Give it a rest, Side-Show Bob. Del. Marshall must think Virginia won the Civil War and that the Old Dominion is not part of the United States.
It seems that Marshall wants gays banned from the Virginia National Guard. He says history is on his side. According to the News and Messenger:
Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, said he will introduce legislation in the 2011 General Assembly that would prevent gays from serving openly in the Virginia National Guard.
He said he has history on his side.
According to numerous Internet sources, Lt. Gotthold Frederick Enslin was drummed out of the Continental Army on sodomy charges in 1778.
“The policy started with George Washington. This is not something that’s brand new, but the press has largely ignored it because they don’t read history,” Marshall said.
Policies restricting gays from serving in the military have been in place since Lt. Enslin was dismissed.
Marshall said the recent repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy — put in place by President Bill Clinton — was simply President Barack Obama’s appeasement of the left wing of the Democratic party.
Perhaps Marshall would like to see what the Log Cabin Republicans have to say about all this? Were they against repeal of DADT? Marshall’s logic is flawed. George Washington’s family owned slaves also. Much has changed since Washington’s day. Hell, they even let the little woman vote nowadays.
Marshall droned on:
This is going to precipitate a need for the draft,” he said.
Marshall also said he had the U.S. Constitution on his side and that federal law couldn’t trump state law when it comes to militias. He said he believes his legislation would stand up against federal law.
“Article 1, section 8, clause 16 gives exclusive control of the militia, of the selection of the officers to the militia — which we now call the National Guard — to states and the training thereof as prescribed by Congress,” Marshall said.
Clause 16 states:
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”If the Virginia National Guard is called to federal duty some provisions might need to be made, but the feds can’t dictate how the states control their militias, Marshall said.
“They may effect attitude restructuring courses which have nothing to do with military preparedness and defense once the troops are federalized, but they can’t announce that we’re going to have people who engage in sodomy and other health debilitating behaviors on our recruitment list,” Marshall said. “Obama can do it for his army, but he can’t do it for the National Guard of Virginia.”
Perhaps Marshall should concentrate on transportation, jobs, the economy, and paying back the VRS. There are important issues out there and he wants take up important legislative time over this? Does he want to get the Old Dominion sued over a civil rights issue? The AG has already started down that path when he first came into office.
Conservatives need to rein in this pack of fools before we are tied up in court for years.
He needs a lesson in history – yes, the US Constitution provides for the States to maintain militias and he quotes the Clause appropropriately. Yet, he is forgetting the Militia Act of 1903 converted the volunteer miltias into the National Guard (with the States being allowed to maintain a seperate militia if they so choose).
The Militia Act of 1908 gave the President the authority to call up the now Army National Guard to Federal status in times of emergency.
And the National Defense Act of 1916 created, what was called at the time, the “Continental Army of the United States” now know as “Army of the United States”. It codified the three compenents: Army National Guard, Regular Army, and the Army Reserve.
All of the above can be found in the U.S. Code Title 10 (if you are bored and want to pile through all the references for it). Funny, I learned the Code expanded on the Constitution just like the Virginia Code expands on the Commonwealth one. Guess I must have gone to a different school?
WPost quotes the Commonwealth’s Commander in Chief regarding DADT.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/12/mcdonnell_va_national_guard_sh.html
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) said through a spokesman late Monday that he opposes Congress’s repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy but expects to allow gays to openly serve in the Virginia National Guard.
The article does talk about Del. Marshall’s legislation.
Pat Buchanan has a new column out about the repeal of don’t ask/don’t tell. It gives one a glimpse into the mind of these people.
What an idiot, what an embarassment.
El Guapo is right … and the mindset is squarely stuck in the past (laughably). http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40720
“Can anyone believe that mixing small-town and rural 18-, 19- and 20-year-old Christian kids, aspiring Marines, in with men sexually attracted to them is not going to cause hellish problems?
The Marines have been sacrificed by the Democratic Party and Barack Obama to the homosexual lobby, with the collusion of no fewer than eight Republican senators. “
It’s one thing to think that. Its quite another to attempt to legislate such bull pucky.
