"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Although many think homosexuality is a behavior, I beg to differ. I used to pray to God every night to change the way I am. Ever since I was in Elementary school I have known I've been different. My friends all had boy crushes and never talked about liking other girls. I did and felt all alone. I asked my dad what a "lesbian" was after reading about a woman named Ellen who came out publicly that she was gay. My dad told me that it was a girl who liked another girl and she was going to hell because of it. I cried myself to sleep that night and for many years after. I did not want to like girls. I tried dating boys with no success of changing my feelings. I figured I'd live a lonely life, until I allowed myself to be who I am. I was raised Catholic and my family was very homophobic until they realized they had a gay daughter. My other siblings are heterosexual. That was not conditioning, a trend, or some form of faulty upbringing that made me who I am today. I believe in God and know that he made me who I am. No one else can judge me but him and I put my full faith in him everyday as I go through life.
I also currently serve as an officer in the Army. I know exactly how hard it is to serve knowing that my career could end at any moment if someone were to find out about my sexuality. I have never gawked or looked at a woman inappropriately whom I serve with. That is not out of fear of being caught, it's out of respect for other women. I would never want someone gawking at me while I change, so I don't do that myself. I have deployed with 10th Mtn proudly and when I came home I was not able to share my relief and joy with my girlfriend as others could at the welcoming home ceremony. I live in constant fear that my career could end at any moment. I hate having to hide who I am and there's not a day that goes by that I don't struggle with it. When I ended my relationship of 7 years, I couldn't talk to anyone about it. My relationship lasted longer than most military marriages and yet I have no support. I still go to work everyday having to put up a front that everything is fine, because as far as anyone was concerned I wasn't even dating anyone.
I can't express the insurmountable stress it causes to have to hide a piece of who I am. When DADT is overturned, I won't be jumping out of my office screaming "I'm gay" to the world. I'll just be able to breathe easier knowing that my job is secure and relax. I won't discuss my personal life with coworkers because it's none of their business, but at least I would have the option to. I wouldn't have to pretend to have a crush on a guy or go on a date with a fellow CPT in order for others to not get suspicious.
For those saying that gays shouldn't be allowed in the military, the news flash is that we currently do and are allowed to. Under the current policy, no one is allowed to accuse us without evidential proof nor ask us questions about our sexuality. I am also not able to talk about my relationships as others are free to discuss their husbands/wives/girl/boyfriends. Could you heterosexuals imagine not being able to say anything about your partner? What if the policy said no one discusses their relationships, period? I bet the suicide rate would skyrocket. Don't discuss your wife's new attitude or husband's infidelity. Don't talk about your girlfriend getting pregnant or boyfriend proposing. Imagine going throughout your entire career not being able to discuss your relationships and not being able to bring your loved one to any military function. I bet you couldn't.
It's easy to say the policy should stay the way it is when you don't have to live it.

P.S. Besides me, I know quite a few Soldiers who are gay and you wouldn't know it. In my unit alone, two live in the barracks (1male/1female), and have heterosexual roommates that know and don't care.

(Moderator Comment: This post was edited in accordance with the Blog Comment Policy.)

I had to medically retire a couple of years shy of my 20 and served proudly. I appreciate everyone here who serves.

DADT should never be repealed nor should feel it is fate that awaits.

I was a homosexual from childhood up to young adult. I left that life style because of my Faith in Jesus Christ who changed my life. Because of that, homosexuality is a choice...we're not born with it and needs to be debated. The only ones who would be in the with the "born with it" category would be hermaphrodites. Because they can't help the way they were born.

One of the problems with homosexuals openly serving is it creates a political vehicle to silence any opposition from people like me and will resort of force conformity to those who don't agree with it.

I notice there is a lot of comparing homosexuals to minorities. The problem is one is racial and the other is behavior. They are not comparable. So because of that, we don't want to put the "cart before the horse". The issue of a person being born gay needs to be debated before we burden our military and society with political issues.

The issue of homosexuality is a political issue...really! It's being taught to our kids in public schools under the Trojan horse of diversity. It's indoctrinated into college students by major universities. It's broadcasted on TV by a wayward Hollywood so society now a days is desensitized to point they are complacent.

Our Republic was built upon on a civilized society. When "anything goes" then "everything goes" when there is a lack of morals.

Persevere and keep of the fight for our nation!

B1jetmech

@Cognitive Dissonance: Is the military's rules on segregation about sex (the act) or about sex (gender)?

Perhaps YOU should first answer that question.

Is it that females are segregated from males to prevent sexual encounters/relationships? Or is it that females all bunk in the same quarters because their needs (and body parts) are all the same and it's more feasible for the military to deal with living situations this way?

I don't see what the issue is with the repeal of DADT. It was a bad policy to begin with. Imagine the morale of a gay or lesbian soldier constantly struggling to hide who he/she really is? If you're straight and a gay soldier makes a pass at you, all you have to do is turn that soldier down. Simple as that. Are you afraid of your own feelings? Are you afraid you might be attracted to a gay soldier? If that's the case, you'd be having those feelings now - repealing DADT is not gonna change that. And, believe it or not, gays know other gays. If you're straight, it is highly unlikely that a gay or lesbian soldier is going to come on to you. In real life, who sits around talking about their sexuality anyway? Who cares who you sleep with? What should matter is that you do your job to the best of your ability and your sexual orientation has nothing to do with that. Just like race has nothing to do with how well you do your job. Nothing.

I and several others on this thread (e.g. Lupe below) believe there is a ABSOLUTE EQUIVALENCE between the self-evident, traditional concerns with placing (forcing, actually) males and females into compromising living arrangements and placing (by force of law or policy) any other problematic variation wherein one is the object of the sexual desire of another.

A question for those who insist it is no big deal…

Why is acceptable for a heterosexual male, to be forced to live with a homosexual male, but it is not acceptable for a female to live with a male?

If the DoD can answer this question satisfactorily, then the end of DADT will be soon and the transition will be a smooth one.

If the DoD cannot—or will not—answer this question, then the transition will be rocky, and the problems unnecessarily manifold.

Although I am not in the Army I have been reading the postings on this blog and just wanted to comment since the issue affects not only the Army but all of the other armed services as well. This whole matter started as a "diversity" issue to promote equal opportunity. I don't believe a persons sexuality has anything to do with equal opportunity because a persons sexuality is, in my opinion, a behavior or lifestyle. The policy right now seems fine. After all, look at this way...what business does declaring someone's sexual preference have to do with performing the job??? Someone please tell me. The military is just not ready for this upheaval because there are too many other important issues that need addressing. Political correctness should have its limits, especially on the battlefield. Oh btw, I'm straight but not that it matters. Although it might to some if I posted that I was gay.

Dear Sir,
My concern with letting gays in service is the living arrangements. Being a female would I have to room with a lesbian? If so, is that not the same as letting me room with a male? They both have the same sexual preference. Now would this increase the risk of rape? I am a short female 62 inches what is keeping a female bigger than me from rapping me? Same situation with showers. This is more of a concern for being deployed and in the field, were privacy is minimal. If males are not allowed in female rooms or showers what is the rule for gays? Are living arrangements going to be changed? Also after looking at the charts in Army Times and knowing that so many soldiers are against it, why are we still going through it? I stand nor for, nor against this. My concern is what changes are going to be made for living conditions after this change is made?

