quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

What would "being themsleves" entail? 

-- Being asked who a CARE package or letter is from and saying "my boyfriend."

-- Holding hands on a date (off the base). 

-- Answering honestly if someone asks, "So do you have a girlfriend back home?" (and wouldn't that answer just be "no"?}

-- Ditto if someone asks, "Are you married?" ("no" again)

-- Not feeling you have to pretend to ogle the WACs. (do what the stight guys do when they aren't interested..just say the woman isn't your type)

-- Explaining that one of the reasons you support a given candidate is because s/he supports gay rights.
(Any sexuality can be supportive of the a candidate who supports gay rights)

quote:

- Answering honestly if someone asks, "So do you have a girlfriend back home?" (and wouldn't that answer just be "no"?)

-- Ditto if someone asks, "Are you married?" ("no" again)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Here's an experiment for you: Try going a day without referring to your husband in a way that reveals that he's male. That might help convey the self-censorship that gay/lesbian servicefolk have to practice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

Why should outside ( read PC ) pressure force the military to change its policy's? If you were advocating that the military should have a referendum on it, ( with only active military voting ) I'd support that. Serving in the military has many drawbacks. You accept restrictions on your rights as many times its whats best for the group instead of whats best for you, that rules the day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Supply and demand is what is driving the policy change,
not outside interests.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
need more troops than are available as a volunteer force. 
The military recruiters are lowering their requirements to
keep up their quotas. Go back to the beginning of this thread
and read post #6 by soultoshare.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

The need for more troops is a major factor calling for the
re-examination of the policy change.  The military has already
lowered standards for recruitment and is in fact, considering
recruiting foreigners using expedited citizenship as an incentive.
 
Supply and demand in process.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-09-army-recruiting_x.htm
 
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/26/military_considers_recruiting_foreigners/
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

So if I understand your position, you believe that if "dont ask dont tell" is removed that thier will be a large outpouring of new gay recruits, even though they can serve now. Just not openly.

Not at all.  I am saying that the lower recruiting numbers is a
driving force behind re-examining the policy.

From Salon.com News
"Out of jail, into the Army"
 
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/index_np.html

 
"Facing an enlistment crisis, the Army is granting "waivers" to an increasingly high percentage of recruits with criminal records -- and trying to hide it."
 
By Mark Benjamin


"Even without the waivers, the Army has lowered its standards for enlistees. The Army has eased restrictions on recruiting high school dropouts. It also raised the maximum recruitment age from 35 to 39. Moreover, last fall the Army announced that it would be doubling the number of soldiers that it admits who score near the bottom on a military aptitude test.

(break)

The story of that unnamed Air National Guard recruit (whose name is blacked out in his statement) is based on documents obtained by Salon under the Freedom of Information Act. It illustrates one of the tactics that the military is using in its uphill battle to meet recruiting targets during the Iraq war. The personnel problems are acute. The Air National Guard, for example, missed its recruiting target by 14 percent last year. And the regular Army missed its goal by 8 percent, its largest recruiting shortfall since 1979.


This is where waivers come in. According to statistics provided to Salon by the office of the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, the Army said that 17 percent (21,880 new soldiers) of its 2005 recruits were admitted under waivers. Put another way, more soldiers than are in an entire infantry division entered the Army in 2005 without meeting normal standards. This use of waivers represents a 42 percent increase since the pre-Iraq year of 2000. (All annual figures used in this article are based on the government's fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. So fiscal year 2006 began Oct. 1, 2005.)

(break)

" In short, the military's explanation seems a variant of Catch-22. Officials now admit that the Army waiver data originally given to Salon was contaminated with extraneous numbers, but the Army cannot comment on what its actual waiver percentage might be, since the Pentagon figures are so muddled. When told of these numbers games, Korb said, "I'm sure that somebody on Capitol Hill is going to demand the answers."
 
It is no secret to Congress that the Army, which is fighting the brunt of the war in Iraq, is facing a severe personnel crisis. A Pentagon-commissioned report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments leaked last week warned that prolonged deployments and recruiting problems were "breaking" the Army. A chapter of that report, titled "A Recruiting and Retention Crisis?" goes so far as to say that the grind of war on the Army -- rather than any political imperatives from Washington -- will accentuate the pace of military withdrawal from Iraq. "
 
(break)
 
Yet according to the waivers, just four days earlier the Air Guard's national headquarters had approved the enlistment of a California recruit who had been charged in October 2003 with "assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury." True, the recruit was a 17-year-old juvenile when he committed the crime for which he was later convicted, but that date was less than two years before he was admitted to the Air Guard.
 
Other examples from the Air Guard files suggest a wider problem:
 

After his parents filed a domestic-abuse complaint against him in 2000, a recruit in Rhode Island was sentenced to one year of probation, ordered to have "no contact" with his parents, and required to undergo counseling and to pay court costs. Air National Guard rules say domestic violence convictions make recruits ineligible -- no exceptions granted. But the records show that the recruiter in this case brought the issue to an Air Guard staff judge advocate, who reviewed the file and determined that the offense did not "meet the domestic violence crime criteria." As a result of this waiver, the recruit was admitted to his state's Air Guard on May 3, 2005.
 

A recruit with DWI violations in June 2001 and April 2002 received a waiver to enter the Iowa Air National Guard on July 15, 2005. The waiver request from the Iowa Guard to the Pentagon declares that the recruit "realizes that he made the wrong decision to drink and drive."
 

Another recruit for the Rhode Island Air National Guard finished five years of probation in 2002 for breaking and entering, apparently into his girlfriend's house. A waiver got him into the Guard in June 2005.
 

A recruit convicted in January 2004 for possession of marijuana, drug paraphernalia and stolen license-plate tags got into the Hawaii Air National Guard with a waiver little more than a year later, on March 3, 2005.
 
Taken together, the troubling statistics from the Army and anecdotal information derived from the files of the Air National Guard raise a warning flag about the extent to which the military is lowering its standards to fight the war in Iraq. The president may be correct in his recent press conference boast that "we're transforming the military." But the abuse of recruiting waivers prompts the question: In what direction is this military transformation headed?"  

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

Why should outside ( read PC ) pressure force the military to change its policy's? If you were advocating that the military should have a referendum on it, ( with only active military voting ) I'd support that. Serving in the military has many drawbacks. You accept restrictions on your rights as many times its whats best for the group instead of whats best for you, that rules the day.

   I agree with this also.  In my life.. if I find a group or situation that is structured in such a way that I would not be comforatable,  I simply don't go there.   

quote:

it should be a decision made by the members of the active serving military, not outside agents.