Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for December 14, 2010

Whooops … that cuts deep … Good one, GT!

Yes, DADT. Sitting there pretending to be someone you’re not..

Ouch.

Can anybody explain? Am I supposed to know why she’s being discharged?

One thing she wasn’t pretending to be was a soldier.

I didn’t realise the US military hadn’t quite joined the 21st century yet.

Nagut: She’s gay, and thanks to McCain, and against the wishes of the majority of Congress, the White House, the American Military, and the American People, she’ll be kicked out.

Coyoty, well said. She was a real soldier, and unlike almost all the other militaries of the world, as GrimmaTheNome notes, that wasn’t appreciated.

Well, yeah, it was, but not by McCain, whose wishes seem to take precedence over everyone else.

@nagut, it’s the US military’s DADT (don’t ask, don’t tell) policy.

GrimmaTheNome, the military has said it’s okay with gays. It’s Congress that isn’t in the 21st Century yet.

hadn’t you noticed that we’re going back to the stone age? The idea that the 21st Century represents enlightenment is a lovely fairy tale.

wait till Manning takes the stand (unless they snuff him, first for being “out”, and next for revealing how ill-kept our “high-security” secrets have been). I predict they’ll bring back crucifixion. Ya know, one cross for Manning, one for Assange, and the one in the middle for the slow, agonizing death of Hope.

this strip is a killer. and it’s the wrong people who are dying. very powerful.

The people who are against gay or bi servicemembers claim that they are worried they would be “harassed”. Meanwhile, one in three women serving in the US military today is raped. Obviously being straight solves EVERYTHING about military sexual harassment. eyeroll

I didn’t know Dora Bianchi was in the military… :)

Yeah, I guess she got caught with Tai, tmoverbeck. Good call!

THEY ARE DISCHARGING HER? I had heard that people whom popped positive on UA’s where still used as cannon fodder and then processed out upon remob! Why not the same with alternative life-style people?

@babka

”hadn’t you noticed that we’re going back to the stone age? The idea that the 21st Century represents enlightenment is a lovely fairy tale.”

Oh, but it is “enlightenment…” to the rest of the world beyond the frontiers of a crumbling empire that just cannot adapt to change…

And further, what goes on at Airbus-stays at Airbus.

^^Not that we don’t want to adapt to change. Our leaders want to take us back to the days where we’re quiet and obedient little sheep. Remember that progress bought us equal rights, human rights, and civil rights, and all of that is bad for business.

Finally, a thread devoted to a current and relevant topic.

With DODT,does the military actively seek out homosexuals in order to prosecute or discharge them? Or do they only get involved when soldiers do something sexually “public”, such as trying to establish the 1st Amphibious Assault Company Marine Gay Men’s Choir?

Sincerely, I’ve always interpreted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as “It’s not the military’s business what sexuality you are until you make it our business”. Is that correct, or does the military enforce it? If 2 female grunts hold hands during lunch, will they be investigated any more than if it were a male and a female, or would both displays be considered innappropriate? My question is genuine.

^It has to do with your behavior when you’re signed up in the armed forces. It doesn’t matter if you’re on the base or off the base (where the majority of people are caught) doing gay stuff is gonna get you booted.

In other words your sexuality is their business 24/7. You could be at home for the holidays and your keester is theirs, so to speak.

^ Both displays are inappropriate and UCMJ charges could follow. The big key is that once you take off the uniform, you’re relatively free from that kind of scrutiny UNLESS you’re gay. That will follow you back into uniform.

I prefer “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Prosecute/Persecute”.

Granted, the DADT seems to be the point of the strip, but has anyone else thought that perhaps it’s a smokescreen for another sexual assault story? Have to wait and see how it plays out, I suppose…

nemesys - I don’t know for certain either, but I think your example is on point. My understanding is that a male soldier holding hands with a female soldier is okay, but a male holding hands with a male constitutes an in-your-face display. Anyone know for sure?

Don’t ask, Don’t tell has always seemed a reasonable compromise to me. The military has no business asking about a recruit’s sexual orientation and no recruit is obligated to divulged their sexual orientation.

Nem and others,,,,,,,,, The whole thing is a mstery to me. When I was in was long before DADT and homosexuality was forbidden. I thought DADT was progress. Now some want DADT repealed saying that would be progress. I can’t see how it would be progress for ayone. What we need is for a person’s sexual orientation to not be a factor in service. Instead, a person’s behavior should be a factor.

