo]

Washington, DC � United States Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, has reiterated his support for the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. In an April 16 letter to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), McCain says the law, passed in 1993, "unambiguously maintains that open homosexuality within the military services presents an intolerable risk to morale, cohesion and discipline."

http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?record=3877&section=2

Troops disagree:

Nearly one in four U.S. troops (23%) say they know for sure that someone in their unit is gay or lesbian, and of those 59% said they learned about the person's sexual orientation directly from the individual, a Zogby International poll of troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan shows.

More than half (55%) of the troops who know a gay peer said the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit is well known by others. According to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, service members are not allowed to say that they are gay......

Of those in combat units, 21% said they know for certain that someone in their unit is gay or lesbian, slightly less than for those in combat support units (25%) and combat service support units (22%). One in five troops (20%) in other units said they know for certain someone is gay or lesbian in their unit. Overall, nearly half (45%) say there are people in their unit they suspect are gay or lesbian, but they don't know for sure. Slightly more than half (52%) say they have received training on the prevention of anti-gay harassment in the past three years. But 40% say they have not received this type of training, which is mandated by Defense Department policy....

The data also indicate that military attitudes about homosexuality have shifted. In the early 1990's, many senior officers argued that U.S. troops could not form bonds of trust with gays and lesbians, according to Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, who has written widely on the subject. According to the new Zogby data, however, nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. Of the 20% who said they are uncomfortable around gays and lesbians, only 5% are "very" uncomfortable, while 15% are "somewhat" uncomfortable. Just two percent of troops said knowing that gays are not allowed to serve openly was an important reason in their decision to join the military.


http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1222

High ranking military officials disagree as well:

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.)[8] and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen[citation needed] spoke against the policy publicly in early January 2007: "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," General Shalikashvili wrote. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."[9]

In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy. They cited evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces, and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.[9]

On 4 May 2008, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, when speaking to graduating cadets at West Point, expressed the view "that Congress, and not the military, is responsible for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law banning openly lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans from military service." Admiral Mullen’s answer came in response to a cadet’s question asking what would happen if the next administration were supportive of legislation allowing gays to serve openly. During his senate confirmation hearing in 2007, Admiral Mullen told lawmakers that, “I really think it is for the American people to come forward, really through this body, to both debate that policy and make changes, if that's appropriate.” He went on to say that, “I'd love to have Congress make its own decisions” with respect to considering repeal.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell#Criticism_from_military_pers onnel

[AlanC]

I agree, the policy should be thrown out. It is outdated and illogical anyway. What needs to be done is a new emphasis in the military that takes an uneqivocal no tolerance policy and attitude against sexual harassment by any gender towards any gender.

In other words, treat fellow soldiers with respect and dignity or you will be gone. If that was the predominate attitude and practice, everything else would work out well and this wouldn't be an issue.

[Mia]

I agree, the policy should be thrown out. It is outdated and illogical anyway. What needs to be done is a new emphasis in the military that takes an uneqivocal no tolerance policy and attitude against sexual harassment by any gender towards any gender.

In other words, treat fellow soldiers with respect and dignity or you will be gone. If that was the predominate attitude and practice, everything else would work out well and this wouldn't be an issue.


I agree completely. The new policy should be that if you are racist or bigoted toward gender or sexual orientation, 'don't ask, don't tell, and stfu'.

[Mia]

Oh - and same for police officers. I'm going to paraphrase George Carlin here, if you need 'sensitivity' training to find out you're not supposed to beat the f out of black people, you're probably too f'ed up to be on the force to begin with.

[AlanC]

Oh - and same for police officers. I'm going to paraphrase George Carlin here, if you need 'sensitivity' training to find out you're not supposed to beat the f out of black people, you're probably too f'ed up to be on the force to begin with.

Well, that is unless the black guy is trying to kill someone. Never say never.

[micfranklin]

Homphobia talking much?

[ScareCrow]

I wonder why there have been no gay bashing conservatives replying to this thread? Maybe they are afraid of proving that their hatred for gays goes further than just denying them the rights of married couples. I would love for some of those conservatives to come to this thread and start a debate about why they believe homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military.

[sam]

I agree, the policy should be thrown out. It is outdated and illogical anyway. What needs to be done is a new emphasis in the military that takes an uneqivocal no tolerance policy and attitude against sexual harassment by any gender towards any gender.

In other words, treat fellow soldiers with respect and dignity or you will be gone. If that was the predominate attitude and practice, everything else would work out well and this wouldn't be an issue.

Right on the mark Alan.

