Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Polka14's column >>

POLKA14

hatsukashi serifu kinshi....
Articles Posted: 37  Links Seeded: 16
Member Since: 4/2010  Last Seen: 5/17/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

I Would Like to See the Elimination of DADT or Its Expansion

Sun Nov 7, 2010 3:32 PM EST
politics, afghanistan, military, supreme-court, u-s-news, iraq-war, civil-rights, justice-department, obama-administration, first-amendment, dadt, u-n, dont-ask-dont-tell, homosexuals, fifth-amendment, equal-rights-amendment
By Polka14

Live Poll

Do you think DADT will be repealed in the near future?

View Results
  • 123454
    Yes
    75%
  • 123455
    No
    25%

VoteTotal Votes: 12

Live Poll

Do you agree with my idea that DADT should be universally applied?

View Results
  • 123456
    Yes
    56%
  • 123457
    No
    44%

VoteTotal Votes: 9

Live Poll

Are you against the inclusion of homosexuals in the military under any circumstance?

View Results
  • 123458
    Yes
    0%
  • 123459
    No
    100%

VoteTotal Votes: 10

Live Poll

Were you disappointed with the Obama Administration's opposition to the DADT repeal?

View Results
  • 123460
    Yes
    90%
  • 123461
    No
    10%

VoteTotal Votes: 10

Advertise | AdChoices

I understand that the military use of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been the topic of many discussions lately because of the recent Supreme Court decision that declared it unconstitutional and the resulting political backlash against that decision. This is a topic that infuriates me because I despise the idea that this nation would tolerate such open bigotry against a minority segment of our population. America is a great nation and Americans are better than that. I am writing this article because I fear that America is losing valuable progress towards equality in regards to sexual orientation. To stop the rise of bigotry, intolerance and discrimination, I believe that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" must be open to elimination or be allowed to expand to include all service members in America's armed forces.

First, I will discuss what I most strongly believe in regards to this topic. The fight against equal rights on the basis of sexual orientation has manifested itself in military policy and in the bigoted struggle to end marriage equality in this nation. Those that oppose such equality would be the Christian right, homophobic people and the ignorant. They are hopelessly intolerant of those that differ from them and their antiquated and bitter ways are a threat to our ideals of freedom and equality. They can not even defend their objections to allowing homosexual soldiers in the military. Their most common objection would follow the idea that homosexuals and non-homosexual soldiers can not be expected to serve together as a coherent group. Those objections have never been supported by logic or reason and no one has come with a compelling rational argument that would oppose the end of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

You might ask me "Why are you writing this article if you believe "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will be eliminated"? I believe it will be eliminated. It is inevitable that a policy like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will be eliminated eventually. The District Court of California declared it to violate the first and fifth amendments but it was unsuccessful in eliminating the policy. The so-called Justice Department and the military opposed the injunction against the policy and unfortunately, the Obama Administration has shown that it is unwilling to stand for the principles of equality by supporting the DOJ's opposition. Because of this and Democratic unwillingness to do what is right before the Republicans take back control of the house next year, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will likely remain for future years as the bigoted and mean-spirited discrimination policy it has been for seventeen years.

I believe it should be different though. The reasons given to support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been about military cohesion and effectiveness. Their irrationality comes from the idea that openly homosexual soldiers can not function in the battlefield while ignoring those homosexual soldiers that do function in our armed forces. I believe in equality too in addition to justice. If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" can not be eliminated and we can not allow homosexuals to join our armed forces like other civilized nations do, then I say that we should expand it to include all military personnel. Some might say that it would be a cruel policy but I disagree. I say it would be an equal policy.

For those who are confused, let me explain my thinking. Currently, homosexuals are banned from the military if their sexual orientation is discovered. The homosexuals themselves are certainly not telling but the military is punishing them for their sexual orientations. I think that the military should ban all open heterosexual soldiers from the military. Discussing one's sexuality is a weakness and it undermines the effectiveness of our soldiers and the cohesion of our armed forces. If a soldier would reveal any information that would identify his or her sexual orientation, that would be grounds for immediate dismissal from the armed forces.

