Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Who gets discharged under 'don't ask, don't tell'?

By Ed O'Keefe

The military threw out hundreds of service members in 2009 for violating its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, including disproportionate numbers of women and minorities and dozens of service members in "mission critical" positions, according to a new analysis of military data.

The Pentagon honorably discharged 428 service members for violating the ban on openly gay troops in 2009, according to statistics reviewed by the nonpartisan Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara studying the impact of gays in the military. The figure is down from 619 service members discharged for violating the policy in 2008.

Women account for 14 percent of Army soldiers but received 48 percent of the Army's "don't ask" discharges in 2009, the study said. Six percent of the Marine Corps is female, but women accounted for 23 percent of its discharges. The Navy discharged only two officers for violating the policy in 2009, and both were Asian. The Army discharged five officers -- two were black, one was Asian and two were white, the Palm Center said.

Last year's "don't ask" discharges accounted for about one-tenth of 1 percent of all separations and did not affect the military's readiness, said congressional aides familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak on the record.

But the list included eight linguists, 20 infantrymen, 16 medical aides and one member of the Army's special forces, positions considered "mission critical" by the Government Accountability Office. Gay rights groups have long argued that the military's decision to discharge experienced, highly specialized service members costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in military training costs.

Activists believe that at least 13,500 service members have been discharged in violation of "don't ask, don't tell" since the policy began during the Clinton administration.

The Palm Center reviewed military data provided to lawmakers regarding the number and type of separations by service members. The data does not include names but lists specific reasons for the discharges.

The Pentagon did not return requests for comment.

The Senate is expected to include a repeal of the policy when it passes its version of the annual defense spending bill after the August recess. The House included a repeal in its version earlier this year. A Pentagon study of the impact of repealing the policy is due to President Obama by Dec. 1.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

By Ed O'Keefe  | August 16, 2010; 4:04 PM ET
Categories:  Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gates retiring? Don't bet on it.
Next: Big chunk of economic stimulus still unspent

Comments


Consider this Ed:

A high percentage of women in the military are lesbians. It is a target rich environment.


Posted by: screwjob19 | August 16, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Robert Gates is an honorable public servant and gives notice to the American people that he plans to retire as Defense secretary next year. Gates will leave after the November 2010 elections and his replacement will be considered after Republicans are voted into U.S. Congress.
A Defense secretary should take a position against gays serving openly in the military, if findings show disruption to discipline. Obama Democrats will not accept denying the gays because of their Democrat vote.
A Defense secretary should prescribe an Afghanistan war strategy that supports U.S. troop to maximize combat success against a well defined enemy. The objectives of the military should be well defined so everyone understands them. Show criteria to determine if the enemy Taliban is wining or losing. Report progress of Afghanistan troops trained and the number.
Given ill defined executive military objectives and outcome goals for the war in Afghanistan who would accept the position of Defense secretary? Americans do not have confidence in any appointments by the Obama Democrats. Look at his record. God Bless America.

Posted by: klausdmk | August 16, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Were the USN Asian women officers, "lipstick" by chance? That's hot.

Posted by: a_DC_denizen | August 16, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand all the fuss about having homosexuals or lesbians in the military. In my Infantry division in WWII in Europe we had several whom the rest of us thought might be that way. However, even though we were mostly 19-25 year-olds, we and they had enough sense to realize that we had a lot more on out minds than that. We depended upon each other and realized that everyone bled the same color of blood if wounded. I guess that things like same-sex romance were not on our menue of concern, and I doubt is very much of a concern to today's kids in combat.

Posted by: central1942 | August 16, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Since "Don't ask, don't tell" is discriminatory and fundamentally flawed by its very nature, we should be careful into reading too much into these specific numbers without a little further analysis. While it's possible that women and minorities are being singled out, the sample sizes seem fairly small and uncontrolled to draw too many sweeping conclusions.

With regard to the specific comment by klausdmk, I would assume that he or she would agree that if there is no evidence of "disruption to discipline" in the other armies, including our closest allies--the British and the Canadians--that allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly, then he would support repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Also making it a Democratic-Republican issue begs the question; this isn't a partisan issue, it's an issue of fairness and common sense.

Posted by: TRMalarkey | August 16, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't there a joke about the final Washington Post headline?

WORLD COMING TO AN END TOMORROW
Women and Minorities Affected the Most

Posted by: Pete262 | August 16, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"A high percentage of women in the military are lesbians."