Marshall continues to embarrass himself and his state. He just doesn’t have the good graces to be embarrassed, so we must do it for him.
Where is that rascal Lafayette with her post? Lafayette!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where is that luv canal link??>??????
Here I am, and here it is!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6k4RrKNk7s
Shame on those living in the 13th for continuing to sending Marshall to Richmond. Geesh.
Thanks, Lafayette, and I agree. Shame on those in the 13 if they are voting for Side-Show Bob.
I must have missed the part in Buchanan’s bio where he talks about his combat service. The Marines have time honored methods of policing their own. I doubt a few gays in the ranks will somehow destroy the USMC. However, what I do know is that it will probably create problems that didn’t need to be created. I can’t wait to see what kind of sensitivity training awaits the DI staff at PI and Pendleton, how many recruits drop out of 12 mile humps claiming sexual harassment, etc.
Buchanan gets one thing right, the question is does this policy enhance fighting effectiveness. Or, is this just something that is being done for purposes of equality?
This reminds me of an abortion discussion. I don’t talk about it much, because I don’t have a uterus and have no idea what I’m talking about and will never have to personally deal with a situation where I have to choose between having one and not having one. Conversely, if you’ve never lived in a squadbay with 40 or so guys or deployed together in tight quarters for months on end sharing shower facilities and so forth, then you really don’t understand what you’re advocating for. It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and shill for a policy in the name of equality when you personally don’t have to live with the consequences of its implementation.
Cato
As someone who was career military, both enlisted and commissioned, I think I have perspective worth sharing. Also, since the majority of my time was spent with combat units, I know first-hand what the imporatance of “small-unit cohesion” really means, During my career I was an enlisted infantryman & NCO, a combat engineer NCO and Staff NCO, a Drill Instructor at MCRD Parris Island, and a commissioned officer in a Marine Artillery unit .
First off, the repeal of DADT is done. Unless a future President and Congress reimplement a similar policy, this is settled law. It is going to take some time for DoD to develop policies that are workable and applicable to all services. While there are and should be policies that are uniform and applicable to all the services, there must also be policies that account for the differing missions and force structure of each branch. What works fine for the Airforce, may not work for the Marines. Co-ed recruit training is a good example. Army, Navy and Airforce have it. The Marines do not. During the Clinton admin, there was pressure on the Marines to “conform” to the rest of the services, allowing Co-ed recruit training and for women to serve in Artillery Battalions, Tank and Amtrack companies. Several tests and evaluations were run and it was determined that due to physiological differences, women would not be able to perform the duties required, or complete the training needed to function in the same roles as men in these particular units, and since you can’t change physiology, you must accept the condition.
Sexual orientation is a different matter. I was against the repeal of DADT. The leaders of each branch were also against the repeal. The methods used to build the case for repeal were political and media driven. How many of you know that survey’s of those actually serving in combat units overwhelmingly show that “trigger-pullers” and actual “warfighters” were against it. It will errode small-unit cohesion, and no amount of sensitivity training will mitigate this. Now I don’t look at this from some warped sense of bushido-zen-warrior perspective. I look at it practically. I wouldn’t want to be that gay Marine rifleman, pinned down by machinegun fire, waiting for some straight Marines to figure out whether or not to risk their lives to come to my aid. Or, if I was a wounded straight Marine, laying on a stretcher with a sucking-chest wound, having to make a decision as to whether or not I let the Corpsman give me a direct transfusion from a gay Marine. because I know his lifestyle might have exposed him to HIV. These are very real considerations that got lost in the “equal rights for all” debate. But, I acknowledge the debate is settled. No the Armed Forces will have to deal with the fallout.
As to whether or not the VA NGhas standing to set its own policies, I am positive they do. The NG unless federalized is a seperate entity. Yes, certain uniformed standards are applicable to all units, certain DoD policies only come into play when the unit is “called up” for Federal duty. There are rules regarding fraternization that apply only when on Federal duty. There are allowances made for different regions, with different customs, etc. One example is language. The language spoken by the Guard in Puerto Rico is spanish, for practicality sake. However, when on Federal duty, English is to be used in all official capacities. How about those states that have legalized Gay Marriage? Should the Guard units in those states be able to recognize the members same-sex spouse as a dependent now? For those who say “yes” it must be uniform, then what about those states that have laws prohibiting same sex marriage? What do the members of those units do? Here we have a case of DoD policy and Federal law in direct conflict with those of the State, and the State NG units.
