Quote:
Originally Posted by bergall
I don't see the necessity of it. Not being gay, I guess I just don't
know. I don't believe I'm "OPENLY HETEROSEXUAL". What's the alternative ? CLANDESTINELY HETEROSEXUAL ? I don't make a point of emphasizing it so I do not see the relevance as it relates to pulling a trigger and killing the enemies of this country.
|
Not a bad way to put it.
My opposition to eliminating DADT has almost nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with the seeming impossibility in the military anymore to discipline or discharge those who violate its core principles when those individuals can claim membership in ANY kind of minority. Back in the day, I could hand out Article 15s or discharge WASP/Cs almost any day of the week for UCMJ-related issues. Anyone else, I had to line up the SJA and take additional measures with the EO Advisor to determine that the case was completely airtight or not. It was still almost predictable that when called in, they'd dodge their own misbehaviors by leveling an EO complaint against someone else. From what I've heard, it's only gotten worse since I retired.
And people wonder how MAJ Hasan flew under the wire for so long? There most likely was one or more supervisors or peers in his chain who through something as simple as a comment, was impeachable. That's all it takes to discredit and dispose of a case.
I'd like to think that everyone, to include chains-of-command, are above-board enough not to let sexual orientation figure in as a reason to discharge someone if DADT is lifted. The realist in me suggests that there will be chains-of-command who won't, just as I believe there will be homosexuals who will claim minority "protection" when faced with their own misbehaviors and the consequences.
There's also some concern that they'll next want some kind of "affirmative action" to go along with it. But, because the claim is also made that they're not able to serve openly today, lifting DADT would reverse that and those who've risen to senior grades already would then be serving openly and no preference is required. Otherwise, we will also need to add two more boxes to forms - One for "heterosexual", one for "homosexual"? Maybe right below the "Caucasian", "Asian/Pacific Islander", ...?
The winds of change have blown, it's probably time for DADT to be lifted, but I hope everyone knows it's not all going to be roses afterwards. My own prediction is that while the transition will be tumultuous initially, the end result will clarify and cleanse the conditions that actually constitute the term "minority". While that may not immediately seem the issue, attaining that protection (not necessarily the "preference") appears to be the subtle but persistent "holy grail" of many homosexual advocacy groups. What is ultimately determined may not fit the agenda they're pursuing today.
Supreme Court Refuses to Block Don't Ask, Dont Tell