I've never understood this nations obsession with sexual preference regardless if you view it as hard wired, genetic, learned, or a choice. Judging a person by his sexual preference is the same as judging someone
by the color of their eyes, their age, their gender, whatever.

This policy should never have even come into existance.

[Easy90]

If McCain doesn't watch out, he runs the risk of losing all his gay backers. Wait...bad choice of words. Sorry!

[Pookie]

I agree, the policy should be thrown out. It is outdated and illogical anyway. What needs to be done is a new emphasis in the military that takes an uneqivocal no tolerance policy and attitude against sexual harassment by any gender towards any gender.

In other words, treat fellow soldiers with respect and dignity or you will be gone. If that was the predominate attitude and practice, everything else would work out well and this wouldn't be an issue.

You nailed it, Alan.
Thank you!
Purrs,
Pookie

[Trish]

While I do think the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is just plain stupid and should be eliminated, I can't find anything in the article link that Senator McCain said that "homosexuals present intolerable risk to troops..." What I found was that he said the LAW said that. He also said, "I believe polarization of personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well-intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual service members above those of their units. Most importantly, the national security of the United States, not to mention the lives of our men and women in uniform, are put at grave risk by policies detrimental to the good order and discipline which so distinguish America’s Armed Services." He also said, "I remain opposed to the open expression of homosexuality in the U.S. military."

From my reading of the Senator's comments it seems clear that he believes that "open expression of homosexuality" would be counter-productive to "good order and discipline" in the services. While the senator's comments are somewhat limited I am taking the "open expression of homosexuality" to mean an openly same-sex relationship involving two members of the military in the same unit or whatever. Isn't that already covered under non-fraternization rules?

I tend to think that ANY intimate relationship between service personnel in the same unit would be counterproductive to good order and discipline and is why fraternization is prohibited. It seems quite unnecessary to me that gays and lesbians be under any further rules about personnel relationships.

[Elrathin]

I can't find anything in the article link that Senator McCain said that "homosexuals present intolerable risk to troops..." .....

I guess you missed this part from the quote:

McCain says the law, passed in 1993, "unambiguously maintains that open homosexuality within the military services presents an intolerable risk to morale, cohesion and discipline."

[G.B.]

McCain is intolerable as a candidate for President IMO. I breathe Libertarian with a dash of conservative. If over 70% of the servicemen/women have no problem with this why are some IDIOTS still holding on to it?

Seems I remember that Billary was the one that signed this bill, even before the Republicans took the majority on Capitol Hill. We need a "HOUSE" cleaning, both sides of the aisle.

I am retired military (before Don't ask, don't tell). As long as sex/sexual orientation is kept out of the workplace, WHO GIVES A RIP! There can be just as much disruption/morale problems as the rest with an integrated unit of heteros where "sex" pollutes the workplace.

[Trish]

I guess you missed this part from the quote:

No, El. I didn't miss it. I did, however, read ALL the sentence and not just the words in quotes.

McCain says the law, passed in 1993, "unambiguously maintains that open homosexuality within the military services presents an intolerable risk to morale, cohesion and discipline."

[Deadshot]

The law was simply passed in '93 to get around the Religious Right Wingers and hence it has wording that is ambiguous and designed to apease the Right.

Gays are in the military and people realize that. Let's just open it up and acknowledge it.

IMHO, as a vet, having the current POTUS candidate, McCain, say that his stance on the war is right and my current CiC was wrong, does more to undermine me then the gay guy guarding my back.

[Trish]

I can't say I disagree, Deadshot. IMO, secrecy is a greater threat to cohesion and good order than a person's sexual orientation. I tend to think that the military's policies on non-fraternization could and would cover same-sex relationships exactly as they cover opposite-sex relationships. This "don't ask, don't tell" policy is just senseless in this day and age.

I've never been in combat so this is pure speculation on my part; however, I would think that in a fight the LAST thing on my mind would be who was sleeping with whom. I think I'd be much more concerned about the ability of the man/woman next to me being able to shoot well!

[Mia]

We need a "HOUSE" cleaning, both sides of the aisle.



See my sig and follow the link - that's exactly what we're doing! :thumbsup:

[bobbylien]

I see McCain is working to win those all-so-crucial white trash votes!

[Mia]

I see McCain is working to win those all-so-crucial white trash votes!

lol!

[heyjude]

Some one has to stand for the white trash.
"I believe polarization of personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well-intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual service members above those of their units." It seems to me that this is always the right wings response to equality. It is "elevating" their rights above everyone else's. I don't buy that. There is no reason why anyone's sexuality should matter unless they are interested in that person sexually. And that doesn't belong in a combat unit.

[Mia]

... I can't find anything in the article link that Senator McCain said that "homosexuals present intolerable risk to troops..."