Also, what does the DoD do now with those Active and non NG Reserve units when servicemembers start marrying same-sex partners in those states where it is legal? Does the DoD recognize those marriages, now that gays can serve openly?
I doubt many of the legislators who have little to no experience in or with the military gave these considerations their due, when voting in favor of repeal. This will cause significant instability in our military. Of this I have no doubt. This isn’t based on a moral judgment on whether or not homosexuality is wrong. My concerns are based primarily on the knowledge that this will, for at least some undetermined period of time, errode our nation’s combat readiness during wartime. I think Delegate Marshall may have factored these concerns into his views as well. His responsibility is to Virginia, and to its National Guard units.
*correction :”MCRD Parris Island” should read MCRD San Diego. I was a DI at San Diego and I attended recruit training at Parris Island, plus OCS and TBS at Quantico.
Steve, I’m sympathetic to arguements about not using the military to experiment with social policy (even though it’s worked out well before – and the women in the service arguements seems much more tricky and significant). But from the little I know and see, I wonder if this isn’t a tempest in a teapot. Seems to me there are plenty of known gay soldiers serving in very cohesive units, and that this is just not the issue for today’s generation that it might have been in past.
I have a question. Are there rules of engagement related to one soldier’s responsbility to another on the battlefield and, if so, what happens at the front when a soldier with HIV or with a higher possibility of HIV is wounded? If the non-wounded soldier responds could that individual be risking himself – there is likley to be a lot of blood – and does the military health system accomodate this disease? Also, it is my understanding is that HIV is cause for discharge from the military. It has been suggested that this is what is behind the difference in responses from warfighters and front line soldiers as compared to logistics/Admin types.
Steve,
That was very well said. Too bad those in Congress couldn’t articulate it as well.
Now here is a conservative pundit at the Daily Caller, Jim Treacher’s take. He’s mainly ambivalent, but here’s part of it:
“Besides, it’ll give the terrorists yet another reason to hate us. The Gitmo detainees already go out of their minds when addressed directly by a female with her whole face showing. Just think how these 12th-Century dip$#!+s will react when they get their butts kicked by some gay dudes. It’ll just add to the humiliation”
And as I’ve said before, one former infantryman pundit said, “Gays in the military? I sure hope its those buff gay dudes that can carry me out of combat if I’m wounded.”
When were you at San Diego. That was my Navy Boot Camp. Used to watch the Marines stand guard in that little strip of land between RTC and the airport. We had a sailor go UA, trying to go home by jumping that fence. The CO told the Marines to keep him and put him through Marine boot camp. Can you imagine the crap HE had to put up with. He was transferred back to the Navy with about one week to go, so he DID NOT become a Marine and was started at Navy boot camp at day one……
@Steve Thomas
Semper Fi. 1/5, 2nd Recon, MSG Battalion.
@Rick Bentley
It may well turn out to be much ado about nothing, and you won’t see me pounding the table about gays being evil, etc. but I do question the wisdom of this decision.
The value of Pat Buchannan’s “glimpse into the mind of these people” has as much value as a Michael Moore’s glimpse into the mind of the Tea Party movement; neither one is qualified to opine on the respective topics, but they will. When Truman ordered the racial integration of the military in 1948 those opposed argued that it would degrade unit cohesion and military readiness, and implementation was not instant nor was it problem-free. More than a decade after Truman’s order Colin Powell, then a young Army officer stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia, couldn’t eat a cheeseburger or use the bathroom at Woolworth’s because of his race. Today, there are still sporadic racial issues in the military, but they are exceedingly rare. When Kennedy ran for President in 1960 many were afraid that a Catholic would show greater allegiance to the Vatican than the voters and Kennedy’s religion was an obstacle he had to overcome. Fifty years later Catholics are a majority of the Supreme Court, and the Governor, Attorney General, my Congressman, the Chairman of the PWC BOS, and all but one of my county supervisors are Catholic, so we’ve overcome that prejudice and being Catholic is no longer viewed with suspicion and considered a political liability. I believe that when children born today are adults and look back at the repeal of DADT they will look at it the way we look at changes in racial and religious discrimination from the days when we (or at least many of us) were young.
