Navy plan to allow same-sex marriage on bases draws opposition

reply to post by beezzer


People are missing the real problem, here.

It's not socially. Gays and lesbians have been in the military since the days when a trebuchet was akin to a Stealth Bomber. Everyone in the military knows there's a homosexual or two somewhere in the crowd around them.

Before: You could take your boyfriend with you to Navy social functions and introduce him as your friend and talk with everyone. So long as you didn't get kissy-faced or anything like that - most everyone would be cool with you and your buddy. You both rent a house off base and have him designated as your SGLI beneficiary as well as have several other legal issues deferred to him in case of an emergency. No one could give you crap about being gay - no one could ask.

Now: You can take your husband with you to the Navy ball and display appropriate levels of affection. Most everyone is probably also going to be pretty cool with you - though they may not be getting warm-fuzzies watching you two display affection. You still rent a house off base because the CO denied your request to co-habitate with your husband on the base due to a lack of available housing. You will not be getting paid the same as opposite-sex marriages (who will be getting paid BAH at the dependent rate), and the Navy does not officially recognize your husband as being your spouse due to federal law prohibiting federal institutions from recognizing same-sex marriages.

So... what's changed, really? Where's the progress?

Originally posted by RSF77
. . . . but I don't really think its necessary for men (gay or not) to talk in such an effeminate way on purpose. It's a little disgraceful and how would that look in a combat environment, remember, these men obviously seem to care more about being gay than being a soldier in the military.

This is a very ignorant stereotypical post.

Yes there are some flamboyant effiminate gays. Do you really believe this is the type of man who will join the military? Even if we have a draft - - not everyone is going to pass basic.

Many gay men you wouldn't have a clue if they were standing right next to you.

Plus - war is changing. There is a lot more in electronics and intelligence.

Well, I served in the Navy and worked alongside a couple of homosexuals and they usually kept there sexual orientation to themselves. In all honesty, I don't see what the problem is here. They work hard, hardly complain and were as patriotic (and misguided) as any other 'red blooded' American.

I say, live and let live.

reply to post by Annee

In a few years those who continue to deny equal rights for gays - - will be looked at - the same way George Wallace is today.

Self-important delusions of grandeur aside...

You do realize that I'm highlighting why the repeal of DADT doesn't really bring any equality to homosexuals within the military community, correct?

Read my previous post (which may be -just- above this one) if you need a little more detail.

I've never liked rights movements and activists because they are all full of hot air and looking for attention. Real equality is not brought about by proclamation or by legal decree - it is brought about by mutual respect and regard for each other - enough respect to try and understand someone.

It's like the women's rights activists who go on and on about wanting equality to men - then go around and create women's art museums and college funds for women only. If you want real equality, you don't affiliate yourself with these attention whores.

Nothing has really changed in the military. Gays coming out of the closet will not be surprising many of their shipmates. People freaking out about someone they think (or know) is gay racking next to them will not change, either - they've been doing it before DADT, while DADT was in effect, and they will be doing it after it is repealed. The policies are all the same except the Navy can't process you for separation based on sexual orientation.

None of the other issues have been addressed. Same-sex marriages are not recognized at a Big-Navy level. They will not be eligible for dependent rate pay; your same-sex partner does not qualify as a dependent - married or not. Navy policy prohibits non-dependents from residing within military housing on bases... that means if you want to live on base with your same-sex spouse, you need to route a special request chit to do it - and while that cannot be denied based on sexual orientation - it is not a guaranteed approval, and opens up the door for abuse and "stretching" reasons for disapproval.

And it's messed up as all holy hell because the way this is being campaigned by the administration makes it sound like we are a gay-friendly military, now ... but we're not. Not by a long shot. It's not at a social level - it's at an administrative level. Gays will be - excuse the expression - #ed by the system because of CIVILIAN laws that impact the way the DoD is allowed to function.

