MarineCorpsTimes -- It's time to allow gays to serve openly in the military

[Tock]

Curious, particularly because this is the newspaper for the Marines . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/comm..._gibbs_070423/

It's time to allow gays to serve openly in the military

By Josh Gibbs


Last month, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, compared homosexuality to adultery in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. “We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” he said.

You can be punished for adultery and stay in the service. For homosexuality, the punishment is cut and dried, and years of honorable service are ended.

The common perception is that the “don't ask, don't tell” policy is necessary because straight service members will not be able to do their jobs properly if gay men and women are allowed to serve openly alongside them. Some people also say gay service members would not be able to control their homosexual urges. Proponents of this argument make it seem as if gay service members will immediately try to strike up romantic relationships with every man or woman within arm's reach.

Am I the only one who feels that, of all the arguments, this one is a little too chauvinistic? Or am I wrong to assume that no one, regardless of gender, could ever resist the allure of a man in a foxhole who hasn't showered in three days?

Why do we still cling to the as-yet unproven notion that if gay men and women are allowed to serve openly, unit cohesion and morale would suffer? This assertion is an insult to the professionalism of the U.S. military and an affront to our Constitution.

There was a time when allowing blacks to serve in the military was considered prejudicial to good order and discipline. That time has passed, and it is hard to imagine our military without their sacrifice and dedication. There was also a time when the idea of women serving the military in any capacity was unthinkable. Today, women are viewed as equals to men in all but the most physically demanding military specialties. Yet we still drag our heels over the matter of sexual orientation.

Many military members worry that if the ban on homosexuals is lifted, violence against gay and lesbian service members will increase. These fears seem to show concern for the welfare of gay soldiers, but remain unsupported by evidence.

It's hard enough being gay in an already intolerant world. Recently, Army recruiter Sgt. Marcia Ramode, with the Brownsville Recruiting Station in Brooklyn, N.Y., contacted and tried to sign up a man by the name of Corey Andrew Powell. He asked if the Army would accept him despite the fact that he is gay.

Ramode allegedly responded via her military e-mail address that he could not join because “being gay is disgusting and immoral” and added “you must be a total idiot and so stupid to presume that you do not know what gender you are” and that he “should leave the United States.”

The two allegedly traded barbs for several days. Ramode has been suspended from her recruiting duties pending an Army investigation.

It is this intolerant attitude that has been allowed to flourish within the military and prevents capable men and women from serving their country. Within the microcosm of the military, many gays and lesbians who are the victims of harassment or assault often dare not report the incidents out of fear of being ejected from the military. This sounds eerily familiar to the equally reprehensible act of rape.

We should not claim that the banning of homosexuals is designed to keep the military virtuous or pure. If you have been in the military long enough, you know someone who has cheated on his or her spouse and, more than likely, gone unpunished, though adultery is an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution are allowed to be the protector of some, but not all, Americans, then democracy has failed.

Retired Army general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili recently had his own experience with gay and lesbian service members. He said, “Last year, I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and Marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.”

The archaic “don't ask, don't tell” policy serves only as a victory for partisan politics and is an affront to our most sacred of institutions.

The justification for this policy has never had anything to do with the military abilities of gay men and women. The “don't ask, don't tell” policy has always and will always be about punishing gay troops for the prejudice exhibited by their straight peers. And if hard-nosed service members choose to leave the military rather than serve alongside their gay and lesbian counterparts, then I say good riddance. Their overbearing intolerance and misdirected hatred has no place in my military.

Many other nations, including our most important military allies, have successfully integrated openly gay and lesbian service members. The military forces of Britain, Australia, Israel and Canada seem to be able to do their jobs without discriminating against homosexuals, but Congress still insists that I cannot. I find this notion insulting.

Throughout history, America has been at the forefront of the war against intolerance. We have become a beacon for other countries to emulate. Why, then, have we not led the charge in this fight?

Despite our Constitution's claim of liberty for all, as well as the Declaration of Independence's claim that all men are created equal, we have seen fit to exclude those who are more than capable of serving honorably simply based on matters concerning their private lives.

There comes a time when people must stand up in the face of intolerance and push this country forward for the good of future generations. Now is the time to stand. Now is the time to push.

...........

The writer is a captain with the 8th Marine Corps District in Fort Worth, Texas.

[Tock]

Evidently, this was not an opinion shared by military officials --
------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news..._gibbs_070518/
Captain reassigned after column published

By Kimberly Johnson - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 23, 2007 6:02:15 EDT

An officer who wrote an opinion column supporting gays openly serving in the military was reassigned after his piece ran in Marine Corps Times, the officer said.