I believe the military should punish the conduct when and if it occurs rather than stereotype and prejudge classes of people. An assault is an assault and indecent language is indecent language regardless of the genders of the parties involved, and if a solider gropes another solider then he or she has earned punishment. As for HIV, at least until the time I retired 2 years ago the military tested at least annually and before every overseas deployment, and anyone who tested positive was not medically qualified for worldwide duty and could not be deployed. Steve is wrong that the DoD survey showed trigger-pullers overwhelmingly thought repeal of DADT would be detrimental. He is correct that the highest level of opposition came from those in combat arms, but the highest percentage who said repeal would have a negative impact on readiness was Marine Corps Combat Arms at 43.5%, which represents a minority, not an overwhelming majority. For service members as a whole the percentage was 25.6%. I suspect if you surveyed Pat Buchannan’s average 18 or 19 year old WASP from some rural southern community and asked him if he had a choice between bunking with a white solider or a black solider, or a Christian solider or a Jewish solider, or a Southerner or a Yankee, you’d find that personal prejudice still exists, but soldiers are soldiers and they follow orders rather than their individual biases. I’m confident the military will survive, even as Pat Buchannan and Bob Marshall try to score as many wedge points as they can squeeze out of the issue.
@ Cato: Semper Fi!
@ Cargo: Now that’s funny there!
@ Morris: I am not saying this will destroy the armed forces. You are correct, racial integration, while the correct step, did cause major adjustment problems initially, and these do continue at some level today. This was especially problematic during Viet Nam, a full decade after integration. I even saw some of it myself during the mid-1980’s. Here’s where I got my info on the percentages opposed: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/01/pentagon-plays-combat-fighters-resistance-gays/. It indicates that 60% opposed repeal. As to HIV testing, you know as well as I that a person could get tested today, and go out an get infected tomorrow, and not be identified until the next test. But my point isn’t really whether or not the individual IS infected. My point is the perception that this is a real possibility is what will be disruptive.
And really, this is the bottom line. Any disruption will negatively impact combat rediness. Yes, the DoD would have had to face this eventually, but doing so while we have troops actively engaged in combat operations I think was a poor decision on the part of our civillian leadership. Would you do a tuneup on your car while it was rolling down the highway at 80 MPH? No. You’d wait until it was prudent to pull-off, stop, and do it safely.
Gays have always been in the military. DADT didn’t thin the herd even though more than 12,000 people were dismissed since it was made law. There will always be new recruits.
How is the military dealing with it now? I agree with Cato as far as those who haven’t been in that capacity should not be flapping their jaws about it (like me) but I can ask some questions.
As for married gays….Steve brings up something I had not thought of before. I believe that the states banning gay marriage actually are banning the act of becoming married, rather than the act of being married. Is that not true?
Nice job you all, of an intelligent discussion on a sensitive topic. Keep going. I support repeal os DADT but it isn’t the sword I will ever fall on.
I still think Marshall is full of it on this one and that its just another attention seeking behavior. Just out of curiosity, what is his service record?
Ha ha. I’m having a little chuckle over the fear of being ogled in the shower or of being the recipient of an unwanted advance. Welcome to the world of women!
Censored, I was thinking the same thing myself. I had a similar response to my husband who whined about not being about not being able to go in the route 66 restroom because it was a gay hang out. Oh well…welcome to the world of women.
I would hope that unwanted advanced had already been addressed. It should be against the code of military conduct. Perhaps we should do a poll with the women and see how it is working out for them.