...He also said, "I believe polarization of personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well-intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual service members above those of their units. Most importantly, the national security of the United States, not to mention the lives of our men and women in uniform, are put at grave risk by policies detrimental to the good order and discipline which so distinguish America’s Armed Services." He also said, "I remain opposed to the open expression of homosexuality in the U.S. military."



That's the exact same thing. You don't find 'national security of the US' being on the line on the level of 'intolerable risk'?

I'm not understanding your point. The man still thinks that the military will implode if the gay people in it say so out loud.

And that the solution is to keep this asinine policy instead of getting rid of the ones that can't tolerate a fact that has been around them all this time. :ponder:

[Burning Giraffe]

I wonder why there have been no gay bashing conservatives replying to this thread? Maybe they are afraid of proving that their hatred for gays goes further than just denying them the rights of married couples. I would love for some of those conservatives to come to this thread and start a debate about why they believe homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military.

I think a lot of Christian Conservatives actually believe that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military, but they know that their opinion on the issue isn't popular, or justified, so they don't speak up.

[underdawg]

That same lame argument was presented when the idea of mixing black and white soldiers. They claimed that army cohesion would break down, but never happened. To make the claim that the breakdown of unit effectiveness would occur if homosexuals could serve openly seems to point ,not a problem of homosexuality, but a problem of training and discipline and from the upper levels of military leadership. When you are a member of the armed services, you soon realize that homophobia is taught to the recruits. It is not something that comes from the incoming soldiers but is shown as part of the training. It is mere peer pressure that homophobia flourishes in the military and comes from the top down , not the other way. If from day one, it was told to incoming recruits, that no form of intolerance of minorities would be tolerated, I can assure you that homophobia would not exist in the military as it does now.

[G.B.]

That same lame argument was presented when the idea of mixing black and white soldiers. They claimed that army cohesion would break down, but never happened. To make the claim that the breakdown of unit effectiveness would occur if homosexuals could serve openly seems to point ,not a problem of homosexuality, but a problem of training and discipline and from the upper levels of military leadership. When you are a member of the armed services, you soon realize that homophobia is taught to the recruits. It is not something that comes from the incoming soldiers but is shown as part of the training. It is mere peer pressure that homophobia flourishes in the military and comes from the top down , not the other way. If from day one, it was told to incoming recruits, that no form of intolerance of minorities would be tolerated, I can assure you that homophobia would not exist in the military as it does now.

I served in the USN from 1971 to 1992. To be honest I never was taught or trained to be phobic of gays. It wasn't even addressed except at the enlistment interview. I never once heard of or attended a training session that had anything to do with homosexuality. I would be interested in where the poster's information came from. It's news to me and I spent twenty years in the military BEFORE don't ask, don't tell.

Now, on the other hand DIVERSITY training I attended a number of times, as well as race relations training early in my career in the 70's.

[underdawg]

I was in the army from 1985-1988. It was never formally taught to be anti-homosexual, but during basic training there was subtle reference to homosexuality in the songs we sang during cadence, the drill sergeants would refer to homosexuality in a taunting way to get us to do things. Homosexuality was the butt of jokes used by officers, and sergeants alike all through my stay as a medic in the 2nd/75th Ranger BN. Now racism was something that the army would not tolerate, and at the time sexism was something that the army was trying to come to terms with, but as far as homosexuality goes, it was clearly something that the army would not tolerate and had no problem making fun of.

[sam]

One of my closest friends from high school enlisted in the navy right after graduation and just recently retired after over 30 years of service as a Comander.

According to her experiences, there still exists discrimination with blacks and females, but not to the same degree as with homosexuality.

And even tho racial and sexual discrimiinatin still occurs in the military, it is still far more accetable than homosexuality. Hopefully, in a couple of years, sexual preference
will be judged as about an accurate indicator as the first two obstacles did.

To me, homosexuality as the same as religion; I dont really care if you are hetero, bi, or gay, or an atheist or fundamentalist................just don't keep insistentely on shoving YOUR beliefs down my thoat.

That's when I start getting a little bit nasty.

[G.B.]

According to her experiences, there still exists discrimination with blacks and females, but not to the same degree as with homosexuality.

And even tho racial and sexual discrimiinatin still occurs in the military, it is still far more accetable than homosexuality. Hopefully, in a couple of years, sexual preference will be judged as about an accurate indicator as the first two obstacles did.



Which shows the military is just a microcosm of society at large, which really isn't any surprise. There is residual bias against persons of color, against women, and against homosexuality everywhere in America. While I find it inexcusable, it's just a fact of life that we all still need to work on.