I've heard that same misconception about females in numerous male-dominated fields, everything from athletics to engineering. It seems driven by the belief that "lesbian" includes any woman who doesn't look like a Vogue model.

I've heard many anecdotes that support another theory for the high rate of discharges, which is that many of these are retaliations by male comrades. In some cases, the women apparently refused the sexual advances of the men. In others, the women apparently went to their superiors with allegations of sexual harassment. One study of the Canadian military notes that sexual harassment of female service members dropped dramatically after the ban on gays was lifted. To me, that strongly suggests that the current US policy creates a power imbalance among comrades in favor of the harassers.

Posted by: Carstonio | August 16, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Discrimination in levying punishment? Who would believe that? Oh, just look at our jail and prison populations.

Posted by: rcvinson64 | August 16, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many of these women decided that an easy way to get out of the military was to say that you're a lesbian...

Posted by: wolfcastle | August 16, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm assuming that the person who wrote this article, Ed O'Keefe, has not spent one day in uniform. With that I will point out that his research was incomplete. Let me fill in some blanks for you.

Did you know that women being in the military actually creates an undue burden on the military, as well as men soldiers? That's right. The army spends time in garrison, and it spends time on deployment, either in training exercises, or overseas in combat areas. Here's the kicker: Women soldiers tend to get PREGNANT the moment they find out they are going on deployment. So, the unit is left short-handed because of this. In fact, this has reached epidemic proportions and is severely effecting the readiness of units.


So, my solution to the whole thing is to not only exclude gays, but women as well. Kill two birds with one stone.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | August 16, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

@FormerDemocrat - wait, wait! you forgot blacks too, creating racial tensions and all, and Asians! don't forget Asians - they no doubt still have it out for us for The Big One, ooh,ooh and Indians - man have they got it in for us or what?

Moron.

Posted by: overed | August 16, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Boo Hoo. There is a reason gays and lesbians have life-expectancies 21 years lower than the rest of society.

Get political correctness out of the Army

Posted by: pgr88 | August 16, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

@pgr88
What is the reason? And what bearing does it have on persons serving in the military?

Posted by: overed | August 16, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Consider this Ed:

A high percentage of women in the military are lesbians. It is a target rich environment.


Posted by: screwjob19


Consider this screwjob19:
A high percentage of people on web blogs are stupid. It is a target rich environment. Whats your point?

Posted by: ged0386 | August 16, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Could it simply be that the numbers of gays serving within these minorities is higher?

Could that be especially true among female service members?

I have no knowledge on his point. Just questions.

Posted by: JimHale1 | August 16, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
Abstract

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Posted by: shaiarra | August 16, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Some people get into the military and decide that they have made a terrible mistake. A general discharge under DADT is a fairly painless way to get out. My son reports helping his fellow inductees in boot camp get "caught" by the sergeant in a "homosexual act" so that they could get discharged. These discharges are often presented as involuntary but that is not always the case. How many are voluntary vs. involuntary, however, is impossible to say.

Posted by: lmmbham | August 16, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Get political correctness out of the Army

Posted by: pgr88

Yes, lets make it all white male and segregated. Forget all that political correctness. Seeing that the life expectancy for blacks is lower than whites. Wow with this rational we could wipe out half the country just on political correctness issues. We are too nice to woman, gays, blacks, and latinos in this country. Lets get back to the all white male dominated society that made this country great, right?

Posted by: ged0386 | August 16, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
Abstract

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Posted by: shaiarra | August 16, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

PUBLIC HUMANE FUDICIARY TO OVERTURN AND STOP UNJUST/ INHUMANE TREATMENT BY OTHERS MIS-USE OF RELIGION AS AN EXCUSE FOR HATRED USED TO PERPETRATE CRIMINAL HATE CRIMES

ESTROGEN IS IN THE VEGAN FOOD SOURCE :SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUALITY ( HUMANE CIVILITY ) NOT JIM CROW BLACK CODES, THIS INEQUALITY ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO ALL EQUALITY EVERYWHERE para.MLK: CONDEMING OTHER PEOPLE CHILDREN, ITS IN "GOD" FOODS IS CLEAR AND CONVINCEING EVIDENCE ITS NATURAL BY"GOD" ESTROGEN FOOD SOURCE