Steve — Here is a link to the survey report. http://www.scribd.com/doc/44414049/DADT-Survey-Findings It is 165 pages long. The stat you cite is at the top of page 6. Troops who had been deployed to a combat environment were asked about the impact of repeal on unit effectiveness in “a field ennvironment or at sea.” Overall, 44.3% said it would have a negative impact and for Marines in that category it was 59.4%. I understand the change in the midst of war argument, but we’ve been at war for nearly a decade and we still haven’t found the WMD or UBL, so I’m not sure when the right time will come along. The other side of the coin is that misconduct falls off sharply when we are at war … troops that are busy don’t have time to sit around and plot mischief … so maybe the troops will have more important things to do than sit around and think about what the guys or gals around them plan to do on leave when they rotate back home.
@Cato the Elder
You’re right about Buchanan–never even served. As a student at Georgetown University, he was in ROTC, but did not complete the program. He received his draft notice after he graduated in 1960. However, the District of Columbia draft board exempted Buchanan from military service due to reactive arthritis, classifying him as 4-F. (Wiki)
As to “reactive arthritis”–it seems to me that may be like a PITA, which is what Buchanan is!
@George
guffaw! But Pat Buchanan isn’t mean. That cuts it a long way with me.
Did Delegate Marshall serve?
I think the word you’re looking for is “malingering.” 🙂
in regard to DADT, one must also consider the age group – the younger generation has been more exposed to lesbian and gays than many of us have in the past. Look at your local high school, and gays are more accepted than ever. A gay Marine is not any more susceptible to AIDs than a Marine who sleeps around.
The sheeple have received their emails and there are new buzz words to be learned and parroted ad nauseum – “unit cohesion”, “blood transfusions” and “AIDS”. Seems reminiscent of the recent interest in all things “constitutional” after a lapse of interest in the subject during the Bush Administration. Yawn…
Except for us NON-sheeple. “Unit cohesion”, “blood transfusions”, and “AIDS” are very real conditions, with real meaning behind them. We lived with these words and the conditions related to them.
As for interest in Constitutional things, do you have outrage over Bush’s programs? If so, where is your current outrage? The same programs are not only running, but have been expanded. I guess FISA doesn’t mean anything when YOUR candidate is in charge. GTMO is still open. The government is more intrusive than ever. I objected to the formation of DHS and the Patriot Act. I still find them problematic.
But, yawn away….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTzpBVTcF-k
I know the younger generations may be scared by draft cards but in reality every male over 18 is already in the ‘system’ and I doubt they’ll come to you to have you fill out a draft registration card – especially at a political rally.
I think this ad will get a lot of play in the blogsphere because of the Citizens United connection.
Marinm, you’ve mentioned the other big buzz word that I’d skipped – the “draft”. I have more faith in our younger generation not to be the uptight bigots that so many of my generation and those a hair younger have been.
Cargosquid, you should be just as fearful of your straight blood donor cohorts.
The same arguments were made against African Americans and women joining the service. Maybe the bigots should be discharged instead of spending so much energy trying to allay their insecurities.
Censored,
Uptight in reporting to a draft board or in general? I think I’m a little confused.
I think it would’ve gotten the nations attention if the Gov of AZ had instead of going to court on immigration ORDERED all able bodied adults to report to a state militia draft board to begin the process of having them fully organized, trained and mobilized to the border for 180-365days of duty.
Nothing says Washington paying attention more than homemakers and teachers being issued out M4s and kevlar.
If you did it so that they we’re all E1s you could almost make it cost effective. 🙂
Censored,
There is a world of difference between someone who joins and serves as say an avionics tech, and an infantryman. Small unit cohesion is less a big deal for someone who works in a fixed facility, sleeps in a dorm room, and craps on a nice porcellin commode stall while serving. It is a very big deal for someone who lives for weeks out of a backpack and sleeps in a foxhole and craps in a cathole, or spends weeks on end buttoned up inside a tank. Small unit cohesion is a real consideration. Not saying there isn’t a place for all to serve, but to dismiss the very real concerns of tactical commanders, men who know which end of the rifle the bayonette belongs on, welcomes potential loss of life.
Marinm, uptight in general when it comes to diversity and dealing with it.
Steve Thomas, emergency technicians on ambulances and in hospitals deal with the blood issues daily. I don’t think they’re less tolerant than the general population.
