Former general backs gay policy change

[Ron Burgundy]

AP - WASHINGTON - The Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the Pentagon adopted its "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays says he no longer opposes allowing them to serve openly.

John Shalikashvili, who retired in 1997 after four years as the nation's top military officer, had argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would hurt troop morale and recruitment and undermine the cohesion of combat units. He said he has changed his mind after meeting with gay servicemen.

"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in an opinion piece in Tuesday's New York Times.

His view could carry weight at a time when advocates of lifting the restriction on gay service members argue that the military — under the strain of fighting two wars — can ill-afford to exclude any qualified volunteers.

It's not clear, however, how much enthusiasm Congress will have for pressing the matter. While many Democrats have denounced the policy as discriminatory, many Republicans have supported it, and members may be reluctant to revisit such a divisive issue. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a possible presidential contender in 2008, recently called the military policy "very effective."

Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record) on Tuesday hailed Shalikashvili's article and said he would try this year to revive legislation forcing the military to eliminate the policy. In 2005, Meehan, D-Mass., introduced a similar bill, which eventually attracted 122 co-sponsors, including Republican Chris Shays of Connecticut and Independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont.

"There is no place in this country for discrimination, be it on the basis of race, creed or sexual orientation, and there is certainly no place for institutional discrimination codified in federal statute," Meehan said in a statement.

The current policy, based on legislation passed by Congress in 1993 after a firestorm of debate, states that gays and lesbians may serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation private. Commanders may not ask, and gay service members may not tell. Over the years thousands have been dismissed under this policy.

Shalikashvili is not the first former senior military officer to change his mind about gays in the military, though he is perhaps the most prominent. John Hutson, a retired two-star Navy admiral who was the Navy's top lawyer, said Tuesday he thinks the nation has undergone so much cultural change over the past decade that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would enhance rather than weaken the cohesion of fighting units.

"I think it will absolutely happen," Hutson said in a telephone interview, but probably not during the Bush administration.

Shalikashvili said he expects fierce debate over gays in the military this year as Congress considers President Bush's call for expanding the size of the Army, which is stretched thin by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Shalikashvili cautioned, however, against pushing for repeal of the ban early in the new Congress, which he said should be focused on urgent priorities like developing a better strategy in Iraq and healing divisions over the war.

"Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track," he wrote in the Times article.

In explaining his shift on the issue, Shalikashvili also cited a new Zogby poll, commissioned by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, of 545 U.S. troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. It reported that three quarters said they were comfortable around gay men and lesbians.

The poll, published in December, also said 37 percent opposed allowing gays to serve openly, while 26 percent said they should be allowed and 37 percent were unsure or neutral. Of those who said they were certain that a member of their unit was gay or lesbian, two-thirds did not believe it hurt morale.

C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocate for gay rights, called Shalikashvili's article "enormously significant." Osburn said it reflects a growing trend of military leaders supporting repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

[motivez]

Good, it's time we do away with all forms of discrimination

[Diamond Cross]

Agreed.

[Stoner]

I happen to agree with our 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

Good, it's time we do away with all forms of discrimination

That is not the issue. There are many forms of discrimination to get into the military. There is no "right" to serve in the military. However, if they do not pose a serious moral problem by being open I can't see the objection. They should not be punished just for being "found out" to be gay. But why is there a need to be openly Gay in the Military?

[motivez]

Why is there a need to be openly heterosexual in the Military?

I'm for the same restrictions and qualifications for entrance and continued service on everyone regardless of their sexuality, skin color, sex, hair color, eye color, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by motivez

Why is there a need to be openly heterosexual in the Military?

I'm for the same restrictions and qualifications for entrance and continued service on everyone regardless of their sexuality, skin color, sex, hair color, eye color, etc, etc.

Why is there a need to be openly homosexual in the military?

I'm on the fence on this issue simply because of the people I know who were in the military I only know one that says Gays in the military should be a non issue. All five of the others say the dont ask dont tell policy is definately the best policy

[Diesel66]

If openly gay Soldiers serve in straight units, wont that damage unit cohesion ? It is bad enough already with women and men in the same units.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

If openly gay Soldiers serve in straight units, wont that damage unit cohesion ? It is bad enough already with women and men in the same units.