As a former company grade officer who has dealt with more than a few unreasonable wives of my Soldiers, I cannot imagine the new can of worms that we will now open as the FRG expands to accommodate the "same sex partners" and all of the new headaches this will entail. Fellow officers I know who commanded CS and CSS units already have premature gray hair from dealing with heterosexual relations between their male and female Soldiers. Now we will get to expand that across the full range of sexual preferences. Have fun with that. I'm still baffled as to why this is an issue. AF MG Hale and AR MG Byrnes saw their careers come to an early end due to adultery. Isn't that just a relationship or lifestyle choice, too? We're so unfair.

I'm also glad that I am not a JAG Officer who will need to reconcile full integration of openly homosexuals and their partners with a mutually exclusive statute, such as the Defense of Marriage Act (which defines marriage as a man and woman and prevents benefits from being extended to other definitions of married partners - what do we do in regard to DEERS?). No more easy days of processing wills and powers of attorney at SRC/SRP. You get to implement a controversial new policy and, if you screw any of it up, have fun when the media descends upon your office.

Good luck, also, to future commanders who will need to deal with the headaches surrounding implementation of this policy in the barracks, with the S-1, in the housing areas, and at FRG meetings, while simultaneously preparing a unit for combat. Your plate wasn't full enough already. Here's another turd sandwich to chew on. Army Strong!

I have be in the miltary for almost 40 years and I have be gay for the whole time. No one cared I don't care and I do my job. All the arguments are bull...it;s the military your adapt you do your job.

Sir,
This is indeed revolutionary stuff. Not the deliberate reconsideration of the DADT issue, but that you're actively encouraging such an adult, open dialog.

I'm one of your officers, currently deployed supporting a WIAS tasker and I look forward to my Division meeting up with me here in Afghanistan. My partner of 10 years and I have happily accepted the various assignments the Army has given me this past decade and have weathered my two 12-month-long and one 15-month-long deployments like, I would imagine, nearly every other couple - save for one detail: the partner I leave behind has no support from any official channels. He would be notified after my brother who is listed as my Emergency POC/NOK. After 10 years, my partner has earned the right to be told first about my death. He has earned the right to make my health emergency decisions. And, he has earned the right to be recognized for his sacrifices just as any other spouse. The exception being that he is not a spouse. We are not a recognized couple. And the very fact that he and I live in a marriage-like relationship could cause us to lose my pension and our financial security later in life.

As a former combat arms commander, I've had to face the DADT issue not just because I am gay - an imutable characteristic that is no more a choice for me than someone could choose their race - but because I've had 4 gay men in my command who I have known to be gay. I knew about two of them because they believed that living a lie was counter to their ethical charge as Soldiers. One was chaptered and the other was transferred. I knew about another because he was outed by an Evangelical roommate who had "baited" him into admitting it to him. He was not chaptered because we were a week from deploying and no one believed he really was gay. When he left the Army after we redeployed, he came back to tell me that indeed, he was gay. And, I knew about the fourth one because after he died of wounds from an IED, his partner of four years wrote me - not knowing my orientation - to tell me how much SSG ___ loved the Army, how we were the only family he'd ever known, and how much he appreciated the support of his fellow NCOs who knew about his personal life and whose spouses back home had taken care of him (the partner).

The "there's a gay dude looking at me in the shower/coming on to me in the fox hole" argument is a pathetic, lame canard. Having been through more than my share of the Army's best lodging - Ranger School comes to mind, as do the Hindu Kush, the desert in Iraq, and multiple Army gyms across world - I can tell you that the only thing I've ever thought about while showering was getting in and getting out. I'd be lying if I was to say that I've not worked with attractive people. We all have. But the difference between being an animal and a professional is, among other things, our ability to control ourselves. And, the only thing I've ever thought about in actual combat was living long enough to take care of my guys and to make it home alive.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this ongoing discussion. And, I hope that if GEN Ham and his panel ask you what your opinion is, that you answer based on the facts, on the beliefs of this current generation of Soldier, and that you eschew the bigoted hypotheses of those who do not believe that the only way for Soldiers to truly be the Soldiers they are ethically charged to be, is to be honest with their buddies, honest with their chain of command, and honest to themselves.
V/r,
Mountain Soldier (fwd)

As a military brat in the 70's, I lived on military bases...mostly ignorant of all of the problems outside the gates. I really didn't know racism until I moved off base in the mid 80's, I never saw drugs on base, and kids could play outside without fear of rape or kidnapping.

We didn't have gay TV shows, a gay network, nor was sexuality a matter of conversation. We didn't have gay actresses coming on TV and asking us not to say "That's so gay"...we never said it anyway.

My kids don't have that same innocence that my generation had. Gangs, teen pregnancies, drugs, and the myriad of other problems that permeate American society have now also infected our military communities. With all of the acceptance and tolerance that Americans cling to these days, it has not become a better place.

Listen up kids: I lived in a better America. America changed for the worse because we stopped listening to our elders. START LISTENING TO AND RESPECTIING YOUR ELDERS BEFORE THEY'RE GONE.

Why don't we have male Soldiers living with female Soldiers in the barracks now? Why do we separate genders in the showers and latrine facilities now? The answer is: Because it is the right thing to do. Why change that? Shall we create more showers and bathrooms and designate them as "Other?"

What do we do for a Soldier that does not want to live in a room or shower with someone that wants to have sex with him/her?

To what benefit or advantage will allowing people to openly solicit or commit homosexual acts within our fences and in our communities? NONE. The military does not need to accept homosexuality now, nor does it ever.

I feel that a ban on homosexuals in the military needs to stay in place. There is no place in this nations great military for sub-par soldiers that do nothing but hurt morale.

It is a big can of worms to open. However, this younger generation is more tolerant and accepting at their age than my generation was in their 20s. I believe that the older you get the less you care about trivial things, the younger generation has already shown that they think "gay" is trivial.

I think the questions that must be answered by the Administration are:

Marriage only 2 (I believe) States allow Gay marriage. How does the military deal with that? The housing and other benifits afforded to Married couples question will be the biggest hurdle to jump.

New policy training: What will be trained and how will it be trained?

How do we deal with the people that are going to have problems with the new change? Are we going to give them more training or just kick them out?

We still had a problem with Racism and Sexism in the 80s and we were fully integrated for at least 20 years by then. It is going to take 20-30 years for this policy change to be fully accepted and just be a normal part of being in the military.

For the Administration to make a decision without answering the basic questions and just say figure it out guys would be irresponsible on their part. Fortunately for me, I am no longer caught up in the day to day duties of a SRNCO. They are the ones who will have the policy change burden to bear. I have faith in my Brother/Sister NCOs that they will be able to execute any policy decision handed to them. I do not envy them this task, but I know they will be able to handle whatever comes down the pike.