I don’t know about what goes on now, but public displays of affection were frowned upon unless occuring with a spouse and children upon redeployment stateside. Whether male w/ female or any other flavor. Tha twould include hand holding, kissing, other than friendly greeting hugs, etc…

First_Of_The_Fallen

Excellent point…we have been “primed” from recent DADT strips to believe that this is what is happening (and of course the play on words in today’s strip), but it could easily be what you suggest…and if it is, I worry about Mel’s reaction.

Public displays of affection while in uniform are prohibited, although the brass is lenient when it comes to deploying or returning from a deployment.

And for the record, it was Democrat President Clinton who instituted Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It was a political compromise. He could have easily ordered the change, just like Truman did when he ordered the end of segregation in the military.

@fbjsr – Do you really think that over 13,000 soldiers, sailors, marines & air force members were all trying to push a point? Or were they just living their lives, as we all do? There have been & continue to be witch hunts – try reading some of their discharge reports. It is deeply saddening to know that we are totally discounting the value of loyal & devoted service members just because we don’t like who they are.

plus4, you’re wrong. I know there’s a lot of opinion flying around in this thread, but you are wrong. People are born gay. I was born gay. I did not choose to be gay. And people have not “stopped ‘being’” gay, they have deluded themselves into believing that Christian pseudo-science can change an immutable characteristic. Every reputable scientific source (note: reputable) will say the same thing: “ex-gay reparative therapy” is bogus and won’t work. The people that buy into that are still gay, they’re just lying to themselves.

plus4, that is a sad and destructive lie. All, and I repeat, all, reputable studies have shown this is wrong. It is tragic, it is folly.

Tell us, how hard did YOU have to think to be heterosexual? Was it a decision? When did you make it? What concerns did you consider? What counsel did you take? What alternatives did you try? Or did you just “know”?

And here’s a big question: could you stop being straight? I’m assuming you’re attracted to the opposite sex–could you have sex for a lifetime with a partner of the same sex just because society told you you should?

How would you feel about being told that the partner(s) you’re attracted to are off-limits? and being told that since that’s your “problem” you should simply live as a non-sexual being for the rest of your days?

@plus4

I had a dear friend in the Navy (we were both WAVES in 1973). She confided in me that she was gay. Out of curiosity, I asked her when she knew she was gay. Her response was immediate: “I can’t remember NOT being gay. I had a crush on my 4th grade teacher!”

@nemesys a simple answer to your question on investigations is YES. The armed forces will investigate if you are found anywhere at any time to be gay. They then ask (DADT donesn’t apply anymore) and an affermative answer gets you discharged. Lying gets you discharged. A real win-win for the military.

Great

@ marchman Thanks for your response. If that’s true, it’s unfortunate. I wonder if Clinton understood that when he implemented DADT.

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I don’t think that public displays of sexuality in the military are appropriate at all… they lead to incidents such as Tailhook and what happened to Mel, so being “open” about it (except as JCSupSvc describes re: coming and going from enlistments) seems detrimental to service. I don’t want to know if you’re gay, or if you’re not gay either. I shudder to envision Military Gay Pride groups marching around the base under camouflage rainbows.

On the other hand, I consider what a person does in private to be private. If the soldier on the plane is met at the airport by a girl and they exchange kisses, so what? Who really cares where and how she or Mel spend their R&R, so long as they spend it honorably and do not publicly degrade her uniform? The government and the public it represents has no business in prescibing what happens when the lights go out.

Of course, the irony is that the public permitted the documented sexual adventures of the same Commander-in-Chief who signed DADT into law. If BJ Bill Jefferson wasn’t fired for sexual misconduct, why should any soldier be?

FYI….Homophobia aside, one of the main arguments for not allowing openly gay persons to serve coincides with the argument for not allowing women to serve in combat units. There is a fear that favoritism may influence decisions. The civilian world already has problems with favoritism or biases with regards to women and gays and minorities - this is much wore grave when lives are in immediate jeopardy. (Race is still an issue in the military, too, it just takes a back-seat to media attention to gays.)

Dr Dan: Holding hands in a USMC uniform is frowned upon, regardless of gender. The other branches may have more legacy, but it is basically the same idea - the uniform is the property of the USMC, you just wear it and represent them. Behavior is a key factor in what the punishment will be. There was a guy in my unit who “came out of the closet” verbally. Ironically, they thought this was false, and investigated him for trying to break his contract. Eventually he was an admin. discharge after several months of investigation.