reply to post by Annee

No, but are you aware of what all is in the UCMJ or have any experience with the US military? That is what is in it, and no matter what the military may say or do, it will be a giant mess until the update the UCMJ to allow for same sex couples and gay personel. If not, then what will happen is this: The allow for the marriage of same sex couples, bypassing federal laws, and allow for homosexuals to serve in the military. The first time one of them is seen with their partner, then they will be prosecuted under the articles in the UCMJ and kicked out, having all legal basis to do such. So there you go, all openly gay people in the US are allowed to serve, but must do so as if they are a monk, and any suspicion of violating the UCMJ, will ultimately result in their discharge from the military. See the problem? If they do not change the very rules that govern the military, then it is rather pointless to allow same sex marriages to occure on a military base in the first place, or to allow for openly gay people to serve. It is kind of like telling a starving man, he can turn the spit, but not allowed to taste the meat on it. It is a trap in itself and the military would be within full legal rights to do such, as long as the codes remain in place. Those are the rules and anyone who does not like such, does not have to enlist.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

]That is what is in it, and no matter what the military may say or do, it will be a giant mess until the update the UCMJ to allow for same sex couples and gay personel. If not, then what will happen is this: The allow for the marriage of same sex couples, bypassing federal laws, and allow for homosexuals to serve in the military. The first time one of them is seen with their partner, then they will be prosecuted under the articles in the UCMJ and kicked out, having all legal basis to do such.

This has been addressed in the current plans:

How is the new policy enforced?
The UCMJ remains the legal foundation of good order and discipline in our Armed Forces and is the vehicle for enforcement of standards of conduct and existing laws regarding harassment or violence against any
Service member, for any reason.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Talking Points, p. 46; Topic 1, pp. 49 – 50; Topic 6, p. 52)
Harassment, sexual assault or other violence against any Service member, for any reason, is prohibited.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Talking Points, p. 46; Topic 6, p. 52)
Sodomy under the proposed change to Article 125 of the UCMJ may be punishable if it is without consent (forcible). In light of decisions by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, private acts of sodomy between consenting adults, regardless of their sex, are NOT punishable -absent factors unique to the military environment (such as a senior-subordinate relationship or other circumstance adverse to good order and discipline). In light of these decisions, and the repeal of 10 USC § 654, Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, conforming amendments to Article 125 of the UCMJ may be considered for presentation to the Congress and/or action by President.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Topic 6, p. 52

Emphasis my own.

So - that really isn't an issue as that is how the Navy policy on it stands.

Good training - everyone be sure to fill out the SF3500 and turn it into the Training PO.

Just to give an update, the Navy canceled their original plans.
Thanks for showing up! Have a nice day.

Beez - signing off

I just read the headline but once I read it one thing instantly popped into my head

Village People

"In the Navy...."

I don't know the rest.

reply to post by Aim64C

Ah, but that is ultimately is going to be the main problem is congress. It takes an act of congress, to make any changes to the UCMJ and it has to be approved and voted on before those changes go through. So even though there are propsed changes, until the codes change, then all it is just talk and proposal.

reply to post by lestweforget


Agree!!

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RSF77
. . . . but I don't really think its necessary for men (gay or not) to talk in such an effeminate way on purpose. It's a little disgraceful and how would that look in a combat environment, remember, these men obviously seem to care more about being gay than being a soldier in the military.

This is a very ignorant stereotypical post.

Yes there are some flamboyant effiminate gays. Do you really believe this is the type of man who will join the military? Even if we have a draft - - not everyone is going to pass basic.

Many gay men you wouldn't have a clue if they were standing right next to you.

Plus - war is changing. There is a lot more in electronics and intelligence.

I have to agree with Annee on this. Having spent some time in Gay-circuits throughout the years, I can tell that "poofy guys" can really fight too. It is true, however, that alot of them really do not like conditions such as those in the Army(Except for the guys in it )and the 'War-thing' and such, but many of them CAN fight.
I remember a transgendered guy I once knew, that had the most query voice you could imagine, but boy could "She" fight. He could basically knock down anyone and also often did, which also led to him being grounded from a night club because he had knocked down some guy on the WC.

Oh, and speaking about it; I also once knew a very gay bodybuilder too, that had basically a girls voice and was openly very feminine, but boy was he wellbuilt.
However I have never managed to understand the desire to have such a manly and muscular body if you are so feminine, but that is another thing that I shall not dwelve into.

Anyway: Sure, poofy guys with poofy voices can fight too.

Whether they then wishes to join the Army or not, should be their own decision to make and nothing they should in any way be forced to do. Or, refused to do. The main important thing should be that they- A; Are physically and mentally fit for this or that mission they are to possibly serve, and B: That they are level headed and can keep their heads cool and clear- just as anyone else joining.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Aim64C

 

Ah, but that is ultimately is going to be the main problem is congress. It takes an act of congress, to make any changes to the UCMJ and it has to be approved and voted on before those changes go through. So even though there are propsed changes, until the codes change, then all it is just talk and proposal.