I'm going to address some of the issues that have been presented in this blog.

latrines
- As a female (even prior to commissioning), I have shared latrines with men and have not felt threatened. We are adults. I've also trained in the woods and have had to squat to pee next to men when no latrines were available. No threat, Non-issue

showers/housing
- There are so many gay and lesbian Soldiers currently serving, that odds are every single Soldier serving today has showered or roomed next to a homosexual and have had no issues.
If there becomes a problem, that's EO just like male to female.
If a Soldier has an issue with rooming with an openly gay individual, that's what they bring up to their chain of Command.
- Just because a Soldier is gay or lesbian does not mean they are attracted to and will hit on or seduce any man/woman who walks the earth. The homosexual Soldiers who sign up for the Army do so for the sole purpose of wanting to defend their country. They do this even through adversity and discrimination. Just because they will now be able to serve openly doesn't mean they will change any bit of self-respect or respect for their fellow Soldiers.
- Two gay/lesbian Soldiers living together would be a non-issue. This issue shouldn't be about jealousy if those two gay Soldiers decide to date. The issue would be if it affected them doing their job which is a leadership issue. There is no issue on them getting pregnant.

Marriage
- The military should recognize all marriage certificates that are legalized in their licensing state. There shouldn't be many issues with providing marriage benefits the same as a heterosexual family ie. TriCare, housing etc. If they are not married, they should not receive benefits, no exceptions.

There should NOT be any form to fill out on sexual orientation because that would only increase discrimination or persecution. A person should not be forced to reveal their sexual orientation just as they are not forced to reveal their religion if they so choose as to avoid persecution.

Most homosexuals would chose not to reveal their sexuality even when the policy changes. It's no one's business but their own who they go home to, and until EO rules are enforced with the policy change, most will fear revealing their sexuality in the beginning.

Once this policy changes, everyone will be surprised at how this will not affect the military at all. Words, acceptance, EO are all changing, but that's it. The same people serving beside you today are still going to be there. They'll just be allowed to serve without the fear of being fired for their sexual preference.

To comment on "shouldn't lesbians be able to shower with gays with no issue?"
The answer is "no." That's a chauvinistic mindset. I wouldn't want to have to be naked in front of any man gay/straight unless it's my husband. A person's sex is completely different than a person's sexuality.

For those asking about compensation for not wanting to share a bathroom facility with a homosexual, chances are they already have. Another point is that this is the same issue that arose when integrating troops back in the 1940s. A lot of whites didn't want to share facilities with black Soldiers and argued many of these same points. Fact is accept it, move on, or get out if you can't serve your country next to the same battle buddy (now serving openly) you had overseas last deployment.

This will benefit this military as a whole (after folks get over their panic attacks) because this will prevent good Soldiers with vital MOSs from being kicked out due to sexual preference. The military will not have to lower its standard of Soldiers in order to meet recruitment requirements because willing folks who wanted to serve before and were shut down or kicked out due to their sexual orientation will be allowed in.

The Army and it's leadership have spent intensive time and quality establishing the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy. As a senior NCO who has grown through the enlisted ranks under this policy, I completely understand it and the purpose behind it. It does work and in my own opinion, it is fair.

I have came across a few instances where I had to deal with situations that could have potentially gotten out of control but, by educating my Soldiers as a group on the policy, the work environment for my Soldeirs remained operational and successful. I believe we, as NCOs down to the SGT level, need to enforce the policy more and continue educating our Soldiers. We need to make time, put it on the calendar and enforce the policy.

To me, changing the policy is fixing a problem that isn't broken. If however the policy does change, I believe there will be a lot of confusion separating the old policy with the new. Alog with change, I beleive there will be more disciplinary situations that will surface requiring more supervision and leader presence in the barracks especially. This could potentially have an undesired impact on the mission, Soldiers, leadership, and especially those who want to join our ranks.

Accepting that Soldiers have a right to choose their sexuality is our biggest barrier. Platoon level leadership has the most impact on the lower enlisted. Let's enforce our current policy and provide more education if it's a problem

First I would like to express my appreciation for allowing this blog in order to get feed back from the Soldiers of Fort Drum and 10TH MTN Division.

I do not disagree with allowing homosexuals to join the Army; even the Policy allowed that as long as it was not published and broadcasted, however, I see the disadvantages in lifting the policy. Of course a major problem will see the hate crimes rise. Obviously so, it has happened in the military numerous times in the past and I would hate to see any Soldier assaulted or possibly killed because of their sexual preference, and let's face it... if the Command has a bias opinion then the perpetrator will walk free from prosecution and the victim will feel betrayed by not only his Command, but also the government judicial system, and if you cannot trust that then you cease on being a great Soldier.
Next thing will be, the barracks have to be segregated by male and female, if the policy is lifted you will have to allocate more funds to segregate from male, female, straight and homosexual adding two more groups.

For the most part after being in the Army you learn who has a different sexual preference from most and learn to get use to it, and most times it doesn’t bother you. I look at it in the way it would affect the camaraderie and the stabilization within the ranks. If one Soldier has a prejudice mind towards another Soldier because he/she is homosexual he/she will not trust him/her and the same the other way around.

I personally am against the repealing of the DADT policy, but it is inevitable that it will be repealed. Some others have written about would they be able to move if someone who is openly gay moves in next door, could they move out? Obviously the answer is no. Some questions are rather foolish such as that one posed by multiple readers/writers. When gays are allowed to serve openly, the military would crack down on Public Displays of Affection, PDA, which would enable the military community to gradually get adjusted to having openly serving gays in their midst. Also another course of action would be to limit housing to those who have kids, thereby reducing 60% of most gays Soldiers from obtaining housing, so parents would be able to limit their children’s exposure to an openly gay lifestyle. But there are some questions that would be open to debate, ie,..would the military move to unisex latrines? Obviously not now, but then, what is the difference between a gay Soldier taking a shower with other males (and possible getting turned on), or male Soldiers taking shower with other females Soldiers?

Bottom line, if it is implemented, we have to crack down on tolerance. It took a long time for the military to stop saying jokes about minorities and jokes about women. While some Soldiers do say them still, it is no where near as rampant as it once was. Initially it will be rough for the openly serving gays, but it will die down as all things do and we will get back to business. When I joined the Army 18 years ago, it was just another day when you saw someone gay and a Soldier said out loud a comment about the individual’s gayness. I remember seeing some of my Soldiers eating lunch a few months ago, and their waiter was very very gay (I don’t know how else to describe how gay the man was, but you get my point). The Soldiers were all Infantry, and they could only laugh and make subtle comments, that only they could hear at their table. They did not treat the waiter with any disrespect at all and left him a decent tip. I remarked to an NCO at my table about how far we have come from years ago. If we believe it will be repealed, I will admit as an Officer, we have to stop with the gay jokes and off hand comments. It will take me a LONG TIME to stop, so because of this blog, I will refrain from saying them and set the example for my Soldiers.
Last note, I hope that openly serving gay service members do not turn-in every person who says a gay joke. I myself am black, and while I have heard some off color jokes…I know that not every joke was malicious. Some jokes were funny and I have told to other minorities and whites. We do not want to create a hostile work environment, but we also do not want to create Soldiers who resent and blame them, then find ways to deal with them after hours either. Homosexuality and the hatred of them is found in men/women of every race and ethnicity, so if the policy is repealed, tolerance and acceptance must start with the Officers and senior NCO’s.

I have not read every post, but one from a field grade officer asked what if a family wanted to move out because a gay couple moved in next to them? My question is why would it matter, I am asian and have had people ask my husband why would he marry one of us and not an american, did we move out from beside her because she is against asians? No of course not we simply do not talk to or deal with her. If I was a gay couple and the next door does not like us it is simple enough not to talk to them. Hmm if i was Muslim would the army allow my neighbors to move out for fear of catching my religion? Let the gays serve, allow them housing, benifits and proper respect if they lose a loved one during combat. It should be so easy and I do not understand why all the talking and research to do what is so easy to see is right.