Capt. Josh Gibbs, formerly a quality-control officer for 8th Marine Corps District in Fort Worth, Texas, wrote an opinion piece for Marine Corps Times’ “Back Talk” section, blasting long-standing military policy of expelling homosexuals. The piece ran in the April 23 issue.

A common military perception, he wrote in the column, is that homosexuals cannot control their urges and could not perform their jobs alongside heterosexuals. “Proponents of this argument make it seem as if gay service members will immediately try to strike up romantic relationships with every man or woman within arm’s reach,” he wrote. “This assertion is an insult to the professionalism of the U.S. military and an affront to our Constitution.”

Gibbs has contributed columns to Marine Corps Times since 2005 and has written about a range of issues from gas prices to the Army relaxing boot camp standards.

Fallout from the April 23 column was swift, he said. According to Gibbs, he was notified April 30 that he was relieved of duty due to “loss of confidence” in his ability. His commanding officer shared the news only after Gibbs began asking questions after a posting for his position was prematurely listed on a Corps Web site, Gibbs said during a May 17 telephone interview.

Gibbs will be reassigned to 3rd Marines Logistics group on Okinawa, Japan, he said. His commanders told him, “It is a mark against me, but not one I can’t recover from,” Gibbs said.

But he said he doesn’t necessarily want to recover from it. “Honestly, my military career will be coming to an end shortly,” by choice, the nine-year Corps veteran said.

“I was told, we don’t comment on policy, that’s not our job. That’s what I want to do — I want to be somewhere where I can make change happen,” he said.

Gibbs says he understands the decision. “A relief is a commanding officer’s prerogative if he feels like he’s lost confidence in one of his officers,” he said. “They made it very clear my relief was not a result of poor job performance.”

His command agrees.

“The commanding officer’s decision was to relieve Capt. Gibbs from duty at that specific station,” said Capt. John Niemann, a spokesman for 8th Marine Corps District. “It was a result of judgment and decisions he made and not a result of performance or views held.”

He declined further comment on the reassignment. His commanding officer, Col. Carl Huenefeld, could not be reached.

Gibbs, who started his career in the Corps in 1998 as a Reserve tank driver and has done two tours in Iraq, said this experience will not force him to see the Corps as a negative experience. He admits the backlash caught him off-guard.

“I made sure to be very careful and made sure this was my opinion and my opinion only,” and not that of the Marine Corps, he said. And while he had written about controversial topics in the past, “This article pushed it over the edge,” he said.

This experience has also pushed him in a new direction, he said. “I’m standing up for what I think is right. I’m obviously not in the right place. If I want to make a change, I need to be someplace else.”

[brewerpi]

All you need is a gay friendly majority in Congress and a President who will sign the law-in other words, don't hold your breath.

[PEWN]

[kfrost06]

I am surprised his opinion made it past the censors(editors). I would think that they go through the paper with a fine tooth comb before printing it. I quessed wrong.

[Logan13]

Josh Gibbs (the writer of this article) is gay and using the paper as a personal platform. When the Joint Chiefs say it, I will take notice.

Curious, particularly because this is the newspaper for the Marines . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/comm..._gibbs_070423/

It's time to allow gays to serve openly in the military

By Josh Gibbs


Last month, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, compared homosexuality to adultery in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. “We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” he said.

You can be punished for adultery and stay in the service. For homosexuality, the punishment is cut and dried, and years of honorable service are ended.

The common perception is that the “don't ask, don't tell” policy is necessary because straight service members will not be able to do their jobs properly if gay men and women are allowed to serve openly alongside them. Some people also say gay service members would not be able to control their homosexual urges. Proponents of this argument make it seem as if gay service members will immediately try to strike up romantic relationships with every man or woman within arm's reach.

Am I the only one who feels that, of all the arguments, this one is a little too chauvinistic? Or am I wrong to assume that no one, regardless of gender, could ever resist the allure of a man in a foxhole who hasn't showered in three days?

Why do we still cling to the as-yet unproven notion that if gay men and women are allowed to serve openly, unit cohesion and morale would suffer? This assertion is an insult to the professionalism of the U.S. military and an affront to our Constitution.

There was a time when allowing blacks to serve in the military was considered prejudicial to good order and discipline. That time has passed, and it is hard to imagine our military without their sacrifice and dedication. There was also a time when the idea of women serving the military in any capacity was unthinkable. Today, women are viewed as equals to men in all but the most physically demanding military specialties. Yet we still drag our heels over the matter of sexual orientation.

Many military members worry that if the ban on homosexuals is lifted, violence against gay and lesbian service members will increase. These fears seem to show concern for the welfare of gay soldiers, but remain unsupported by evidence.