What would revealing "information that would identify his or her sexual orientation" mean? Examples would include the basic knowledge that someone has revealed his or her sexual orientation. Furthermore, any discussion that reveals sexual orientation (hetero and homosexual) would be forbidden. All military personnel would be forbidden from revealing pictures of their sexual partners or their marriage partners. All policy that works towards the benefit of the families of military personnel which would include spouses would be eliminated.

In conclusion, some may not like it but if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" can not be eliminated in the near future, then this is the only logical and equal use of the policy until it is finally permanently repealed. Of course, those that oppose equal use of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would not admit that they simply hate homosexuals and that is why they approve the use of the policy towards them and not heterosexuals.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Polka14's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Anti-Discrimination, Left of Center
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (32)
Polka14

Alright then. I will accept comments but I will not tolerate personal attacks or violations of the true CoH. I will not honor secret amendments or parts of the CoH. Furthermore any post deemed off-topic or inflammatory will be deleted at my discretion.

This is an important topic for those that value equality and I hope that the America's future is a future void of discriminatory acts like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". It is wrong and until it is finally repealed, it should apply to all military personnel. It is only fair. Let me hear your opinions and please vote in my optional polls.

Thank you for your time spent reading this article.

    Reply#1 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 3:33 PM EST
    sebastiano

    You are forgetting that the only people who should be making the decisions on who should serve in the millitary are those who run the millitary. Dont ask dont tell is a joke, and the prior regulations should be enforced, if that is the will of those in charge

      Reply#2 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 4:00 PM EST
      Polka14

      Our government runs the military and the government can determine military policy. Ending DADT would be only just course of action. If the military tries to refuse, their funding should be cut.

      If it is not eliminated, it should be made equal by force.

      • 1 vote
      #2.1 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 4:10 PM EST
      Reply
      Alan Curtis Montgomery

      Why do we have to always be so behind the times? The Europeans have done this already. Gays have fought bravely in every war in this nations history, its documented. The real reason is homophobia within the military and the fear of other soldiers harassing the openly gay and lesbian soldiers. They fear some soldiers will be uncomfortable with sharing living quarters with gays and lesbians and some may harass the gay and lesbian soldiers. They need to get over their fear is the main thing. Yes you make a good point if they could not reveal they were heterosexual in any way they would see the ridiculousness of this law.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#3 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 4:11 PM EST
      Polka14

      Thank you for understanding my point of view. It is indeed ridiculous. I hope that DADT is repealed but I do not have faith in the political system to do the right thing anymore since the failure to pass true health care reform in 2009.

        #3.1 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 4:21 PM EST
        sebastiano

        Great military, those Europeans have (that was sarcasm)

          #3.2 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 4:27 PM EST
          Paying Attention

          Sebastiano,

          Do you have the same sarcasm toward the Canadian and Israeli military?

          Time: Brief History of Gays in the Military, Feb 2010

          Today, 25 countries allow gays to openly serve in their armed forces, including the U.S.'s closest neighbor, Canada.

          In Israel, which has had no restrictions on gays serving in the military since 1993, the army magazine, Bamahane, showcased two men hugging each other on a 2009 cover.

          • 2 votes
          #3.3 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 8:07 PM EST
          Laochra

          Excellant point Paying Attention. American military constantly cite Wat time situations as cause for their bigotry. Well I don't think you can find a country in more of a "War time" situation than Israel.

            #3.4 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 4:34 AM EST
            Polka14

            And I don't think sebastiano would bash Israel's military even though they enlist women and homosexuals as regular soldiers alongside men and heterosexuals. They do not discriminate. We should not either.

              #3.5 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 10:30 AM EST
              Reply
              sebastiano

              If the people who run our government decides that the millitary should run its own operation the way it wants to then you would be for it, correct?

              Remember this is the military, not a social laboratory

                Reply#4 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 4:26 PM EST
                Polka14

                If the people who run our government decides that the military should run its own operation the way it wants to then you would be for it, correct?

                No. They would be continuing to aid the policy of irrational discrimination in our armed forces.

                Remember this is the military, not a social laboratory

                It is the military but they should not have the right to reject citizens for an aspect as irrelevant as their sexual orientation. I believe that this DADT should be either eliminated or expanded to include all service members. That would include heterosexuals too. They can know what it is like to be kicked out of America's military because of an aspect of their lives that they can not control. It would at least be enforced equally.