Sir,

I believe the true question that you asked is how should any potential change be implemented and what are the potential Soldier concerns/issues senior military leadership will need to address?

After 22 years of service, beginning before DADT and ending during DADT, I can only say that this issue will have to be addressed from the very moment a recruit puts on the uniform and enters BCT.

The question here is not "If DADT is going to be repealed" but rather "When it is repealed." It is going to happen and probably sooner rather than later.

The Army has undergone many changes throughout its long history and this issue shall be overcome as have all the others. The Army has served as a model for others around the world to emulate. It has set policies and regulations that have been changed over time, sometimes due to trial and error but it has always managed to get it right.

When this issue is repealed, there will be guidance and it is up to the senior leadership to issue and enforce that guidance with its subordinate leaders all the way down to that brand-new, just promoted team leader. We may find that this is not going to be as big an animal as many predict.

What I find most disheartening by some of the comments that I have read, is that fear of social change seems to be worse than fear on the battlefield. I can say through experience that when you're taking fire, the concern of whether the guy next to you is gay or not becomes pretty moot.

You and your colleagues have a big challenge ahead of you and I can only pray that you all jump in with both feet.

Sir,
In your unit today there are men and women who commit adultery. These individuals do so because they have made a personal sexual choice. Civilian courts will not place them in jail for their actions. However, the Military will not change its laws to allow those individuals to actively participate in sex with multiple partners given their personal wants and desires. Don’t ask don’t tell policy which protects homosexual behavior does not allot the same protections to these individuals. On my last deployment I meet a Muslim, Arab speaking Soldier who supported the Division. He held strong to his traditional religious and cultural rights. One of these religious rights allows him to merry more than one spouse. It was easy to understand his conviction given that all his childern did not look like his “only wife” in his photos. Two of his childern had the distinct features of his female cousin who lives with his family given their cultural arrangements. No one in the civilian courts will put this Muslim man or the Mullah who blessed his second marriage in jail. However, the military surely will not rethink its policy and allow him to keep two spouses in post housing and will not pay for BAH for multiple wives. Don’t ask don’t tell policy which protects homosexual behavior does not allot the same protections for this individual. Thirteen years ago I met a couple serving in the military that frequented facilities and clubs which everyone knew were famously rumored to be places to go to if you were into swapping spouses. In a conversation with one of the two service members mentioned as to the issues of perseption created he stated that “although on the record I can tell you that I do not participate in those acts when it comes to sexual expressions my wife and I are very happy about our sexual choices”. In the civilian life you can be a bisexual. In the Military you will face UCMJ action for your sexual behavior. Don’t ask don’t tell policy which protects homosexual behavior does not allot the same protections to those individuals. In recent years I have met a number of older service members who have left the service and married younger service member serving in the military. Since love has no bounds sometimes younger men fall in love with older women and vice versa. However, current military law states that those individuals must curb their sexual wants and desires if they are going to serve in the military. An older officer can not marry a young enlisted and that law will never be overturned. If you are going to force military members to actively support homosexual lifestyle than make it fare across the board. Allow Muslim soldiers, either male or female, to openly marry more than one spouse and give them the full financial support and legal protections of the Military. If anything an influx of Muslim, Arab speaking Soldiers in the Military would by far more of a benefit today than allowing a handful of homosexuals how may not even possess any operationally needed skills but want to serve openly. To make it fair we might as well allow bisexual soldiers to openly live the sexual life they want with no worries of having UCMJ action taken against them. I also recommend that we should remove adultery as an offense from the military books since most of the Soldiers in your Division will be tempted to commit adultery after multiple deployments and multiple years away from their spouses. We might as well allow soldiers to marry across the ranks since love has no bounds when it comes to age. Everyone has a sexual want, need, and desire and if we are to support the minorities’ needs we might as well fulfill everyone’s needs openly. Otherwise I recommend we keep the current policy and not change it to fulfill the personal desire of a few to force the acceptance of their sexual lifestyle on every aspect of our society to include the Military system.

The can-do attitude of “SR NCO” is to be commended.

However, extreme willingness does not address the crux of Mountain 6’s question; “…not only what you think, BUT HOW SHOULD ANY POTENTIAL CHANGE SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED?”

It is easy for the beauty pageant contestant to want world peace.

It is easy for the diplomat to endorse a two-state solution.

It is easy for the politician to promise fiscal restraint.

It is easy for the sycophant to support dropping Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

It is quite another thing to make any of them a reality.

Some questions to ask with regard to this issue are--
• Should unmarried homosexual couples receive the same benefits as legally married couples (Transfer of GI Bill benefits, Base Housing, Military Spouses Career Advancement Account, Family Separation Allowance, Family SGLI, Tricare Dental, Survivor Benefit Plan, Spouse Educational Assistance Program, Military Spouse Preference Program)?
• If unmarried homosexual couples are given such benefits, will they also have to be granted to unmarried heterosexual couples?
• If discrimination is prohibited, will there be a related requirement for affirmative action in recruiting, retention, and promotion to compensate for past discrimination?
• If the current policy is changed, what will be the effect on the tens of thousands of past cases, particularly in terms of claims for back pay, reinstatement, promotions, and similar forms of relief?
• If the policy is changed, what accommodation, if any, should be made for a heterosexual who objects to rooming or sharing bathroom facilities with a homosexual?
• Should the military have a single code for conduct between members of the same sex and members of the opposite sex, or should there be a code for each type of conduct?
• Will Chaplains be prohibited from preaching from Bible passages which deal with the subject of homosexual behavior?

I have spoken about this with a number of my Soldiers. None of them have a problem with being gay, the problem is basic fairness. A young SGT brought this up during a little bull session, he stated “I can’t share a latrine with female Soldiers, I can’t shower with female Soldiers, I can’t room with female Soldiers… but if gays are to be allowed to be in the Army openly, they have the right to do all those things with me and other gays… how is it different for me showering with a female and two gays sharing a shower? There is no difference.” I believe he had a very good point. How can we subject some to rules and not others? One standard. The don’t ask, don’t tell works. I believe in fixing problems, but this particular fix will create far more turmoil that it will ever correct. JMHO

It is becoming clear to me that resistance to repealing DADT stems largely from ignorance and fear. The assumption that no longer requiring gay Soldiers to hide would result in utter sexual chaos is ludicrous. A Soldier who is homosexual is still a Soldier, with the exact same training and military bearing as any other, held to and meeting the exact same standard. However, it seems that many Soldiers are operating under the impression that an unrepressed gay Soldier would be compelled to flamboyance and nymphomania. To these fellow Soldiers I must ask: Have you ever had any kind of meaningful interaction with a gay Soldier, or any gay person at all? I can say that I have, to both questions, and they are just as grounded and capable as any of their comrades-in-arms. The notion that allowing gay Soldiers to come out of hiding would require straight Soldiers to "watch your back" is just insulting, both to gay Soldiers and to any form of intelligence.

Will repealing DADT bring difficulty to the Army? Of course it will. As with any social change, there will be resistance. Since many Soldiers are carrying deep-seated beliefs and prejudices, tension and even harassment cannot be avoided. But just as with the integration of blacks and women in generations past, it is a growing pain that must be endured to challenge and overcome fears and prejudices and allow gay Soldiers to focus on doing the jobs they volunteered for rather than hiding.