They need to build a bridge and get over it. People are differnt

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Kytro

They need to build a bridge and get over it. People are differnt

It is the military not a social club.

I am sorry but I do not want to shower with a gayman.

Would you expect the average woman to shower with men ? Of course not. But anyone that has a problem with showering with gaymen is labeled a homophobe.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

If openly gay Soldiers serve in straight units, wont that damage unit cohesion ? It is bad enough already with women and men in the same units.

They said the same thing about minorities.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

It is the military not a social club.

I am sorry but I do not want to shower with a gayman.

Would you expect the average woman to shower with men ? Of course not. But anyone that has a problem with showering with gaymen is labeled a homophobe.

I have a problem showering with other men period.

Only me and women should be able to serve in the military.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

It is the military not a social club.

I am sorry but I do not want to shower with a gayman.

Under current policy this is just what happens

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Why is there a need to be openly homosexual in the military?

I'm on the fence on this issue simply because of the people I know who were in the military I only know one that says Gays in the military should be a non issue. All five of the others say the dont ask dont tell policy is definately the best policy

Why is there a need to be openly heterosexual in the military?

I asked my question in response to the first time someone asked what you just have.

If we're going to put restrictions on sexuality and expressions of that sexuality, it should be uniform and not discriminatory.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

If openly gay Soldiers serve in straight units, wont that damage unit cohesion ? It is bad enough already with women and men in the same units.

If it does, then those people who are incapable of performing their duties because can't accept others who are different shouldn't be in the military in the first place.

The same arguments were made when black people were being integrated into the military. This time, it's the same discrimination, same arguments, just different thing being discriminated against.

[IminWonderland]

Sexuality has no place in the military, straight or gay, or Bi, or Fuzzy, or S&M, or any other fetish that might make people uncomfortable.

[Diamond Cross]

Why is there a need?

How about being able to be yourself without fear of retaliation?

You cannot be openly gay in the military without harrassment even in this day and age.

[imind]

It is the military not a social club.

it should be easier to 'build bridges' in the military than in a social club; you simply order it - no exceptions. who is going to disobey an order from a commanding officer?

build separate showers. what percentage of the civilian population is gay? something like 3%, isn't it? probably even less in service. they can afford separate showers.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

It is the military not a social club.

I am sorry but I do not want to shower with a gayman.

Would you expect the average woman to shower with men ? Of course not. But anyone that has a problem with showering with gaymen is labeled a homophobe.

If you can handle showering with hetero men, then why can't you handle showering with gay men and, yes, women too? What's the big deal anyway? The whole separation of the sexes bit is prudish nonsense carried over from the Victorian era when religious ignorance reigned surpreme...and in combat situations, it's a non-issue...it better be anyway, because otherwise that is a serious problem of mental discipline on the part of the enlistee. The psychological purpose of group showering is to help enforce a close camaraderie with fellow servicemen where there are few, if any, secrets. Everyone knows everyones' business backwards and forwards, ensuring smooth integration under pressure, and minimizing the chance of an individual's propriety about some issue jeopardizing the survival of the group.

I'm all for pragmatic screening of relevant attributes for the services which could objectively affect performance, but I fail to see how sex preference, or some bigots' arbitrary laundry list of attributes qualifies. Every argument I've heard boils down to examples of 'good old boys' club' mentality. That kind of inflexible old-school cruft needs to be stripped out. The bottom line is that anyone who can handle being under live fire should've learned to make peace with his (and others') sexuality long ago..preferably long before enlistment. Military service is not for those who aren't sure of themselves in EVERY way.

If we're going to use stupid analogies, try this one:
would you expect and trust someone who can't handle a geo metro at 30mph to handle a lambo at 200? Getting hit on (at the worst) by a gay man should be nothing to a soldier who's psychologically trained to handle himself in to-the-death combat. A 'no thanks buddy' is all that's necessary, really. We don't need useless social regulation from the government 'protecting' enlistees against 'gay attacks.' Seriously, that's even more ridiculous than hilary's worst protect-the-children-against-*.* campaign...hmm.. are the social conservatives really just liberals in disguise?

[ballz2wallz]

We should put all openly gay men on the front lines