                  #4.1 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 4:31 PM EST
                  sebastiano

                  There is no constitutional right to serve in the military.

                  They pick and choose who they want to serve all the time

                  Over and out

                    #4.2 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 4:34 PM EST
                    Polka14

                    There is no constitutional right to serve in the military.

                    That is right. That is why they determine who would be able to function in the military through psychological and physical tests. The military can not prevent a person to join because of his or her race. How is using sexual orientation any different? It is not. Both race and sexual orientation can not prevent someone from performing in the military and they should not be factors towards enlisting in the military. Only homophobic people would truly desire DADT to exist in its current form. Either expand it to include all soldiers or eliminate it completely.

                      #4.3 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 4:39 PM EST
                      Reply
                      UnAmericanLiberal

                      To be honest I think the policy would work fine if the government enforced the "don't ask" part as zealously as they enforce the "don't tell" part. As we have it now, straight people are free to "out" gays serving with them. By my understanding of the law, enquiring someone's sexual preference is just as against the rules as discussing it. I'd like to see all the people that outed gays in the military be fired from their jobs too, for starters.

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#5 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 5:57 PM EST
                      Polka14

                      The current form of DADT is discriminatory against homosexuals. If DADT can not be eliminated, then it should be applied to heterosexuals equally. And it would make sense to discharge those that reveal someone's sexual orientation.

                        #5.1 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 6:06 PM EST
                        UnAmericanLiberal

                        And it would make sense to discharge those that reveal someone's sexual orientation.

                        I agree.

                        The current form of DADT is discriminatory against homosexuals.

                        That actually doesn't matter in the military world. The military is allowed to discriminate. The reason DADT should be eliminated is because it's harmful to the military.

                        If DADT can not be eliminated, then it should be applied to heterosexuals equally

                        That will never happen. DADT was written in regards to homosexuals, therefore it cannot be applied to heterosexuals. It can, however be applied as it was written, by requiring heterosexuals to "don't ask."

                        IMO the best solution would be to repeal DADT and require all people's sexuality and personal lives to not adversely affect their job performance or that of their fellow soldiers. If you can support the argument that an INDIVIDUAL is adversely affecting your performance as a soldier because of how they are acting around you, and refuses to change his or her behavior, then the military should fire them, it shouldn't matter what sexuality they are.

                          #5.2 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 9:13 PM EST
                          Polka14

                          The military is allowed to discriminate.

                          They are not allowed to do so. They were forced to allow blacks into the military and later they were forced to desegregate the races. Women were later allowed to join too.

                          That will never happen.

                          But it should if DADT will not be eliminated. Homosexuality is no more of a problem in the military then heterosexuality. Your own words give proof that DADT only exists as a petty form of hatred against our homosexual countrymen/women. You say they should not ask but they do find out and then they discharge honorable soldiers.

                          If you can support the argument that an INDIVIDUAL is adversely affecting your performance as a soldier because of how they are acting around you, and refuses to change his or her behavior, then the military should fire them, it shouldn't matter what sexuality they are.

                          An individual basis would make more sense and it would require psychological testing to determine if a discharge is necessary.

                            #5.3 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 9:23 PM EST
                            Reply
                            Rygar

                            This is blatantly off topic but I had to say it. I love your avatar! Eternal Sonata was one of my favorite video games :)

                            On Topic: nicely written article

                            • 1 vote
                            Reply#6 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 6:50 PM EST
                            Polka14

                            Thanks for the compliments.

                            What did you like about my article? Would it be right to expand DADT to make it equal if it can not be repealed?

                              #6.1 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 6:54 PM EST
                              Rygar

                              I definitely agree with your proposal.

                              I don't tend to comment too much when it comes to the military given that I have never been in the military. Even if I did have an interest I couldn't enlist as I have a boyfriend :).

                              I think it is absolutely sad that the men and woman that are fighting in Afghanistan/Iraq that are in same sex relationships back in the states have to remain absolutely silent about it. Even when they return home (maybe even to their spouse in states that allow for gay marriage) how it still has to remain a secret. How anyone that may know them can turn them in and they can lose their jobs/livelihood. That is my two cents on the subject.