Additional food for thought: Imagine the number of potential gay recruits who are turned away from serving their country because of DADT. Now imagine the patriotism and determination and sheer GUTS of the many who still joined knowing what they were going into! My respect for them is immense!

To address the more practical issue of implementation, I can already imagine an Army-wide mandatory POSH/EO-style Powerpoint class. Sexual preference may be recorded, not to give gay Soldiers their own barracks, but to prevent gay Soldiers from bunking together, just as straight male/female soldiers are. Whether this is done in an official capacity (i.e. publicly in your file) or informally is something that will have to be tried and tested at the ground level and evolved over time. For showering, keep your eyes up and get over it. If someone unwelcomely hits on you, there are already POSH/EO systems in place to address it. It's not perfect, but it's a start until actual trends start to develop.

I have served for 19 years. My son is gay and I always taught him to never judge anyone. My son and I have discussed this subject numerous times. He begins his masters degree this year and has wanted to serve for years. However each time this subject comes up, I talk him out of it. I do not want my son to hide who he is or have to worry about being judged for the insecurities of others. My concern now, is that no one knows how to do away with the DADT policy. Really, is this still a problem? Just get rid of it! Or will I now have to witness the army revert to the same discriminatory policies that were in place many years ago, when certain soldiers could not serve with or live with soldiers who were not of the same race. I certainly hope not! But now I hear people talking about seperate living quarters and other "seperate but equal treatment". Hold on, I remember seeing that kind of thing in some old black and white news footage from long ago. Yes, we could let them in but, we need seperate dining facilities, segregated fitness centers with straight only locker rooms, oh and drinking fountains, and they would have to sit at the back of the plane on the way to Iraq, you can't leave that one out! But wait, how would we identify them, I know, we could force them to wear a rainbow patch above the name tag on the uniform, we could mark their ID card, or add an extra line on the ID tags, right under their religion. I am really laughing hard at this point! I don't care who you are, that's funny! So many of you really need to get over this fear it is not good for anyone. I have gone to a few gay bars with my son and seen soldiers there, so even if you don't want them to serve, they already are, with honor. With regard to the fear of being hit on, or molested by the "gays", I have discussed this subject with some of my gay friends, they stated, that they are attracted to other gay people, so why would they have an interest in you, if you are not gay. It makes sense to me. If "hit on", is it so dificult to say you are not gay. A straight man would not have a problem telling a woman whom he has no attraction, that he is not interested. It is sad, when I hear the judgemental comments or gay jokes made by soldiers. Because, I think about how my son would feel if he were standing right there when it was said. But, most of the individuals who joke like this would not say such a thing in front of my son if they new he was gay. He is 6'4" 230Lb. and can bench about 3 of them. What would happen if a racist joke was made as open? We have an EO program in place, and it seems to be very effective with fighting racial or gender discimination, it just needs an upgrade. I think our soldiers would not have a problem getting rid of the DADT policy. Most already know someone who is gay and serving. The individuals out there fighting to keep the policy are few, and can truly not justify keeping it. If they have such strong disciminatory views, than maybe they should leave the military. I am sure they would not be missed.

I've been in the Army for 11 years and I have known many gay Soldiers. The gay Soldiers aren't the problem, it's the straight ones who are insecure with themselves. And I can almost guarantee that half of the people that have posted to this have either roomed or showered next to a gay Soldier and never even known.

Just because a Soldier is gay doesn't mean that a male Soldier will hit on every male he sees or vice versa for females. So how would an all gay barracks be of a concern.

Of course with anything comes the opposite. We still have straight Soldiers raping other Soldiers. So to think that won't happen somewhere along the lines is just plain ignorant.

Do I believe that they have to openly come out and say they are gay? No. Thats their preference just like anyone else.

All of the Soldiers who have posted negative comments about gays just need to grow up!

Personally I would rather go to war with a gay Soldier rather than one who gets high!!!

Why is it a big deal? As some other people have said if everyone came out then most of you close minded people would be in shock! I've known many many people that were gay or lesbian. And to be completely honest they could care less about most of the people that are actualy in the Army. They aren't looking at you! Most of them are looking in the Civilian world for a partner.

As said by another person. There are plently of straight people living with a gay person in their room. They have an agreement. My roomate is a lesbian and honestly... She doesn't look twice at me. You know what? It doesn't bother me. I don't care.

It is honestly not that big of a deal that there are gay people in the Army. They do their job, they do it well. I think that the only reason a gay person should get kicked out of the army is because they are not doing their job the way it needs to be done.

The Army works right now. We shouldn't change that just because people are prudish and can't stand the fact that some one who is gay is in the same unit as them.

And here is a question. We're all focused on the Gays and Lesbians...What about Bisexual males and females? No one ever mentions them.

there was an editorial in the Stars and Stripes yesterday that reflects my opinion on the DADT policy perfectly. Written by Kathleen Parker.

It basically says that civilians shouldnt be making the decision for us. If we find that there is a clear cut advantage in military effectiveness gained in repealing it then by all means go for it. If there is not or there is even the POSSIBILITY of our effectiveness being compromised by its repeal then we SHOULD NOT.

Cries about personal freedoms of members of the military are not a valid reason to repeal it. When you agree to serve you also agree to suspend certain personal freedoms.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/os-ed-kathleen-parker-020710-20100208,0,1225393.column

The Army already reaches too far into Soldiers' personal lives much too often, as many of the leaders have become extremely self-important. I once had a supervisor try to tell me that he was going to inspect my living quarters, as the Commander ordered that 100% of the unit will have their living quarters inspected. I own my own home. He came very close to being arrested for trespassing. What does my house have to do with the Army? If a Soldier's orientation does not affect their on-the-job performance, and is not causing them legal troubles in their off-duty time, who cares?

I have to agree with SR NCO. Where is the line drawn? Everything is in the name of progress. What happens when homosexuals want the military to recognize same sex marriages? What about every facet of the homosexual society such as the transgender or transvestite. Should we be excepting of this also. Should Tricare be required to pay for sexual reassignment operations? For some homosexuals this is apart of there culture... Where does it end?

Sir, I oppose changing the policy.
In the long run yes, the Armed Forces would adapt if a change is implemented. The current problem is the Army especially already stretched thin, can we afford the disruption right now.
Female CPT below said she would welcome all of the Soldiers that would join because they could now serve openly. But even high estimates say only 10% of the population is gay, some already serve quietly. Will such a small increase in the pool of potential recruits make up for those who will either leave or not join because of the policy change, there will be some. Also, since homosexuality would not be a factor for service, to stay in the closet could be a bigger issue with security clearances (why are they still hiding it).
Field Grade Officer says “As for marriage, that will not be changed, so homosexual wont be allowed to marry or be allowed to move into family housing.” But some States do allow homosexual marriage, although none so far by public vote, so that is an immediate issue for housing and all other entitlements received by married Soldiers.
The comparison of us to other nations is little more than a stunt every culture has its own norms. The U.S. compared too much of Europe is sexually repressed due to our early puritan heritage. Star war was an X-rated movie when originally released in Sweden, but nudity was allowed in G-rated movies.
This thread is also highlighting some ongoing problems with the current policy. Those “leaders” who knowingly supervise homosexual Soldiers without processing them for discharge, and those “leaders” who separate without investigation the quitter who cries “gay” just to get out.
SGM Duvall says “Since our military is a direct reflection of our society, it would be easy to presume that 10% of our military force is homosexual.” First, we are not a direct reflection as the news points out during every election we are more conservative than our nation in general. Second, the restrictions on homosexual conduct are widely known (the media keeps bringing it up). This make it logical to conclude that the percentage of homosexuals in the Armed Forces is lower than the population in general.
The SGM further states “Discussion of sexual activity, sexual preference, or sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has no place and is inappropriae in our operational or work environment.” This may be policy but is unfortunately not reality, combat arms or combat support, company level, to theatre headquarters, I’ve never seen the office where it never comes up, it’s just a matter of frequency. Sexuality is in our TV shows, advertising, even in our cartoons now, people talk about what they see including topics of sex. If this were not the case then this issue would never have come up because homosexuality would never have been prohibited.

