The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Military policy on repeal of DADT

Stardreamer

auribus teneo lupum
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Posts
5,044
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Location
Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
I've been too busy lately with school work to get on here much but we got our training today on the repeal of DADT and the policies being put in place by the Army. Here is the summary of the changes that will be taking effect:

- Upon implementation, troops will no longer be subject to discharge for 'legal' homosexual acts, statements of homosexual or bisexual orientation or marriage to a same-sex spouse.

- Sexual orientation will not be a consideration on eligibility to serve. The Don't Ask part of the policy will remain in recruitment. If you tell the recruiter is not to consider the information.

- Sexual orientation is considered a private and personal matter, the military will not inquire or keep track of individual troop's orientation.

- ALL troops will be held to the SAME standard of conduct. PERIOD. This includes personal displays of affection and political acts. The primary change here is homosexual service members will be held to the SAME standards heterosexual members are held to.

- There will be no special policy or standard regarding sexual orientation in billeting, housing, or other facilities. Commanders do however have the power to make case by case accommodations in the interest of maintaining morale, good order and discipline if a situation threatens to impact the mission.

- There will be no changes in a soldier's 'existing' rights to free speech and the exercise of religion.

- There will be no changes in the rights of chaplains to practice their religion or their duty to service all. Under current free speech/religious freedom regulation the military is VERY limited in its ability to dictate what a chaplain can say in services. Chaplains can condemn homosexuality in general in church services. Chaplains are required to provide services to all personnel regardless of those personnel's beliefs. If a conflict arises that prevents this the chaplain must do everything in his power to see that the individual soldier's needs are meet even if he cannot provide them.

- All solders are required to respect and serve with others who hold different views and beliefs. Failure to do so is conduct unbecoming and punishable under the UCMJ. (This is existing policy and is no change.)

- Because of DOMA, the military cannot recognize same sex marriages but individual soldiers may still allocate those benefits they can electively assign like any other single troop. (Same sex couples will not qualify for family housing unless they have a dependent child).

- Sexual orientation WILL NOT be added as a protected class under the Military Equal opportunity system like race, color or religion.

- Harassment and abuse for ANY REASON including sexual orientation will not be tolerated and troops will have the right to file complaints through the command, IG and MEO systems. Such complaints must be investigated.

- No special consideration will be given to assignments based on sexual orientation but commanders will have the right to set special restrictions or policies in countries where homosexual conduct is illegal.

- There will be no changes in medical policy or procedures. The DoD has determined that current policies dealing with HIV and other potential issues are adequate.

- There will be no exceptions to service commitments for personnel who object to serving with homosexuals. They will not be allowed to leave the service early.

- The military will not request, collect or maintain information on sexual orientation of personnel.

- The term homosexual will be replaced with Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual (GLB) in regulations. (They seem to feel this give a more realistic view of personnel.)

- Individuals discharged under DADT may reapply for service provided there are no other factors.

- Transgender and Transsexual individuals will not be accepted for military service. This is a separate existing policy from DADT related to physical standards.

- No service member can refuse to use assigned billeting and other shared facilities or duty assignments because of objections to homosexual service members. No special facilities will be built based on sexual orientation. Individuals can file a request and commanders have the authority to apply their own discretion in the best interests of moral, good order and discipline in accordance with DoD policy and resources available.

- Sodomy while still listed in the UCMJ has been greatly restricted by rulings by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces that have determined that private consensual sexual activity (including sodomy) is a protected right under the 14th Amendment. UCMJ sodomy regulations can only be applied in situations involving conduct unbecoming (public sex acts, relations between senior and junior personnel in the same command, rape, acts involving a minor, etc.). Sexual misconduct of any kind will not be tolerated gay or straight.

That is about it. Sounds pretty good to me, they seem to be following the British approach which worked pretty well for their military. Any questions?
 
My only concern is that it won't be added as a protected class. That seems to be mitigated substantially by effectively pretending everyone is the same, but it still concerns me.
 
My only concern is that it won't be added as a protected class. That seems to be mitigated substantially by effectively pretending everyone is the same, but it still concerns me.

I think trying to make it MEO category would be a bridge to far at this time, particularly in view of DOMA. It would also not fit the approach they are taking which is a sexual orientation neutral one. I think the issue forced on them by DOMA is going to be the biggest issue myself.
 
