Yesterday, November 30th, marked the 15th anniversary of the signing of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. In light of the significant shifts in the political winds of late, it now remains unclear whether the law will even live to see its next anniversary date. Yesterday also marked the anniversary of an unprecedented event and display on the National Mall one year ago, 12,000 Flags for 12,000 Patriots, which Servicemembers United proudly created, organized, and executed with the assistance and co-sponsorship of the other major organizations that consistently champion the DADT issue. With an extraordinary level of cooperation, we succeeded in presenting the image of a strong and united community as the national media generously covered our event and our issue.
SU (and its predecessor project, Call to Duty) was founded by gay and lesbian veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan era to represent, for the first time, the missing voices of our generation of troops and veterans in the DADT-repeal movement. While there are indeed older and more entrenched organizations that have long advocated for the repeal of DADT, SU has demonstrated unequivocally over the past 3 years that both the need and the room exist within the movement for an organization that is more inclusive and representative of this new generation of heroes.
While SU has made a deliberate effort to lay low and stay out of the national spotlight during the 2008 election season, its growing core of dedicated activists has not been sitting idly by. We are now well positioned and ready to aggressively recruit and mobilize untapped resources through our proven innovation, creativity, energy, passion, and unmatched connections within this vastly under-engaged community, much in the same way that the newer mainstream organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) has risen to national prominence over the past 5 years. By aggressively stepping forward and tapping the new social capital and civic engagement within our community, IAVA has succeeded in establishing representation for our generation’s voice in the wider veterans affairs arena. If we have learned anything from the breakthrough success of IAVA’s youthful and energetic leadership and from the unprecedented display of mass mobilization in this election, it is that the time is ripe for the Iraq and Afghanistan generation of veterans to step forward and assume a leadership role within the DADT-repeal movement.
As we go forward, we would like to continue to acknowledge and sincerely thank all who have supported, mentored, encouraged, and believed in us over the past 3 years. We will continue to strive to surpass your expectations and make you proud. And to all of our brethren still serving on active duty, as always, keep fighting for us and we’ll keep fighting for you!
--The Servicemembers United Team
Monday, December 1, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Opposition Commentary
Servicemembers United received the following emailed comment in response to our news story about the 28 generals and admirals stepping forward in November, 2007 to call for repeal of the DADT law. I will provide a response in my next blog posting. In the meantime, readers should feel fee to leave their own responses to the CDR Johnson's position in the comments section of this blog posting. --Alex
I disagree with the premise of the 28 generals’recent letter, but agree the military’s "policy", often called Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), should be dropped.
In the 1993 law that bars homosexuals from serving, Congress noted that the military lifestyle is not compatible with a homosexual one. Imagine living on a warship where 100 or more may sleep in one open room for months at a time at sea with people not of their own choosing. Most members of Congress are fairly well educated. President Clinton signed it into law and he was a Rhodes Scholar.
DADT is not really the law but a Department of Defense “policy” created under President Bill Clinton generally barring the asking of one’s sexual orientation as part of the recruiting process or while on active duty. The 1993 law allows DADT, but it also allows the Secretary of Defense – at any time – to drop the policy and go back to asking one’s sexual orientation without restriction. It is sort of crazy to have a law that bars gays from the military but not being able to ask about it during the recruiting process.
If the DADT policy was dropped as the generals recommend, honest homosexuals would be barred from enlisting per the law. I believe the DADT policy should be dropped so we can prevent gays from enlisting in the first place as required by the law. That will save training money that is spent on homosexuals who are later discharged. Gays will always be in the military; they will just have to go back to lying to join.
If we are going to change the current law, we need to go all the way. The new law should specify that the military will no longer consider sexual orientation or gender in recruiting, shower and toilet facilities, and sleeping quarters. All facilities would be orientation and gender neutral; in other words, coed.
Imagine if your child or spouse were subject to living under the above described conditions with people not of their own choosing for months at a time. Right now many in the public are not concerned about this since our military is all volunteer, but one day we could have a draft again.
My proposed law change is the logical and fair thing to do for both homosexual and heterosexual personnel. It is supported by the reasoning being used to repeal the current 1993 law: that sexual orientation in a military environment is irrelevant and the military is no different than civilian society - exactly the opposite of what the vast majority of Congress held in 1993. I wonder how much of the 1993 Congress is still in Congress and how they voted in 1993? Maybe someone can print a list up and publish it.