THE US CONSTITUTION ART4 SEC2(1)THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES, They are US CITIZENS OR NOT ? ,THERE'ER WANTING TO PROTECT OLD GLORY , 28USC3002(15)(A)(B)(C),

9th AMENDMENT: THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE (ie ALL US CITIZENS)

You know, had a referendum on banning interracial marriages been put on the ballot down South, up until about 20 years ago, it would have passed. Had civil rights been subject to a vote in those states, it would have also been voted down before about 1980.

matters of civil rights should never be put for a vote. If they were, as Prop 8 was, we might still have Jim Crow laws in the South, seperate drinking fountains and bathrooms, poll taxes, and a ban on inter-racial marriage.

OR RE-START THE DRAFT AND BAR ANY AND ALL FAITH BASED RELIGIOUS EXCUSSES NOT TO FIGHT FOR THE US.CORPORATION, SOONER THAN LATER U.S.A. WILL NEED THEM, CATCH BACK IS A M$#$ F&%7(.) MALAKIA=COWARDS

THE US CONSTITUTION ART6SEC13".....BUT NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES" TO MAKE ANY TO PROFESS A FAITH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

ok, let's think about this sensibly. We want to win in the middle east. Only one western army haes ever done that before. It was not the straightr british, nor the straight russians, but rather, it was Alexander and his band of Macedonians well, known to be SAME SEX. So if we want to win, we need to get those non-same sex guys out of there and send in the real army... the same sexers

Posted by: shaiarra | August 16, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

FormerDemocrat,
What an unenlightened post. The fact is, women DO get pregnant and have to unilke men who have sex, have to bear the actual pregnancy, but to say Womeen actively try to get pregnant to get out of serving is idiotic. Please give your sources. So you want to kick gays and women out, even though in today's army the emphasis is on intelligence as much as brute strength. It seems Women can serve just fine. As for gays, they have been in, and served admirably, since the founding of the country and certainly during WWII, Korea and Vietnam. At a time when the military is becomnig MORE complex with technology and we have a sliding scale for IQ, GED, prison records, return to MORE highy qualified and intelligent soldiers, regardless of sex and sexuality. Over 10 other countries allow gays, including Brits, Ausies, Isreal, Canada.

Posted by: cadam72 | August 16, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Sexual assault in military 'jaw-dropping,' lawmaker says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A congresswoman said Thursday that her "jaw dropped" when military doctors told her that four in 10 women at a veterans hospital reported being sexually assaulted while in the military.

A government report indicates that the numbers could be even higher.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, spoke before a House panel investigating the way the military handles reports of sexual assault.

She said she recently visited a Veterans Affairs hospital in the Los Angeles area, where women told her horror stories of being raped in the military.

"My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41 percent of the female veterans seen there say they were victims of sexual assault while serving in the military," said Harman, who has long sought better protection of women in the military.

"Twenty-nine percent say they were raped during their military service. They spoke of their continued terror, feelings of helplessness and downward spirals many of their lives have taken since.

"We have an epidemic here," she said. "Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq."

As of July 24, 100 women had died in Iraq, according to the Pentagon.

In 2007, Harman said, only 181 out of 2,212 reports of military sexual assaults, or 8 percent, were referred to courts martial. By comparison, she said, 40 percent of those arrested in the civilian world on such charges are prosecuted. ....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/31/military.sexabuse/

We can say, that the US military is doing everything they can to make sure they aren't raping any lesbians. God forbid they raped a lesbian.

Posted by: James10 | August 16, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Face it folks- the days of this hateful and insane policy are numbered. I will be very happy when the hoopla over "don't ask, don't tell" is over and we can get on with the serious business of defending this country against its enemies. At this point, this is merely a distraction that we can ill afford. Let's get this over with and join the other western nations that have settled this issue and have moved on to more important matters.

