America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by gringococolo. 18 replies replies.
Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants
gringococolo Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
By ANNE FLAHERTY and JULIE WATSON, Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty And Julie Watson, Associated Press Writer
7 mins ago

.SAN DIEGO – The military is accepting openly gay recruits for the first time in the nation's history, even as it tries in the courts to slow the movement to abolish its "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

At least two service members discharged for being gay began the process to re-enlist after the Pentagon's Tuesday announcement.

A federal judge in California who overturned the 17-year policy last week rejected the government's latest effort on Tuesday to halt her order telling the military to stop enforcing the law. Government lawyers will likely appeal.

With the recruiting announcement, the barriers built by an institution long resistant and sometimes hostile to gays had come down.

The movement to overturn the 1993 Clinton-era law gained speed when President Barack Obama campaigned on its repeal. The effort stalled in Congress this fall, and found new life last month when U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips declared it unconstitutional.

"Gay people have been fighting for equality in the military since the 1960s," said Aaron Belkin, executive director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays and the military at the University of California Santa Barbara. "It took a lot to get to this day."

The Defense Department has said it would comply with Phillips' order and had frozen any discharge cases. Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said recruiters had been given top-level guidance to accept applicants who say they are gay.

AP interviews found some recruiters following the order and others saying they had not heard of the announcement.

Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium on enforcement of the policy could be reversed at any time, if the ruling is appealed or the court grants a stay, she said.

Gay rights groups were continuing to tell service members to avoid revealing that they are gay, fearing they could find themselves in trouble should the law be reinstated.

"What people aren't really getting is that the discretion and caution that gay troops are showing now is exactly the same standard of conduct that they will adhere to when the ban is lifted permanently," Belkin said. "Yes, a few will try to become celebrities."

An Air Force officer and co-founder of a gay service member support group called OutServe said financial considerations are playing a big role in gay service members staying quiet.

"The military has financially trapped us," he said, noting that he could owe the military about $200,000 if he were to be dismissed.

The officer, who asked not to be identified for fear of being discharged, said he's hearing increasingly about heterosexual service members approaching gay colleagues and telling them they can come out now.

He also said more gay service members are coming out to their peers who are friends, while keeping it secret from leadership. He said he has come out to two peers in the last few days.

An opponent of the judge's ruling said confusion that has come up is exactly what Pentagon officials feared and shows the need for her to immediately freeze her order while the government appeals.

"It's only logical that a stay should be granted to avoid the confusion that is already occurring with reports that the Pentagon is telling recruiters to begin accepting homosexual applicants," said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group based in Washington that supports the policy.

The uncertain status of the law has caused much confusion within an institution that has historically discriminated against gays.

Before the 1993 law, the military banned gays entirely and declared them incompatible with military service. There have been instances in which gays have served, with the knowledge of their colleagues.

Twenty-nine nations, including Israel, Canada, Germany and Sweden, allow openly gay troops, according to the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group and plaintiff in the lawsuit before Phillips.

The Pentagon guidance to recruiters comes after Dan Woods, the group's attorney, sent a letter last week warning the Justice Department that Army recruiters who turned away Omar Lopez in Austin, Texas may have caused the government to violate Phillips' injunction. Woods wrote that the government could be subject to a citation for contempt.

The White House has insisted their actions in court do not diminish Obama's efforts to repeal the ban.

In their stay request, government lawyers argue Phillips' order would be disruptive to troops serving at a time of war. They say the military needs time to prepare new regulations and train and educate service members about the change.

Phillips has said her order does not prohibit the Pentagon from implementing those measures. She said the government failed to prove any harm to troops because the policy has been lifted.

"Defendants merely conclude, without explanation, that 'confusion and uncertainty' will result if the injunction remains in place," she said in her ruling. "Thus, defendants have failed to establish they are likely to suffer irreparable injury if a stay is not granted."

Douglas Smith, spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command based at Fort Knox, Ky., said even before the ruling recruiters did not ask applicants about their sexual orientation. The difference now is that recruiters will process those who say they are gay.

"If they were to self-admit that they are gay and want to enlist, we will process them," Smith said, adding that the enlistment process takes time. "U.S. Army Recruiting Command is going to follow the law, whatever the law is," he said.

The message, however, had not reached some recruiting stations.

In Pensacola, Fla., Marine Sgt. Timothy Chandler said he had been given no direction. "As far as we are concerned everything is the same. The policy hasn't changed," he said, as others in the office nodded.

Chandler said no one had come to the small office questioning the policy or asking about being openly gay and serving.

Recruiters at the Navy office next door referred all media questions to the Pentagon. Air Force recruiters said they were not authorized to talk to the media. Army recruiters referred questions to another office in Mobile, Ala.

In New York's Times Square, Dan Choi, a 29-year-old Iraq War veteran who was discharged for being gay, began the process to enlist in the Army.

And in San Diego, Will Rodriguez, a former Marine who was discharged under the policy in 2008, gave his contact information to recruiters. He said they told him there were no slots for troops of his category but they promised to call him in January when more may become available.

Phillips said at a hearing Monday that she was leaning toward denying the Obama administration's request to delay her order. That would send the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

After Phillips' ruling last week, Lopez — discharged from the Navy in 2006 after admitting he was gay to his military doctor — walked into an Army recruiting office in Austin and asked if he could re-enlist.