                                #6.2 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 7:02 PM EST
                                Polka14

                                I am glad that some people can see how unfair this DADT discrimination is. I would prefer the end of the policy known as DADT but that may not be possible thanks to republican control and a weak democratic party. And the worst aspect of this is the idea that Obama opposes the end of DADT. He lied when he said he would end it.

                                  #6.3 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 7:52 PM EST
                                  Laochra

                                  God I hated Eternal Sonata lol!

                                  On topic though, I too have lost a huge amount of respect for Obama, I just dont trust him anymore. He knew very well that he would lose control this November, he was not stupid, and by appealing Judge Philips injunction, he solidified it's continuation into the distant future. It's a disgrace. He says it will be repealed, but it'll take an exectuive order in the end, which is no better than Phillip's method.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #6.4 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 4:40 AM EST
                                  Polka14

                                  Obama should have done what was needed. I am personally tiring of this continuing pointless move to work with the right. It is not going to happen. Now if the Congress doesn't decide to eliminate DADT before the Teapublicans enter office, then DADT is definitely going to stay in the military for the foreseeable future. That is why I say it should at least be applicable to both sexualities. Then it would be equal. I would like to see the top military officials explain why it shouldn't apply to heterosexuals too.

                                    #6.5 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 10:29 AM EST
                                    Mongowildman

                                    Do you realize that you just thoroughly confused me with that last one? I still can't decide if you are for DNDT or against it.

                                    Maybe I am just tired but this one has me a bit baffled.

                                      #6.6 - Tue Nov 9, 2010 12:24 AM EST
                                      Polka14

                                      Obviously against it but if it has to stay because of politics then it should apply to all soldiers. If a soldier is heterosexual, then revealing it will should lead to discharge too.

                                        #6.7 - Tue Nov 9, 2010 12:32 AM EST
                                        Mongowildman

                                        Interesting twist on the idea. Don't ask nor tell - either way.

                                        Some times you surprise me. ;)

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #6.8 - Tue Nov 9, 2010 6:48 PM EST
                                        Polka14

                                        Well, at least it would fair and not discriminatory.

                                          #6.9 - Tue Nov 9, 2010 7:03 PM EST
                                          Mongowildman

                                          I like the way you think. Are you sure you are only 23?

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #6.10 - Tue Nov 9, 2010 10:40 PM EST
                                          Polka14

                                          Yes but my opinions make me appear older. I am almost 24 though so that might explain why I may seem to be older. Wisdom usually comes with age.

                                          p.s., I missed a word in #6.9. How embarrassing.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #6.11 - Tue Nov 9, 2010 11:13 PM EST
                                          Mongowildman

                                          Here it is for you, free of charge. be

                                          ;]

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #6.12 - Tue Nov 9, 2010 11:30 PM EST
                                          Reply
                                          Shroggle

                                          To those who say the military is not a social experiment or a social laboratory, or anything else, I'll agree and disagree with you. (And as background, I am retired navy, did 20 years, served on 6 submarines during that time).

                                          The military has been a social experiment/laboratory on several occasions: when integration with the African Americans occured, when integrating women into combat roles, and most recently, they are starting to integrate women into submarine force as well. And so far, in every case, they have succeeded in ways the civilian population hasn't.

                                          Every submarine has around 140 men (and soon to be women) on it. The CO and XO have a one sleeping compartment each, and a shared bathroom all to themselves (1 shower, 1 commode, 1 washbasin), AND in cases where higher ranking officers visit, their individual staterooms have an extra fold down bunk where even they have to share the small bedroom/office they have with someone else.

                                          Officers have 3 3-man staterooms (3 men sharing a small space). Any overflow and the junior officers have to use bunks out with the regular enlisted folk (normally there are about 2-4 of them sharing out there). They also have 1 bathroom (1 shower, 1 commode, 1 sink) that the 9 (or more) of them have to share.

                                          The chiefs (E-7) and above have their own space. 12 beds crammed into one little room. Their overflow also have to sleep out with us regular enlisted. They also have only one bathroom (1 shower, 1 commode, 1 sink) for the 12 (or more) of them.