There is one form of discrimination that no one has made note of that I am aware of. Under a 1986 Federal law, the military must keep HIV positive personnel, mostly male homosexuals, until their health makes them too ill to work. Only then they are medically discharged with full benefits. With modern medicine they may stay in the military for decades. These same people are barred from serving overseas or on ships and only serve in the United States. Thus HIV negative personnel have to serve more often overseas and in harms way. Any other condition that has this effect on military readiness results in discharge. Congress should consider legislation to either: 1. Allow HIV positive personnel to serve anywhere or 2. Require that all HIV personnel be immediately medically discharged.
I would gladly participate in a debate but I know from experience at Tulane Univ. and other places that gay rights supporters do not like to debate people with views contrary to their own. They consider contrary points of view as hate speech and use that as an excuse not to debate. This is spelled out in gay activists’ organizing materials when it comes to recruiters coming to college campuses. Their real reason is they know their reasoning would not stand up to a logical and spirited (no name calling) debate. I would recommend any debate be conducted in the enlisted berthing compartment on a Navy ship so all in attendance and viewing the debate will have a sense what military life is like.
CDR Wayne L. Johnson, JAGC, Navy (Retired), Alexandria, VA
I disagree with the premise of the 28 generals’recent letter, but agree the military’s "policy", often called Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), should be dropped.
In the 1993 law that bars homosexuals from serving, Congress noted that the military lifestyle is not compatible with a homosexual one. Imagine living on a warship where 100 or more may sleep in one open room for months at a time at sea with people not of their own choosing. Most members of Congress are fairly well educated. President Clinton signed it into law and he was a Rhodes Scholar.
DADT is not really the law but a Department of Defense “policy” created under President Bill Clinton generally barring the asking of one’s sexual orientation as part of the recruiting process or while on active duty. The 1993 law allows DADT, but it also allows the Secretary of Defense – at any time – to drop the policy and go back to asking one’s sexual orientation without restriction. It is sort of crazy to have a law that bars gays from the military but not being able to ask about it during the recruiting process.
If the DADT policy was dropped as the generals recommend, honest homosexuals would be barred from enlisting per the law. I believe the DADT policy should be dropped so we can prevent gays from enlisting in the first place as required by the law. That will save training money that is spent on homosexuals who are later discharged. Gays will always be in the military; they will just have to go back to lying to join.
If we are going to change the current law, we need to go all the way. The new law should specify that the military will no longer consider sexual orientation or gender in recruiting, shower and toilet facilities, and sleeping quarters. All facilities would be orientation and gender neutral; in other words, coed.
Imagine if your child or spouse were subject to living under the above described conditions with people not of their own choosing for months at a time. Right now many in the public are not concerned about this since our military is all volunteer, but one day we could have a draft again.
My proposed law change is the logical and fair thing to do for both homosexual and heterosexual personnel. It is supported by the reasoning being used to repeal the current 1993 law: that sexual orientation in a military environment is irrelevant and the military is no different than civilian society - exactly the opposite of what the vast majority of Congress held in 1993. I wonder how much of the 1993 Congress is still in Congress and how they voted in 1993? Maybe someone can print a list up and publish it.
There is one form of discrimination that no one has made note of that I am aware of. Under a 1986 Federal law, the military must keep HIV positive personnel, mostly male homosexuals, until their health makes them too ill to work. Only then they are medically discharged with full benefits. With modern medicine they may stay in the military for decades. These same people are barred from serving overseas or on ships and only serve in the United States. Thus HIV negative personnel have to serve more often overseas and in harms way. Any other condition that has this effect on military readiness results in discharge. Congress should consider legislation to either: 1. Allow HIV positive personnel to serve anywhere or 2. Require that all HIV personnel be immediately medically discharged.
I would gladly participate in a debate but I know from experience at Tulane Univ. and other places that gay rights supporters do not like to debate people with views contrary to their own. They consider contrary points of view as hate speech and use that as an excuse not to debate. This is spelled out in gay activists’ organizing materials when it comes to recruiters coming to college campuses. Their real reason is they know their reasoning would not stand up to a logical and spirited (no name calling) debate. I would recommend any debate be conducted in the enlisted berthing compartment on a Navy ship so all in attendance and viewing the debate will have a sense what military life is like.
CDR Wayne L. Johnson, JAGC, Navy (Retired), Alexandria, VA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