Of course. Gays have been warned not to reveal themselves until all "I's" are dotted - - all "T's" crossed - - papers signed and certified by who ever is responsible for the final certification/law/amendment (whatever).

This is not something that is going to happen overnight - - but it is going to happen.

And I'm personally tired of hearing all the excuses.

Originally posted by beezzer
Just to give an update, the Navy canceled their original plans.
Thanks for showing up! Have a nice day.

Beez - signing off

So?

Like this is the first reversal in fighting for equal rights?

Originally posted by Aim64C
You do realize that I'm highlighting why the repeal of DADT doesn't really bring any equality to homosexuals within the military community, correct?

Yes - - I am fully aware.

Just another hurdle in the fight for full equality.

And really - - just another excuse.

Originally posted by Pinkgomo653
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Did I say ALL? No. But YES. SOME gay people cross dress.
MOST gays cross dress.
]

I cannot believe that such jaw dropping, ignorant stupidity exists in this day and age. The are many gay people who are macho, masculine role models in society. Whether or not they're out of the closet is another matter, unfortunately. This will change with time and generational change as the older, homophobic generation all die out.

Originally posted by lostinau
There are many gay people who are macho, masculine role models in society. Whether or not they're out of the closet is another matter, unfortunately. This will change with time and generational change as the older, homophobic generation all die out.

The thing is - - people who are ignorant of gays - - only know the "visible" stereotype. We know the media sure focuses on that type.

Really - - kind of the same thing as bikers. People have a stereotype that all bikers are bad and gang members

The gays I worked with said they could not tell - - they said there is no "gaydar" for a "Straight Gay" (their terminology).

reply to post by mblahnikluver


Well, I think if they allow heterosexual marriages, they should allow same sex marriages.

Equality is supposed to be alive and well in the USA.

Harm None
Peace

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aim64C
You do realize that I'm highlighting why the repeal of DADT doesn't really bring any equality to homosexuals within the military community, correct?

Yes - - I am fully aware.

Just another hurdle in the fight for full equality.

And really - - just another excuse.

It's not an excuse. It's reality. Homosexuals do not have equal opportunity within the military compared to heterosexuals. It is also expressly stated that there are no plans to address the issue.

It's a hollow change.

Originally posted by Aim64C

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aim64C
You do realize that I'm highlighting why the repeal of DADT doesn't really bring any equality to homosexuals within the military community, correct?

Yes - - I am fully aware.

Just another hurdle in the fight for full equality.

And really - - just another excuse.

It's not an excuse. It's reality. Homosexuals do not have equal opportunity within the military compared to heterosexuals. It is also expressly stated that there are no plans to address the issue.

It's a hollow change.

It is an excuse. A legal government excuse - but still an excuse. Any way you look at it - - all you've posted are excuses.

The Ball is rolling forward - - it may slow down - - but it is not going to stop.

Equal Rights will happen. When? Who knows. But it will happen.

Originally posted by Annee
This is a very ignorant stereotypical post.

Yes there are some flamboyant effiminate gays. Do you really believe this is the type of man who will join the military? Even if we have a draft - - not everyone is going to pass basic.

Many gay men you wouldn't have a clue if they were standing right next to you.

Plus - war is changing. There is a lot more in electronics and intelligence.

Take the time to read the rest of the post before you go calling people stereotypical and ignorant. I already addressed it and why I think it will cause problems and you come back with personal insults.

Your right, I wouldn't notice because I don't care about it until a guy starts trying to talk like a female to me, am I going to have to explain further that I know ALL gay guys aren't like this or what? My point was that sooner or later people will start complaining and wasting our time with what they think is prejudice against them, but in reality they just can't be trusted to preform the job with their current state of mind.

We can't be accepting people in the military that can only perform certain tasks, we're soldiers first. Giving homosexuals who cannot handle combat different, less dangerous jobs is a form of sexual discrimination in itself.

Also, effeminate homosexuals would probably do better in a basic training unit than heterosexuals, basic training is not war and it is not that hard. With the possible exception being the US Marines or another countries equivalent.