Sir with all due respect who cares. It is a dead issue. Ive been serving this great country for 17 yrs. I dont care if you are straight, gay, bisexual as long as you are willing and able to do the job you are supposed to. Discrimination based on anything has absolutely no place in the military. If you are gay so what you signed your name on the dotted line just like the rest of us. You want to be open about it good on you. However if someones sexual orientation starts interfering with good order and discipline they will be dealt with just like everyone else, quick fast and in a hurry. As a leader of soldiers my job is to make sure they get trained and come home from war in one piece and having to worry about someones sexual orientation is the least of my concerns. The only problem i could possibly see is housing. But being as we as leaders dont deal with that anymore let the civilians worry about it. Again a soldiers sex life should be of no concern to leaders, we need to focus on OUR MISSION NOT A SOLDIERS SEX LIFE.

The military is full with homosexuals, and we only see the 10% of them, the flamboyant ones. They have been doing their jobs just like the rest of the us, fighting for freedom & peace, Soldier's skill level, MOS related job. I do not see why we cannot accept them for who they are. We work with them every day, share the same office pace, and being led by them.
Above all we are Soldiers, we've been trained to adapt to changes and the environments we are living in and that's what we are going to do with issue. If we believe that we can change the heart and mind of the people in the middle east, I do not see accept gay in the military as a challenge.

I don't think that us as Leaders should be concerned with a Soldiers sexuality over his/her performance as a Soldier. We are a mission focused offensive military; one with superior capabilities over our enemies and allies. Our goals and mission accomplishment should be our main priority. I firmly believe that collectively as Leaders we can overcome this change and Soldier on just as we do now with religion and ethnic differences. The Canadians overcame this issue back in 1992. Most of us didn’t even know that they allowed gays to serve in their forces. So for those who are against the issue, when you’re working with the Canadians in Afghanistan, or any of the 29 other countries that allow gays to serve openly, I hope you can put it aside and continue to fight and lead like warriors. If you can’t, I suggest you do your research and find out what other 29 countries allow gays to serve before you take part in multi-national operations.
In closing, I would like to add a bit of history about Alexander the Great. During his life he conquered the then-known world. He controlled Greece, captured Persia and Egypt and built a city in Egypt. He named it for himself, the city of Alexandria. He was the king of Macedonia and a Pharaoh in Egypt. By the way, he was gay. (Just a thought)

Sir, I have been serving this fine country for almost 20 years. One of the things that stand out is the country's ability to adapt to change. We are an Army that overcomes many challenges, both in garrison and in combat. I dont see why we couldnt overcome this one. On my E-5 promotion board I was asked about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and I gave the answer I thought "they" wanted to hear. Soldiers sexual tendences, straight or gay, have no place on the work enviroment. There are and will always be gay soldiers in the US Army. As Soldiers we follow orders. Those who choose not to follow them get dealt with swiftly. No one holds a gun to my head and says I must serve, I choose to do it. With this said, Once gays are allowed to serve openly I have a choice to make, stay in or out. I'm certain that most will choose to stay and continue to serve.

Concerned Soldier said:

"This country was founded on principals. These principals were largely derived from religion. How would our ancestors react to this issue? They would roll over in their graves if they saw how the constitution that they fought and died to protect was now used to defend every criminal and morally void act. We are a nation and an Army that was formed based on Christian values."

Uh, where exactly in the US Constitution is there even a mention of Jesus Christ? Or any specific deity? Last I checked, some of the Founding Fathers were avowed deists (i.e., one Thomas Jefferson) who were suspicious of the role of organized religion, which is why they believed so strongly in a separation of Church and State. After all, the Declaration of Independence is notoriously vague on the role of Christ, prefering to use the term "Nature's God" and "Creator":

(How can we defend our Constitution and Declaration of Independence if we don't even know what's in them?)

i have but a short comment and it is that if we allow openly gay soldiers to stay in the army then we need to be ready for the fact that no matter how hard we try they will end up in a room with either a straight person or a gay person. I think that the best way to handle this is to just allow someone to chose there type of barracks my suggestions for these are
Straight males only barracks
gay and lesbian only barracks
straight male and female barracks only
straight and gay barracks

Issues our leaders need to solve before this shift in policy occurs:

latrines, showers, housing

entitlements for legally married gay soldiers

programs to promote recognition (ie. gay soldier month)

additonal training required

additionally funding required for all the above

potential negative impact on future recruitment and military morale

revise the manual of courts martial addressing sodomy as a crime

Seems to me that there are quite a few lesbians out there that the army turns a blind eye to. I dont see why we focus on the Gay Males so much when we are overloaded with a carefree attitude for our Lesbian soldiers. We should not have a double standard. No is No to everyone!

Soldiers are taught to be leaders among the population in equal rights among men and women, different races, religions, and cultures.

I think it is time for the armed forces of this country to accept the shifting cultural norms of the society we defend, and become leaders for the integration of people of differing sexual orientation into our culture.

We should approach this issue as we do with all issues. Training the force in tolerance is key. Military members that discriminate or harass based on sexual orientation should be treated no differently than if they had acted the same way against someone based on gender, race, or religion.

It is no secret that there are already several members of the armed forces that are homosexual, and, for the most part, members of their unit already know who they are. But we don't have large-scale hate issues because the younger generation in the force has already accepted the societal norm. It is now time for our governement to get on board.

I will support and uphold the current policy until it is changed, because that's what Soldiers and leaders do. However, good leaders also take the time to continuously assess if current policies are working or need to be modified. The military has always been a highly trusted organization among the people. Let's listen to them, and keep it that way.

I do not think any change to the Dont ask dont tell policy should change at all.

The workplace should always remain neutral;therefore allowing you to do your job peacefully, and keep your personal ideas to yourself without anyone becoming offended. Not everyone tolerates this particular lifestyle. It is no different than trying to force someone to except your personal religious beliefs. It's not right. It's about respect for other's privacy. The military is not only a workplace, but a soldier's home. It's a two fold deal. In a home/workplace you have the right to believe and practice what you want, but not the right to force your ideas on others. The DADT policy allowed that neutrality. DADT is equivalent to EO. Everyone has an equal opportunity to serve their country, believe and practice what they want, but is not given the opportunity to infringe the beliefs of others.