If a person is old enough to be in the service, he or she should be old or mature enough to laugh off or discourage an unwanted advance. Just what are you afraid of?
I don’t personally remember the arguments being made about blacks but I have read them. All I know is by the time Vietnam rolled around, everyone was more than happy that they were there and they did more than their fair share if numbers count for anything.
I certainly remember the rhetoric used about women. Somehow, Lorie Piestawa certainly paid more than her fair share also.
M-h, it seems that there are a lot of straight men who think that they’re mighty desirable and are going to the subject of much unwanted affection! They’ll just have to follow Nancy’s advice and just say “no”.
Moon,
You are correct. Gays have served in our military, since its inception. It was done so very quietly. If someone was found to be gay, they were dismissed as homosexual sex was banned under the UCMJ, as is adultry. I knew Marines who were prosecuted for having gay sex, and I knew Marines who were prosecuted for adultry. The reason? This conduct was prejudical to good order and discipline.
I think you missed my point regarding same-sex marriage. Prior to the repeal, the military did not have to recognize same sex marriages, because being homosexual was case for dismissal. Logic would dictate that a servicemember can’t claim a member of the same sex as a dependent, because the very act of doing so would be a declaration of homosexual orientation, and thus grounds for discharge. But now it is not illegal. On the contrary, the repeal makes it illegal for DoD to dismiss someone on the grounds of sexual orientation alone, ie. “it’s OK to be Gay”.
So, just say a new recruit goes home on leave after bootcamp and marries his “sweetheart”, as is a common occurence. Except the “sweetheart” happens to be another guy, and they are both residents of MA, where gay-marriage is legal. DoD must recognize the legal marriages of all the states in determining a right of dependent status, as the Federal government does not marry people. The marriage is legal, according to state law. Does the serviceman have a right to claim his legal same-sex spouse as a dependent, elegible for base-family housing, dependent relocation, healthcare, PX privileages, Basic Dependents Allowances, Survivor benefits and pensions?
Now, say the servicemember gets off active duty, and wants to continue on in a reserve capacity in the Active Reserve or National Guard. Except now, they live in a state that doesn’t recognize the marriage. While perhaps not an issue with the Active Reserve, is the State NG bound to do so, even though it clearly violates state law?
You see, the repeal has opened a big-ol can of worms. This is MUCH more complicated then simply allowing patriotic Americans to serve regardless of orientation. That we will have to deal with this during a shooting war, only makes it more complicated, and distracts from the mission of the DoD: Win the War.
Censored,
I’m not worried about two servicemen quietly sneaking off on leave together. I’m worried about the openly gay Fireteam leader being reluctant to run through interlocking machinegun fire, exploding mortar rounds and incomming RPGs to come to the aid of an openly gay rifleman, because the rifleman jilted him for a guy back in the motor-pool. I’m worried about the huge mess it’s going to be when the dependent request forms start flooding in.
What he said. It’s the same reason we don’t allow females in combat (part of it, anyway).
I’m A-OK with open homosexuals in the military as long as they’re not in combat units.
My older brother was in the military, and he was gay. He was one of those guys who went into the military simply because they didn’t know what else to do with their lives.
He didn’t talk about taking showers with other men in the wee hours of the morning. I remember one letter I got from him. He hated his roommate. Haven’t we all been there? One time he could see his roommate talking to someone at the bottom of the stairs. He was able to pour a can of Coke on his roommates head from atop the stairs. Then he ran back into his room and pretended to be reading. About 30 seconds later his roommate came in cursing whoever poured that Coke on him. That was funny.
Steve and Cato, how would that example be any different than how a combat soldier might feel about some other straight guy whom he feels stole his money, cheated him at cards, wrecked his prize car, stole his girlfriend, evicted him from his apartment , called him a few choice names, or any number of other scenarios where a person may be angry at another?
@Censored bybvbl
What I’s be worried about is slightly different than Stave’s example. Let me put it to you like this – suppose that you pick up the paper tomorrow and read a story about a 6 yo kid who broke his head open on the playground and died from injuries. You’d think to yourself “that’s horrible” right?