Basically, nothing will change except they will be allowed. That's what's been suggested for years.

It's just not that big of a deal and the vast majority of soldiers will not care.

The fact that we are not seeing a bunch of special considerations made validates the ease of this change everyone rational said it would be and dismisses the absurd predictions of the bigots.
 
One thing I'm glad to see, is the prohibition of building separate facilities based on sexual orientation. Some had talked about building separate quarters for GLBT troops before.

Therefore, there won't be a barracks that disparagingly gets stuck with a horrible monkier such as "Queerville" and all of the ghettoizing and ridicule that would likely come with the territory.
 
Basically, nothing will change except they will be allowed. That's what's been suggested for years.

It's just not that big of a deal and the vast majority of soldiers will not care.

The fact that we are not seeing a bunch of special considerations made validates the ease of this change everyone rational said it would be and dismisses the absurd predictions of the bigots.

Essentially but they didn't know for sure in the 90s but the British were forced to drop their ban and its been 10 years now so we have a good model to base this on.
 
One thing I'm glad to see, is the prohibition of building separate facilities based on sexual orientation. Some had talked about building separate quarters for GLBT troops before.

Therefore, there won't be a barracks that disparagingly gets stuck with a horrible monkier such as "Queerville" and all of the ghettoizing and ridicule that would likely come with the territory.

That was specifically ruled out because it would not benefit unit cohesion to start intentionally isolating personnel.
 
One thing I'm glad to see, is the prohibition of building separate facilities based on sexual orientation. Some had talked about building separate quarters for GLBT troops before.

Therefore, there won't be a barracks that disparagingly gets stuck with a horrible monkier such as "Queerville" and all of the ghettoizing and ridicule that would likely come with the territory.

There's a principle in there that was proven by the French Foreign Legion: if you're in the Legion, that's your identity; nothing else matters. If you allow that to come apart, morale and discipline go to crap.
 
Well this is at least a great step forward for the US military.

Unless the Republicans can still figure out a way to make repeal enough of an issue in order to block implementation and still get to kick the issue around in the 2012 elections.

Stay tuned.
 
If they can pull the trigger on the new policy this year it would be hard pressed to stop it once its in place and working it will be hard to reverse it. If the UK is any judge we'll be looking back at it in a few years wondering what all the fuss was about.
 
Well, there wasn't even a ripple in Canada.

But the Republicans don't really have a lot else to promise their fundie base in order to pull the hard core conservative voters.

The economy won't count for shit. Anchor babies might re-emerge as an issue and who knows, maybe the war against Islam in Kentucky will get the cousin fuckers there all het up.

But mark my words. Both parties need the homo issue to fight over in order to distinguish one branch of corporate owned shills from the other.
 
All sounds good to me.

Only that that annoyed me is the use of soldier to describe all service members. I know for Marines and Sailors at least, that's beyond a insult to insuate we are in the army.
 
All sounds good to me.

Only that that annoyed me is the use of soldier to describe all service members. I know for Marines and Sailors at least, that's beyond a insult to insuate we are in the army.

The soldier crops up because this is coming from the Army training materials and I'm paraphrasing this in my own words since I can't technically post the training materials directly here. Air Force training materials tend to use the phrase service member. I don't know about the other services but they would all put their own unique flavor to it.
 
The soldier crops up because this is coming from the Army training materials and I'm paraphrasing this in my own words since I can't technically post the training materials directly here. Air Force training materials tend to use the phrase service member. I don't know about the other services but they would all put their own unique flavor to it.
oh cool. each service will direct it towards it's enlisted members. So air force would be airmen, navy sailors, marine corp marine. etc.

not so annoyed knowing that it came from the army. i thought this was straight from the DoD, and got a little sad they wrote it that way.
 
oh cool. each service will direct it towards it's enlisted members. So air force would be airmen, navy sailors, marine corp marine. etc.

not so annoyed knowing that it came from the army. i thought this was straight from the DoD, and got a little sad they wrote it that way.

From the looks of it, the actual training packages are be prepared at or around the MAJCOM level but the information would be originating from the DoD.
 
I just thought today this sexual orientation neutral approach combined with a proven track record in the UK will give conservative congressmen practically nothing to hang a hat on to challenge the DoD's certification of the service's readiness to implement the repeal. They could raise challenge on the DoD's actions if they made special accommodations or tried to add orientation to the MEO.
 
Back
Top