Perhaps this will finally be the catalyst that forces us to grow up as an Army and leave our puritan cultural baggage behind. Eight years of combat operations and the integration of males and females throughout our formations has already gone a long way in this respect. Once we officially acknowledge that sexual orientation has no bearing on being a Soldier, but sexual behaviour sometimes does, it will force us to rethink some fundamental assumptions.

For instance, we currently have separate living quarters for male and female Soldiers because we all acknowledge that people will have sex, and often this adversely affects good order and discipline. We recently have allowed married couples to cohabitate while deployed, because a married couple having sex with each other is conducive to morale and discipline.

If we acccept the fact that we have Soldiers in our ranks who are attracted to other Soldiers of the same gender, and we remove the prohibition on homosexual acts that exists under the current policy, then we have to accept that in a group of Soldiers of the same sex living together, some of them will have sex with each other, potentially disruptive to good order and discipline.

This produces two logical solutions: (1) establish separate facilities based on sexual preference or (2) emphasize the fact that disrupting good order and discipline is wrong, regardless of the gender of the individuals involved, not who is living with whom.

I believe the first COA is unfeasible. Do we want to have tents based not on gender but on sexual preference? Would this mean we have to establish male, female, and bisexual living facilities? This idea quickly becomes ridiculous.

The second COA will lead us to becoming more like what the European and Australian military cultures are like, where sexual preference is not a consideration and gender issues are treated as courtesies, rather than administrative requirements.

The solution to the billeting issue is to go to 1+1 barracks, in which every Soldier has a private living space and shares a latrine with his/her neighbor. This solves the issue of which Soldiers may be billeted with which. Is the expense of this construction something the administration is willing to cover? I hope so! The rest can be covered through EO/POSH training and enforcement.

I don't think many (any) heterosexual Soldiers will claim to be homosexual to get out of the barracks - they would have to get legally married first! If they do, well, they can explain it to Mom, Dad, and their girlfriends.

If the DoD is going to recognize homosexual marraiges (an eventual, natural and fair extension of getting rid of DADT), it won't matter from what state they are married. The DoD already recognizes marriages that some states consider void. For example, a heterosexual couple who happens to be first cousins may get married in New York where it is perfectly legal, but if they are assigned to Arizona, that state considers their marriage void from its beginning. Just a thought :-)

Personally, I think it would cause issues that people are not realizing. For instance -

Question: Can you be discriminated against based on sexual preference?

Answer: Under current law, yes.

In order to allow openly gay Soldiers to serve in the Army, I believe US Law would have to change to cover discrimination based on sexual preference. I'm not so sure that changing a regulation would cover the issue either. I've always heard that you can add to a regulation, but you can't take away from it; however, can Army Regulations add to US Law? I don't think so. The Army has to abide by Federal Law which only Congress can pass. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Unless the Army wants to allow discrimination based upon sexual preference, more thought needs to be put into this topic. Thanks for the blog sir.

Keep them out.

There is a reason why men and women do not stay in the same rooms while in barracks or training areas. There would be problems. So putting gays in the same rooms will also cause problems. So unless you want to stick me in the same room as another female keep them away. And I understand not every gay guy wants every man they see. I mean, if you stick a man in a room full of girls youre going to tell me there arent countless things to cause temptation. Same with a gay man in a room full of men. I'm not for it. I understand FREEDOM has no color or race and even sexual preference but the things we implement into our training and the way of life has no need for gays. Not to mention the harassment these guys/girls would get from other soldiers for their sexual preference would sky rocket causing more stress and problems for these soldiers. Who knows what would happen down range to these soldiers if they accidently said something or something they said was takin wrongly. It may lead to them in verbal or physical altercations. I know they are in the military and do everything as a soldier should be, but keep it to yourself.

I think that if you are willing to fight then you should be able to serve. With that said though I do also think that there are many no who do and they follow the rules as they are put in place.

Where I see a problem is two fold.

First, are we going to change the cohabitation rules for the barracks and chu's down range? I ask this because we are told that males and females aren't allowed to cohabitate for many reasons, one of which is to decrease the incidents of sexual assualt. Well that argument wouldn't hold water anymore. Also it would actually be more likely for a gay couple to request to be roomed together. I mean most units allow people to choose their roommates, does this mean that males and females will be allowed to be roommates?

Secondly, I am concerend for the saftey of the soldiers who do come out. What happens when one person comes out and their partner wants to stay quiet. I have heard of incidents where that can cause problems for the soldier who wanted to keep their private life private.

Honestly I don't think there is a perfect answer but I believe "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is about the closest we can come at the current time to a decent solution to this situation.

Sir,
I am fine with the proposed change to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I see it this way, as a Senior NCO, having been a PSG over gay Soldiers, let them be honest with themselves and others. Gays have served amongst us for years and will continue to. Not to be disrespectful, but honest, I find it ironic how this is a huge debate since we now have a blind Captain as the Company Commander for a WTU at West Point who will require special needs. As long as there is a mutual and respectful understanding between roommates, I do not see a problem. This will however require NCO’s to LISTEN to their Soldiers and allow them to “vent” their frustration if having a gay roommate is offensive due to religious values, or having “partners” visit.

I think the policy in place works just fine if you are a straight member of the armed forces. And, lets face it ALL active duty members have showered, and slept with a gay member of the service weather knowingly or not. I always hear I don't have a problem with the gay as long as they don't flaunt it, or "tell". So answer this question, of the people in your unit, how many of them do you know that are married? It is normal conversation to say what did you do last night, weekend, or on leave. Under current policy if a gay solider answers any of these questions honestly you are forcing them to "tell". Then you have deployments. Imagine being in theater afraid to call home, or when you do not being able to say I love you etc... for fear that you might be overheard and outed. That also goes for your emails etc.. Then you have a spouse at home that must rely on a family member to let you know if something has happened to you because the Army will not let anyone other than a family member be notified.

Sure, this is a scary issue for many who have little exposure to gay people. If someone is sexually harassing someone either gay or straight, they should be discharged. End of story. If you look at other countries that have allowed gays to serve openly they have had little or no incidence. I don't think you will need to segregate the showers or living quarters. Gays have always been their... not for a hook-up.... just to get clean and get some sleep.

How would the rest of the world feel about the United States Army after we openly allow gays. Leaders of country's we are fighting, would they look at the Soldiers/Leaders the same way? Would this cause the U.S. to seem more vulnerable? We could deal with all the other issues posted here about one persons opinion and feeling, but sit back and look at a bigger picture. The general perception of a gay guy is they are scrawny and weak. Sometimes that is true, but not everyone in the world knows that. Do we want the rest of the world to look at us, and not fear what we are capable of doing? I personaly do not have anything against a gay Soldier, as long as they dont try anything on me. I am just concerned about the rest of the worlds perception towards us.

Exactly how do you suppose you will 'FIND' all of the homosexual soldiers in your units? Do you think that they are all going to come out of the closet at the same time waving rainbow flags letting everyone know they're gay or lesbian? Especially if they will be forced to be segregated, ostrasized, etc from their units. Will we force soldiers to come out, or punish them if they don't? Will soldiers be forced to be segregated simply because they 'appear' or 'seem like' they are gay, even if they deny it upon direct questioning?