The military does not want to waste time and money training a person just to kick them out. They also don’t want to kick out a person they spent a lot of money and time training. (It sounds circular, but think about it.) Add in the additional sacrifices on cadets, midshipmen, ROTC candidates, etc, and the price tag for enforcing the policy is high. Of course, the added cost of court and PR is priceless. It is very costly to discharge Adam and Steve, which is why the reason (right or wrong) is more than just due to a simple bias.

Some on here suggest it is the failure of the Democratic congress to repeal this. They have repeatedly tried. It is the Republicans who have steadfastly blocked it despite the overwhelming support for its repeal by the American public. Also, people forget that the policy was supposed to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue. That last part was totally ignored by the military. If a person was “reported” for being gay, the military was not to pursue it without the person openly stating his/her sexual orientation (like it should matter, anyway!). The witch hunts started the day after this heinous law was passed. For those saying the military discourages any displays of affection while a person is in uniform - the day they discharge some guy getting off a plane whose wife grabs and kisses him before flashing cameras when he gets home, I’ll buy that. And the day they DON’T discharge him when his boyfriend grabs him and kisses him upon his homecoming – then we will know DADT is dead.

This must be a relief for all the folks afraid of Jeff and Mel hooking up, even though she doesn’t roll that way.

Gay softball has its own DADT. During the Gay World Series the SF team got busted out of 2nd place because of too many non gays on the team. (The one married to a woman wasn’t fooling anyone). Look at the conduct of the league. They were gross, worse than the Boy Scouts. Now some lesbian civil rights lawyers are involved with the non gays in a lawsuit, so it’ll probably turn out all right.

plus4, while it’s true (to the best of my knowledge) that no one has yet isolated a “gay gene” (which is not to say they may not yet do so), there have been MANY studies indicating SOME biological factors. There’s a particular structure to one part of the brain (the hypothalamus?) that has been linked to homosexuality in males. Males whose mothers had previously given birth to two or more male offspring are more likely to be gay than the general male population. Twin studies have shown a biological component. Biological offspring of homosexuals raised in homosexual households are more likely to be homosexual than biological offspring of heterosexuals raised in homosexual households.

One’s neural and physical development from conception is subject to many factors BESIDES genotype; hormone washes in the uterus are responsible for a number of developmental phases, including many sexual characteristics. Who knows what differences an increase or decrease of, say, 10% in uterine androgen may have on the fetus? It won’t change an X-chromosome into a Y-chromosome, but it very well may have a significant effect on whom that child will ultimately be.

It’s true that homosexuals can choose to refrain from homosexual acts. Heterosexuals can likewise choose to refrain from heterosexual acts. That doesn’t change who they are, just what they do. Why should one group be expected not to act on their desires while the other group is allowed free rein?

Regarding the comment about the USMC. Remember, in the survey that the Defense Department put out, the USMC had the highest opposition to the repeal of DADT.

Frrykid…I am not speaking for them, but it makes sense. The USMC is Self sufficient, but a huge part of the MOS (jobs) is the Corps is combat realted. Furthermore, the folksaying that “all Marines are a basic rifleman” supports the reasoning for that ideaolgy.

I would be surprised if the USMC wasn’t the highest in opposition to repeal. They would PROBABLY prefer that a person come out of the closet and accept a non combat role as oppopsed to lying, or misleading at best.

“The USMC is Self sufficient”

I guess the US Navy has all of those Amphibious assault ships for who, the Army?

Every medic in serving with Marines is a US Navy sailor, the list goes on.

I guess we have a different definition of self sufficient.

W(ar).Fool – I think we are already there (quiet little sheepies) and have been since they shot us for daring to speak out in the 60s.

Pirate…My comment was more of a blanket statement and ment to hurt your,or anyones, feelings. If you want to get technical, it is not a medic, but a (green) corpsman, and they are NAVY. In fact, the USMC is part of the NAVY. If you want to start a fight over something a benine as this, look for someone else. If your feelings were hurt, grow up. Either way, I don’t care about your opinions or to hen pick

In other words, du55, the fact is that your opinions were shot to the ground, and your response was to run away with your tail between your legs.

Not very Marine-like.

By the way, the Marines get their medical care not just from “(green) corpsman”, but also from seasoned medical doctors.

I know…I was one.