He said he was up front, even showing the recruiters his Navy discharge papers. But they told him he couldn't re-enlist because they had not gotten word from the Pentagon to allow openly gay recruits.

The Pentagon spokeswoman was unable to confirm the account. She said guidance on gay applicants had been issued to recruiting commands on Oct. 15.

On Tuesday, upon hearing of the changes to recruiting, Lopez said, "Oh, my God! I've been waiting for this for four years."

Lopez said he'll try again Friday and will go to a Navy recruiting office in Austin to see if he can enroll in ROTC as an officer. He is currently studying hospitality services at a college.

"I'm really hoping they can accept me," he said.







What will the administration do? This answers it, I guess.

snowwolf777 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
Well that's just THUPER!

Does the camo come in pink?

Dancing
DadZilla3 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
Might give a whole new meaning to the rank of Rear Admiral...
tweoijfoi Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
snowwolf777 wrote:
Well that's just THUPER!

Does the camo come in pink?

Dancing


Do women get them in pink? No? I guess not then.
fishinguitarman Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
DadZilla3 wrote:
Might give a whole new meaning to the rank of Rear Admiral...





They can even get up a football teams with nothing but tight ends and wide receivers!
Charlie Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Even if they come in holding hands?
Whistlebritches Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
Dear GOD help us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Marines landing on the beach in azzless BDU's,Airborne soldiers jumping with pink Prada handbags and matching shoes,Air Force pilots sporting the newest wonder bra's and lacy thongs under their flight gear,Sailors..........hold it right there........openly kweer sailors walk the plank on my ship.


Ron


MACS Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
Whistlebritches wrote:
Dear GOD help us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Marines landing on the beach in azzless BDU's,Airborne soldiers jumping with pink Prada handbags and matching shoes,Air Force pilots sporting the newest wonder bra's and lacy thongs under their flight gear,Sailors..........hold it right there........openly kweer sailors walk the plank on my ship.


Ron



Jesus, Ron... any latent homosexual tendencies you're trying to suppress? WTF is wrong with you? You DO realize that the military already HAS gays and lesbians, right?

I served with a few of them and they're just as capable as we are. And if you think some gay dude wants to smoke your pole just because he's gay, think again. They have standards, too, bro.

LMAO!!

There was a lesbo on my 2nd ship who was THE best welder I have ever seen.
DrafterX Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
MACS wrote:
And if you think some gay dude wants to smoke your pole just because he's gay, think again. They have standards, too, bro.





How did you learn so much about Gay-Homo standards & stuff..??? Eh?
MACS Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
DrafterX wrote:
How did you learn so much about Gay-Homo standards & stuff..??? Eh?


I have a gay uncle. He's really cool and funny as hell. He was never in the military, though. I'm sure that makes Ron feel better.
DrafterX Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Huh so.... your uncle taught you about gay-homo stuff..?? Huh
Whistlebritches Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
I guess my attempt at humor.has struck a nerve with you MACS.Dude in all honesty I didn't know you had so many flamers as friends.My apologies.

BTW I'm certain I served with homosexuals................they kept it to themselves.DADT was working long before it was implimented as policy.

The whole woman welding thing makes perfect since.Woman have much steadier hands than men.We have a lady oilfield welder here in town that is in such demand she stays about a week or 2 behind.BTW she's also a carpet muncher.


Ron
MACS Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
No nerves struck. I have no gay-homo friends, as far as I know. Pretty sure one guy I work with is, though... but he's a pretty good guy all the same.

I just don't understand the irrational fear of gays. It's funny, in a way... big bad men... scared of gay dudes lookin' at their weiners.

LOL!!

Herfing
DrMaddVibe Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
MACS wrote:
No nerves struck. I have no gay-homo friends, as far as I know. Pretty sure one guy I work with is, though... but he's a pretty good guy all the same.

I just don't understand the irrational fear of gays. It's funny, in a way... big bad men... scared of gay dudes lookin' at their weiners.

LOL!!

Herfing


ZACKLY!!!

They could have marriage unions any damn day of the week...but NOOOOO...they want the whole sanctity of Marriage.


Well, when they can figure out a way to birth a **** baby...get back with me.
gringococolo Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
MACS wrote:
No nerves struck. I have no gay-homo friends, as far as I know. Herfing



You and 8track aren't friends anymore? Sorry to hear that.
MACS Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
I agree, Johann. They don't want us to push our family values on them, but they want to push their sexuality on us. Can't have it both ways.

I think civil unions is a fair compromise.

8track is my brother from another mother... he ain't a gay-homo.
wheelrite Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
all this hub bub about homos...


live and let live...
gringococolo Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
Yea, they want to ram it down our throats. So to speak.

It's just a behavior to me. But behaviors are legislated all the time. I just don't see the oppression. 1000's of people are denied military service because of behavior. If you have had ADHD as a child and were prescribed ritalin, you might be denied service. If you have a domestic violence conviction, you can be denied service.

Civil unions are a separate issue from military service. DADT doesn't forbid service by gays. It forbids a behavior that is considered deviant by the majority.


Adultry is a behavior that you can be booted out of service for. I think uniform service members should be able to bang other peoples wives also. They shouldn't legislate behavior.

Article 134. General article:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.


They gonna change title 10 also?
Users browsing this topic
Guest