Army Policy and UCMJ cover violations of adultery, fraternization, assault, etc already in our armed forces. Why can't this simply be applied to similar situations with homosexual soldiers? Not all men are attracted any woman, and not all women are attracted to any man, the same can be said for gays and lesbians.

The Supreme Court already determined separate but equal cannot exist without infringing on others' rights. I don't see how we can segregate homosexual soldiers without subjecting them to discrimination.

Sir,
Well i feel strong that this policy will effect the moral of our fellow soldiers. Allowing gays in the military is not the issue in my opinnion. If you allow men to stay in the same room with other men and they are both gay then it is not fair to the individual who is not gay and has to pay money to be with the person with whom they love. That would be my biggest issue is allowing them to stay or sleep in the same quartes when others cannot simply because of their sexual beliefs.

I think that the policy outlined in Title 10 is a sound policy for many reasons and consequently should not be changed. I believe that a statistic has been reported at some time that approximately 10% of the American society is homosexual. Since our military is a direct reflection of our society, it would be easy to presume that 10% of our military force is homosexual. That being said, homosexuals are already serving in our military. The key issue is good order and discipline. Discussion of sexual activity, sexual preference, or sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has no place and is inappropriae in our operational or work environment. Homosexual, as with heterosexual activity in a private and personal setting is the business of the individuals engaged in that activity. Any sexual activity, discussion, etc., whether heterosexual or homosexual, in an operational environment goes against all principles of good order and discipline. This point is also reflected in the issue and policies of allowing females to serve in combat arms units, fraternization, and public displays of affection. The "Don't ask, don't tell" policy goes to the heart of the problem. If an individual has to make a point of his/her sexual preference then that individual has made it the issue, forcing the unit to respond with measures that segregate the individual(s) causing discipline issues within the unit due to double standards, etc.

The current DA/DT policy that has remained in place for nearly two decades is not "broke", so why is our Commander in Chief so intent on "fixing" it now? Is the President truly concerned with DA/DT, or is he simply trying to keep a campaign promise at the expense of the common core values of our Army? As already stated, the Army is not a playground to test out new methods of social and behavioral engineering to what one special interest thinks is the "right way".

The potential issues that would be created by repealing DA/DT are too numerous to list here, but in addition to billeting/showering/cohabitating issues that have already been addressed there will be the issue of recognition of gay "spouses" as dependants and whether or not gay "marriages" will be recognized by the DoD. As it stands today, the Defense of Marriage Act is still on the books, and even though a few misguided and politically-motivated states have attempted to legalize "gay marriage", the majority of Americans don't agree with it, as clearly seen in the recent overturning of "gay marriage" by voters in California. So the DoD would most certainly should not recognize anything other than normal marriage (between a man and a woman), in accordance with the DOMA, regardless of what a state my or may not decide to recognize.

The bottom line is that the United States Army is a values-based organization, and homosexual behavior does not have any place in the Army Vales. DA/DT is the only way, aside from outright barring homosexuals from serving, that can work. It is a privilege to serve your country, not a right. These people make the choice to be gay. Choices have consequences; that is the reality of the world. For those that would claim this is the same as freedom of religion I would remind you that it is most certainly not. Soldiers are prohibited by regulation from proselytizing their religion. They have to keep it themselves, just as they should their sexual orientation.

A lot of you boggle my mind.

Just because someone is gay, doesn't mean they're out to have sex with every person of the same sex. Not every gay man or woman has a STD, not every gay man or woman has "risky sex." Heterosexuals can get STD's just as easily as homosexuals. To the guys saying that you would feel uncomfortable sharing a room, changing in front of or showering in front of someone would make you uncomfortable...you more than likely have *already* shared a room, changed in front of, or showered in front of someone who is gay and have no idea since they can't speak up publicly.

I believe most of the armed forces are conservative. I feel that I am speaking for many soldiers when I say that we are tolerant of the current policy. I do not care what other soldiers sexual orientation is as long as I am not forced to accept it. The policy as is stands is working inside the armed forces. The Army is not a social experiment, we are a fighting forced designed to protect and serve America. The military as a whole is considered its own society. Why must we be forced to accept policy change because it was a "campaign promise"? We are tolerant up to a point. Where is the line drawn? Most of the United States currently does not recognize homosexual relationships from a legal stance. If Americans are not ready why do officials in Washington believe our military is ready? If this policy is pushed through what will the military do to house these new groups of individuals and what will happen to those soldiers that wish to separate because of the policy change. I don’t believe this will be a change in policy alone. In the years to follow I see a change in the ranks as conservatives opt out of the military and idealists begin to take their places. I for one will opt out. I am not a radical I just hope that I can stand up for those who can not. I am not trying to offend anyone by my comment. I would just hope that any policy change would be made to improve our military. I do not see this in removing don't ask don't tell. Thank you Gen Terry for opening this discussion and seeking the opinion of your soldiers.

Bottom-line: If someone wants the liberties to express their sexuality, they should bear the responsibilities that come with it.

I think it is a foul to have people in the same locker rooms with those of an opposite sexual persuasion, regardless of whether they are straight or gay. If straight women and men are afforded privacy from their sexual counterparts, yet they are stripped of that privacy when it comes to homosexual men and women, then the whole “equality” argument is a sham. If they want to express their sexual orientation openly, great! Just please don’t tell me I have to strip and shower in front of them afterwards.

I think in order to move forward as a nation and also mature as a fighting force, the removal of the Don't ask policy is essential and long overdue. I understand that such change has many up and arms over the issue due to the obvious concerns with what to do once we allow them to be open, but such concerns never stopped the allowance of females. Why should it affect this as well? Also, How could we consider ourselves guardians of freedom and democracy if we spend our time denying such a fundamental right as to serve your country. Those that have a strong desire to serve their nation should not be told no regardless. All the small details of billeting and so forth will be worked out as the process evolves.

I know gay people in the military, I have worked with these people, some I admired as soldiers some I haven't. I hasn't bothered me working with homosexuals but I am concerned about how the Army could implement a ban on don't ask don't tell. Think Equal Oppertunity, if a female or minority soldier goes before a promotion board, they make sure that there is a female or minorty on that board to ensure equality. Are they going to ensure there is a gay member on the board to enure that a gay soldier has the same oppertunity for promotion? That might be difficult to implement especially if senior members are not comfortable "comming out" to sit on their board. Will there be a preferance to promote gay soldiers like there is minorities and females? How can one prove that he or she is gay and thus eligable for preferance in promotion?

Again, I don't mind working with gay soldiers but I just don't see a better solution than what is in place.

I would like to here some input from an EO Rep about what would happen from their perspective.

Showers and Latrines will have to be labled male, female, gay

If a gay Soldier is legally married in a state that recognizes it, will the partner be entitled to a dependent ID card and full benefits? Family Housing, Tricare, Commissary, etc?

I agree with Current Soldier as well, I have no problem being around a gay soldier, but sharing a shower, let alone a room would be complicated.

And I have to ask why the politicians have to play social experimentation using the military. We signed up to serve our country, not be lab rats whenever someone decides that it would be "a good idea to see how this behavior or that behavior will be accepted" by society in general.

The only issue I can see is the housing. The barracks in garrison as well as while deployed. I don't think you could house a gay soldier with a straight one anymore than you could house a straight male with a straight female. Something is going to have to be figured out. Either the army makes single rooms for everyone, or the army as a hole will have to stop being concerned about people having sex.