                                          For the regular enlisted, we had a 39-man berthing area, a 24 man berthing area, a 21 man berthing area, and a 9 man berthing area. We had a total of 2 bathrooms for our use (3 showers, 5 commodes, 1 urinal, and 6 sinks) for the rest of the crew to use.

                                          In case you didn't count, that was only 116 beds for 140 people. So, arrangements were made, and people had to share beds (3 people shared 2 beds, only 2 people off watch at any time, so they never, and in fact were prohibited from, had to physically be in a rack with another man at the same time). For every officer or chief that was an overflow from their original area, that was 3 more enlisted people who were going to have to share.

                                          We had one mess area that was used as our dining facility, training facility, entertainment facility. It seated 24 people at one time, and we were able to serve the entire crew (minus the officers) in under an hour). We saw no sunlight at sea, we got some air exchange with fresh air, but never enough to fully change out the full air supply of the boat. We made our own water. We used sea water to flush our commodes so we didn't waste fresh water on such a simple procedure. Our showers were get in, turn water on, turn water off, soap up, turn water on and rinse, turn water off, get out. We had signs posted that said if you were in the shower for more than 2 minutes, you were wasteing water. We had no doctor on board. What we had was the equivalent of an RN with some extra training thrown into the mix to serve our needs (and yes, under emergency circumstances, we had the equipment on board for that RN to perform emergency appendectomys.)

                                          We had people from all over the country, and all walks of life, couped up in this tin can that was only a football field long and 33 feet wide at it's widest. The aft 2/3rd's of that was all engine room, and you weren't supposed to be back there unless you were on watch or engaging in maintenance, which means we were mostly all couped up in the front 1/3rd of the boat.

                                          We had people from the northeast, southeast, northwest, southwest, and the heartland from North Dakota all the way to the tip of Texas. We had people who grew up in trailor parks, and those who grew up in mansions, people from the suburbs and people from the ghettos. We even had people from Guam and the Phillipines on board. We had people who barely passed their GED's, people with high school diplomas, those with Naval Acadamy degress, MIT grads, Berkley grads, and people from little no name community colleges out in the sticks. We had suburbanites and gang bangers, people who were law abiding citizens as well as those who had been to jail at some point in time, people who had never done drugs as well as those who had dabbled. We had Christians from all faiths (Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, SDA's, even a Mormon or two thrown into the mix), as well as Atheists, Buddhists, Wiccans and Pagans, and yes, even a Muslim or two every now and then. We had heterosexuals and bi-sexuals and homosexuals and asexuals, serial monogamists and polyamorous, people who were married and faithful, those who were married and fooled around. We had Republicans, Democrats, Independants, probably some Tea Party members out there now, conservative, liberal and moderate. We had people who were for and against every issue you could think of, and trust me, when you are couped up together for 60 plus days together, you have discussions on just about every topic under the sun. There were no secrets (except those you never ever told anyone else).

                                          So yes, I'd say we were a social experiment and laboratory every time we went to sea. We went out with a common goal. We certainly did not all see eye to eye, and we performed together cohesively to get the job done. And never once, in all my days at sea on those 6 different subs (every one of which had at least one gay man on board, and one had 6 gay men on board), never once did I see a physcial fight break out for anything.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          Reply#7 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 9:35 AM EST
                                          Polka14

                                          The military is a place where Americans should be able to work together regardless of their differences. Thank you for sharing your thoughts here. It proves that sexual orientation is not important towards the military's ability to function.

                                            #7.1 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 10:25 AM EST
                                            Reply
                                            Leave a Comment:
                                            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                            Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                            FUN STUFF:
                                            • Leaderboard |
                                            • E-Mail Alerts |
                                            • Top of the Vine |
                                            • Newsvine Live |
                                            • Newsvine Archives |
                                            • The Greenhouse |
                                            COMPANY STUFF:
                                            • Code of Honor |
                                            • Company Info |
                                            • Contact Us |
                                            • Jobs |
                                            • User Agreement |
                                            • Privacy Policy |
                                            • About our ads
                                            LEGAL STUFF:
                                            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com