Posted by: paulmsmith | August 16, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Having been an Army brat, married a Navy Corpsman, son at the US Naval Academy and our daughter is an Army Captain PA Iraqi war veteran, I still think women don't belong in the combat zone. And that said, my daughter will go to Afghanistan with her Captain PA husband and they will do medevacs from the point of injury, often under fire and by the Grace of God, they and all the others should return home intact and still breathing being well adjusted. Her husband did 150 of these missions himself on his last deployment while she went to PA school. Now, they will do this together. My problem with women in the military is that that is what our "boys" are fighting for. Mom, wife, apple pie...If you have a female with you, as a male, you would tend to protect her and that puts the others at risk. I read about the female helicopter pilot that was always offered to have her 60# of tools carried for her. This isn't a day in school where the guy carries your books. Also, my daughter has her jump wings. Being a light weight she was the first out of the plane and the last one to the ground. She would still be floating around while the heavier men (by 60-80 lbs) were on the fast track downward. Then when she was on the ground, the wind would drag her and her chute along and take off with her so her men would have to run after her and take up her chute to keep her from blowing away again. So, that's just my opinion on females in the military. Maybe they should do desk jobs and I hope no one who knows my daughter is reading this as there are too many identifiers and she would get back to me on my thoughts. I know my daughter is smart, sharp and wants to give her all for the good of our country. She and her husband are doing a great job patching up our guys and yes even the enemy when they have to. But that's part of the job.

Posted by: dpat8 | August 16, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand all the fuss about having homosexuals or lesbians in the military. In my Infantry division in WWII in Europe we had several whom the rest of us thought might be that way.

This is not about combat, this is about being in the states, going to a mandatory party given by the commander and not being allowed to go with your homosexual lover. Or, being allowed to put up homosexual pictures in the barracks. Or, being seen strutting down broadway in a jockstrap in the homosexual parade.

In combat everyone has guns. That can put the cooler on sex. And, most people in combat are working almost all the time 7 days a week.

Posted by: pervleft | August 16, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

@dpat8-
Ma'am, thankfully your daughter and her husband are more progressive in their thinking. Just a couple of comments: Any service member is going to protect their comrades - you seem to imply that that, in and of it self, puts the team at risk. I would argue that that is what team work is all about. If your daughter has her jump wings then she should be able to handle a jump and a landing, whether she's the lightest one in the jump or not. If she can't then she wouldn't/shouldn't have earned her wings. As to the helicopter pilot you read about - the important thing isn't whether men offered to carry her equipment - its whether she accepted the offers. Did the article happen to mention that?
I wish them both the best and hope they have very little work to do.

Posted by: overed | August 16, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

How do you know it's disproportionate unless you know how many women and blacks in the military are gay versus how many white males? Don't ask don't tell is wrong all on its own. You don't need to bring racism or sexism into the debate.

Posted by: Peejay | August 16, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

so with openly homosexual drill sargents
will we be able to bet on the Taliban?

Posted by: twharvey1 | August 16, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Bologna. When you talk about gay issues in relative proportions in the military, you have to take into account the heavy presence of those in the armed services who are lesbians and those black males who identify themselves as either bisexual or gay. When you do that, there's nothing disproportionate about it. The headline should read "Blacks and women speak more openly about being gay or bisexual, and therefore are expelled more frequently." That's simply a reflection of how lesbians and blacks act in society, as they're more comfortable talking casually about their sexual tendencies. As it is in society at large, so it is in the military. There's no profiling going on, unless you want to say these folks are profiling themselves.

Posted by: JHG_sec405 | August 16, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

What data was used to come up with these statistics?

Posted by: moebius22 | August 16, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Few people get into the military to go to combat. The get in for school, get away from home, get away from psycho wife or husband, the pay is great, health care, etc.

But, oops, then the orders come in. Going to combat zone. NOT ME! I did not get in to go to combat or even a combat area.

Soon, lots of pregnancies. CAN’T GO! Single parents say their dependent care plan was a lie and they have no one to take care of the idiot spawn. People getting caught for dont ask dont tell. Some people rush to the doc with ailments, some real. Some become conscientious objectors overnight against all wars. Some just do not show and hope to get just a general discharge. Some go to court with some ludicrous excuse for not going.

I have no idea what this means: Activists believe that at least 13,500 service members have been discharged in violation of "don't ask, don't tell" since the policy began during the Clinton administration.

It would have been helpful if the author of this article had given some examples, without names, of these cases. “The Palm Center reviewed military data provided to lawmakers regarding the number and type of separations by service members. The data does not include names BUT LISTS SPECIFIC REASONS for the discharges.” LETS SEE THEM! I went to their site and their data set (supplied by the military), I saw zero reasons other than homosexuality. It was a 36 page pdf, with 35 pages in vertical format making it extremely difficult to read. It was a list of occupations, race, rank, etc. Their press release provided the same info in this article. I searched the site, could not find one example of what led to the separation. Did the military just wake up one morning, hey, let’s separate some female homosexuals?