Now, suppose it was *your* kid. You’d probably feel a damn sight worse.
My point is, if troops are in a hostile situation and two (or more) of them feel deep emotional and sexual attachments to each other then their judgement is going to be colored appropriately. What happens one man sees his lifemate’s head blown off in front of him? Now I’ve not only got a KIA on my hands but I have a combat ineffective man in shock.
The cleanest way to do this is to treat them like females and keep them out of combat.
@ Steve: I served in the active duty military from 1967 to 1971. I served in Korea during the Pueblo crises in 20 below zero weather and in Viet Nam between 1968 and 1969. I carried a weapon and sat with other men in perimeter guard towers during rocket and mortar attacks. I survived 37 rocket attacks over 12 months. I received an honorable discharge from active duty and was then on the reserve roster for another two years, finally being honorably discharged from the reserves in 1973. I knew southern white men that said they would not face fire to save a fellow black soldier, I knew Christian men who said they would not aid a Jew in combat, I knew men who would not risk their necks to save specific junior officers and non-coms. I knew men that said they would not lift a finger to help a wounded gay man if it meant that they might be hurt. Your concerns are not new, not unique to any specfic group of people and are not any more valid then they were in 1968. As far as I know that was all talk from uneducated or bigoted soldiers and I don’t know of any incident where an American soldier was unassisted because of his color, religion ,sexual preference or rank. Our unit cohesion was strong and unaffected by such blowhards/ gas bags.
Cato, I think either the adrenalin would be pumping and a person will rise to the occasion (no damn pun intended) or a soldier will react the same way he would if his best friend was shot. People handle situations differently and I’m not so sure that that difference is tied to sexual orientation. PTSD doesn’t discriminate.
Suppose a gay man is the best sniper you’ve got. Do you want him with you in combat or on the sidelines?
BS, so you say. Yet in all the examples you cited, not one of them implied anything sexual. There are no inherent differences between the races, or religions. Me being a jew has no real impact on unit cohesion. Me being intimate with a squaddie does. That is why adultry is prosecuted. Guys sleeping with other soldiers wives does impact discipline. There are differences in gender, and when you throw in the added component of sex, it gets very complicated. That is why there are fraternization restrictions.
So kudos to you and I appreciate your service. However, we are talking apples and orangatans.
M-h, Lowell has a video of Marshall that is almost as funny as the love canal one – hell, it’s funnier. He’s worried about some guy looking at his ass during a combat situation – of which he’d know nothing.
GI’s have shared, traded, fought over and stolen working girls from each other from day one. Bad feelings and even murderous intentions have arisen from such behaviour and it had nothing to do with gays but did have to do with sex. Any American service man that would not come to the aid of his fellow soldier for any reason is either poorly trained, or a coward. That person should not be in the military and would be more of a detriment to unit cohesion than any soldier that unquestionably performs his duty.
Gays have served in all branches of the military and I’d guess in all ranks and under most combat situations. They apparently didn’t cause many problems. I think the nay-sayers need to examine their own problems with the repeal of DADT.
When you consider whether our nation is more or less secure by having gays openly serve in the military, consider the loss of Arabic translators at a time when they’re badly needed.
Here’s the Marshall interview.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=126742&catid=272
@Censored bybvbl
Thanks. And you are right. How embarrassing.
@Cato,
I am not so sure your good buddies don’t hold the same weight as a lover in battle. Naturally, neither of us could address this from a first hand point of view. You aren’t gay and I am not a man. All I have to go on is accounts. But when we are considering emotion, I think written accounts probably count more than what we observe.
@All,
I am really proud of you all. All of you have written some really important reasons for your point of view. And other than Censored and me, everyone has had a dog in the fight at one time or another. The one place where I think Censored and I might have an edge and aren’t to be totally discounted, (and I agree with Cato, there are some things I simply cannot address) and that isover the emotional angle of this. I know that both she and I have had emotional relationships with servicemen. Battlefield bonds aren’t to be dismissed. Perhaps men don’t talk about them with other men. Battlefield bonds aren’t homosexual. Its sort of the male equivalent of female bonding in child birth.