Posted by: pervleft | August 16, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

The military threw out hundreds of service members in 2009 for violating its "don't ask, don't tell" policy

what does this mean? what is that policy? DO YOU EVEN KNOW? what led up to THROWING THEM out? It would be great if national newspapers, which BTW are going down the gurgler, would research their stories vs just cutting and pasting the SB press release. And, the SB press release just copied the data the military gave them and summarized it to support their homosexual viewpoint.

Pathetic.

Posted by: pervleft | August 16, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

The Press doesn't analyze any study or data which comes from environmentalists. Feminists, minority groups, etecetra. They generally hold the same views as these groups, and therefore won't challenge their contentions or cherry picked statistics.

Posted by: moebius22 | August 16, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Who gets 'don't ask' discharges?

It's the ones who TELL.
Let the chips fall where they may. Is this even worthy of an article?

Posted by: jblast2000 | August 16, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse


We had not had a single discharge for dont ask dont tell. We have had some for homosexuality. anyone, every read the regulations? Anyone every do any research. No, just a spewing of emotional beliefs. Well, here is part of the reg. Available online, free for people who can read.

(1) Homosexual conduct is engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act or acts; a statement by the Soldier that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect; or marriage or attempted marriage to a person known to be of the same biological sex.
(2) this is the important part: A SOLDIER’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS CONSIDERED A PERSONAL AND PRIVATE MATTER AND IS NOT A BAR TO CONTINUED SERVICE UNLESS MANIFESTED BY HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

people who write about this stuff from leftwing universities, say, WE ARE HURING NATIONAL SECURITY. No AGAIN, the military can keep someone if needed. If not needed discharge.
(5) Retention of the Soldier for a limited period of time in the interest of national security when discharge under this chapter has been approved.

Only generals are authorized to initiate a board to determine retention or discharge and only a general has approval authority.

Posted by: pervleft | August 16, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

with a t

We had not had a single discharge for dont ask dont tell. We have had some for homosexuality. anyone, every read the regulations? Anyone every do any research. No, just a spewing of emotional beliefs. Well, here is part of the reg. Available online, free for people who can read.

(1) Homosexual conduct is engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act or acts; a statement by the Soldier that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect; or marriage or attempted marriage to a person known to be of the same biological sex.
(2) this is the important part: A SOLDIER’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS CONSIDERED A PERSONAL AND PRIVATE MATTER AND IS NOT A BAR TO CONTINUED SERVICE UNLESS MANIFESTED BY HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

people who write about this stuff from leftwing universities, say, WE ARE HURtING NATIONAL SECURITY. No AGAIN, the military can keep someone if needed. If not needed discharge.
(5) Retention of the Soldier for a limited period of time in the interest of national security when discharge under this chapter has been approved.

Only generals are authorized to initiate a board to determine retention or discharge and only a general has approval authority.

Posted by: pervleft | August 16, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Don't ask Don't tell was a joke that was played toward the public. Both parties endorsed it but it did not change anything. Even now you could be 1 day away from retirement and NIS identify you in a gay establishment and your career is over, and your pension sacked. How has the policy changed anything? When I was in the Navy in 1982 I watched 4 of 5 of my friends with good records get kicked out. They didn't ask and didn't tell and were very good at their jobs, they just happened to get caught. 4 were kicked out with bad discharges when they had good performance records and one beat the charges. I had a bad break up with my (silent) friend (who was so popular you wouldn't believe that he was gay) and he outed me. He was so frightened that he would get caught that it was best to put the focus on me by outing me and take the heat of of him. It worked, the people in my shop stopped supporting me, the senior staff started undermining me and then I started having problems with the senior officers in the squadron when that was never a problem in the past. Next thing I know an NIS agent starts showing up at my barracks door asking me out on a date, dressed in jeans, white sweater and grey blazer. I continually tell him I do not know what he is talking about and finally he stops. NIS was baiting me, I didn't respond.

Posted by: JimB20009 | August 16, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Religion and Politics should not mix as RepubliCons have proven in past 10 years with two crusades and quagmire called the American Economy.

Now the Dems want to play in the same soil what can an average American do?

We only have choice of evil between two parites their is no viable third choice unless you consider that being not exercising our right to vote which turncates the very Republic we call United States of America

Posted by: Roism007 | August 16, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

I served in the Army for seven years.

Mostly this is being used to attack women soldiers that won't sleep with senior NCOs and officers.

Most of the women soldiers discharged are actually straight, but it's used as a method of revenge.

The Commander in Chief should show some guts and end all prosecutions of DADT cases until it's removed.

(not that it matters, but I'm straight and a guy)

Posted by: WillSeattle | August 16, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

What has changed?

Posted by: JimB20009 | August 16, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

the gays and lesbians new the rules before they enlisted.there is no excuse for them even crying and carrying on like they didn`t know what they were getting into before they signed up,they thought they could go trolling and get away with it and prove they could act like normal people .it doesn`t work in the military.and anyone who does enlist and comes out after they have been in the service for awhile should be given a dishonorable discharge.

Posted by: SISSD1 | August 16, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Dateline, Washington, D.C.

Homosexuals Hit Harder By “Gay Ban” Than Heterosexuals

Christ, WaPo I’m surprised you didn’t break it down by left-handed, Negroid, colorblind lesbians

Oh well, democrats. You made a-hell-of-a run at screwing all the "rich" people and turning total control of the planet over to po’ folk, RACIAL minorities, (unmarried)women and othersexuals so they could turn it into one giant theme park of stress-less freebies and a kumbaya joy fest.

Better luck next time…only there won’t be one. People are FINALLY becoming educated (no thanks to the NEA).

Posted by: sosueme1 | August 16, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

"These discharges are often presented as involuntary but that is not always the case."

I would guess that such cases are very, very few. That's because pretending to be gay to get out of military service is counter to one's survival in the general sense. That dishonorable discharge will remain on the person's record, making it harder for the person to obtain jobs. It makes as much sense as cancelling a credit card by deliberately defaulting on payments.

"If you have a female with you, as a male, you would tend to protect her and that puts the others at risk."

We need to junk the "men can't control themselves around women" argument right now. For too long it's been the basis for controlling women, really the excuse for doing so. That's the subtext whenever a rapist claims "she was asking for it." That's the argument used by Islamist theocracies who require women to dress head to toe. If these men are so afraid of losing control around attractive women, that's their fault and not the fault of the women.

Posted by: Carstonio | August 16, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

I think we should bring back the draft with a new rule. Only heterosexuals should apply thereby protecting homosexuals. Then all of you hetereosexuals who are so anti-gay will be much safer staying in your pigsty of stupidity.

Posted by: ray17 | August 16, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse


what is a violation of don't ask, don't tell?????

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | August 16, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Just to ward off possible dimwits, I'm not gay. But the problem in the past decade has been not having enough forces. Hence, Dick Cheney's "So what?" attitude toward sending people back to Iraq or Afghanistan for a third tour. We need troops, gay or straight; and what evidence I've read suggests gays make decent soldiers. The ejection of lesbians is especially puzzling, since women tend to have noncombat roles. Are lesbians less competent? It's upsetting to think that the welfare of the country depends so much on decisions of the military and the congress.

Posted by: gregh2223 | August 16, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

"The ejection of lesbians is especially puzzling, since women tend to have noncombat roles."

We don't know that they were in fact lesbians. The same point would apply to the men who were discharged. For all we know, some of the women could simply have been not feminine enough, or some of the men not masculine enough. WillSeattle substantiated my point about DADT being used for sexual revenge, and it could be used for other types of revenge as well.

Posted by: Carstonio | August 16, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

As a former Naval Officer, I can categorically state the fact that homosexuality is a major deterrent to unit cohesiveness and promoting behavior contrary to the mission.
Deviant women have always been attracted to the macho image of the military and have been the laughing stock for years, creating turmoil in barracks, showers and on the job.
The small percentage of male homosexuals have in every case, I have known, created major problems with conduct unbecoming leaders, rank abuse and deviant personal behaviors causing shame to the US Military.
Would any of you want to shower, sleep with, hot bunk with or depend on a man who hates you or lusts after your butt? I is supremely disrespectful to our men and women in uniform too promote sodomy in the workplace of the U.S. military.

Posted by: Jaime4 | August 16, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

I don't care who or what you are if I am up to my butt in alligators. I'll just pray that you are not a coward. I'm more concerned about traitors, terrorists and such. Straight guy here but I read somewhere its not my place to judge. I do believe that a contract is a contract. So careful what you sign. You don't like the contract, then don't sign. Change the contract and sign.

Posted by: rlayton1 | August 16, 2010 11:34 PM | Report abuse

-klausdmk

To what, exactly, in President Obama's record are you referring.

Posted by: MichaelOwen04 | August 16, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Consider this Ed:

A high percentage of women in the military are lesbians. It is a target rich environment.

Posted by: screwjob19

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I have it on good authority that this is in fact true. In some military units, it's the norm.

Posted by: ZZim | August 17, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

What this article does not identify is that "don't ask don't tell" requires the individual to come forward and admit that he or she is homosexual, or do something overt that the command cannot ignore. The people who are discharged under the policy often do something to initiate the process themselves because they are actively seeking to get out of the military, not because the military has ferreted out their homosexuality. In many cases, this is to avoid deployment to a combat zone. The military has had to require more than just a claim to be gay to substantiate a discharge for homosexuality; the person claiming to be gay is often heterosexual, but is trying to use the discharge policy as a ticket out of the military. The policy has become a "get out of jail free" card that many play for their own advantage.

Posted by: dsgordon2 | August 17, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

I was about to be offended (again) by Screwjob's characteristically offensive remarks, but then I read Central1942's and was reminded that there really are decent, tolerant folks of all ages and stripes.

Thanks, Central1942, for saving my morning!

Posted by: Itzajob | August 17, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"A high percentage of women in the military are lesbians."

"Women soldiers tend to get PREGNANT the moment they find out they are going on deployment."
______________________________________
And just where are these know-it-alls getting their "facts?" And by the way, is it lesbians who are tending to get pregnant to get out of deployment? I'm just SO curious I can hardly stand it.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | August 17, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"both were Asian"

Don't ask don't tell is RACIST.

Posted by: jiji1 | August 17, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

When I was in the military, I saw 2 women get discharged for being gay. Neither of them was. They found themselves in a place they didn't like and it was an easy way to get out "honorably". Take that away and you have more people in the military that don't want to be there and are likely to be a detriment because of it. Not an honest way to go, but women are more likely to do it (maybe part of the unbalance in discharges). I can't think of many straight men that want "discharged for being gay" on their papers. Women don't generally care as much.
I think that most people would handle gays just fine as long as they behave professionally. The people I hve known that were gay were just like everyone else. As a woman, being hit on by a gay woman or by a man. Well, the woman generally gets the hint when you say you aren't interested.
On the other hand, I didn't cry when they said I couldn't be a ranger because I was a woman, or that I couldn't serve on a sub, or that I had to be this tall and weigh this much to be a pilot (nevermind the perfect eyesight).
If a person can physically and mentally do the job, they should be allowed to do it, but in the military you have to spend a lot of time in close quarters with your team. You learn everything about the people you work with and you develop bonds and animosities. This will affect how people react in stressful situations. Not right, but true. I had soldiers tell me women had no place in the military and sometimes a general disregard for my opinion (no matter how many of them I outscored in training). It sucked, but I didn't really expect it to be easy and while some were that way, I still had 10 brothers on crew. If you want to be in the military, you really need to have thicker skin.

I think they should allow gays in the military. As you can see above, I am tossed on its effect. I hope our country can grow past this and become stronger for it.

I am a republican that believes in all rights, including those for the military.

Posted by: jamie75 | August 17, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

It's not hard to figure out. Men make the decisions to throw out lesbians. Men hate lesbians more than gays. Men feel threatened if even one woman doesn't respond to their advances. Men. Men. Men. They think they're God's gift to women, and not every woman agrees. That's all.

Posted by: tughillb | August 17, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

"I can't think of many straight men that want 'discharged for being gay' on their papers. Women don't generally care as much."

But it's still a dishonorable discharge, and I can easily imagine employers concluding that someone who was dishonorably discharged may be an unreliable employee - the employer wouldn't know the cause and the service member could have been discharged for theft or assault.

Posted by: Carstonio | August 17, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

But it's not usually a dishonorable discharge unless there is some other complicating factor, I fact it's usually honorable or sometimes general with unsuitabilty or "for the convenience of the service" listed as the reason.

I have an honorable discharge (for expiration of period of enlistiment) However, in NONE of the dozen or so jobs I have held since I got out of the Navy has ANY employer EVER asked to see or even the nature of my discharge.

Posted by: jbowler | August 20, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company