It's hard enough being gay in an already intolerant world. Recently, Army recruiter Sgt. Marcia Ramode, with the Brownsville Recruiting Station in Brooklyn, N.Y., contacted and tried to sign up a man by the name of Corey Andrew Powell. He asked if the Army would accept him despite the fact that he is gay.

Ramode allegedly responded via her military e-mail address that he could not join because “being gay is disgusting and immoral” and added “you must be a total idiot and so stupid to presume that you do not know what gender you are” and that he “should leave the United States.”

The two allegedly traded barbs for several days. Ramode has been suspended from her recruiting duties pending an Army investigation.

It is this intolerant attitude that has been allowed to flourish within the military and prevents capable men and women from serving their country. Within the microcosm of the military, many gays and lesbians who are the victims of harassment or assault often dare not report the incidents out of fear of being ejected from the military. This sounds eerily familiar to the equally reprehensible act of rape.

We should not claim that the banning of homosexuals is designed to keep the military virtuous or pure. If you have been in the military long enough, you know someone who has cheated on his or her spouse and, more than likely, gone unpunished, though adultery is an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution are allowed to be the protector of some, but not all, Americans, then democracy has failed.

Retired Army general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili recently had his own experience with gay and lesbian service members. He said, “Last year, I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and Marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.”

The archaic “don't ask, don't tell” policy serves only as a victory for partisan politics and is an affront to our most sacred of institutions.

The justification for this policy has never had anything to do with the military abilities of gay men and women. The “don't ask, don't tell” policy has always and will always be about punishing gay troops for the prejudice exhibited by their straight peers. And if hard-nosed service members choose to leave the military rather than serve alongside their gay and lesbian counterparts, then I say good riddance. Their overbearing intolerance and misdirected hatred has no place in my military.

Many other nations, including our most important military allies, have successfully integrated openly gay and lesbian service members. The military forces of Britain, Australia, Israel and Canada seem to be able to do their jobs without discriminating against homosexuals, but Congress still insists that I cannot. I find this notion insulting.

Throughout history, America has been at the forefront of the war against intolerance. We have become a beacon for other countries to emulate. Why, then, have we not led the charge in this fight?

Despite our Constitution's claim of liberty for all, as well as the Declaration of Independence's claim that all men are created equal, we have seen fit to exclude those who are more than capable of serving honorably simply based on matters concerning their private lives.

There comes a time when people must stand up in the face of intolerance and push this country forward for the good of future generations. Now is the time to stand. Now is the time to push.

...........

The writer is a captain with the 8th Marine Corps District in Fort Worth, Texas.

[Kratos]

I fail to see how this post is news Tock. You were the one pushing for reasonable qualifications for what should be in the news, and not a rehashing of peoples political agenda.

[kfrost06]

I fail to see how this post is news Tock. You were the one pushing for reasonable qualifications for what should be in the news, and not a rehashing of peoples political agenda.

I thought the same thing but didn't say anything. Glad you did!

[Tock]

I fail to see how this post is news Tock. You were the one pushing for reasonable qualifications for what should be in the news, and not a rehashing of peoples political agenda.

Sure, the guy's opinion is old hat. But what's striking, and IMHO newsworthy, is that the opinion appeared in the Marinecorps news.

The company that publishes the rags for the 4 services (Army Times Publishing Company) is pretty conservative, and for them to run something like this is a milestone for them.


So, the stories here are (1) conservative military rag publishes pro-gay editorial, and (2) the military retaliates agaist the author.

In any event, I'm sure it's an opinion you agree with, yes? Or would you prefer to continue to give exemptions to gays from risking their necks with everyone else in wars against terrorism? In a war where the military is desperate for speakers of Arabic, and where US soldiers can end up dead when someone didn't interpret an Arabic message, would you say the military was correct when it kicked out 67 gay people for no other reason than that they were gay?

Some folks think that risking US soldier's lives to keep the ranks free from gays is worth the risk. I have my opinion about that, and I presume you have yours.


By the way, the qualifications I suggested focused more on sources rather than content. Go back and read my post to refresh your memory.

[Logan13]

By the way, the qualifications I suggested focused more on sources rather than content. Go back and read my post to refresh your memory.

Sure, because if it were content, you'd have nothing to post about..........

[Kratos]

So, the stories here are (1) conservative military rag publishes pro-gay editorial, and (2) the military retaliates agaist the author.

I'll aleart CNN

[DSM4Life]

I would like to see them go ahead and pull every gay man/woman from ALL services. Then in turn to make up for the loss, force more straight men and women into war.

Then i would like to go back and ask them same families what they think of this.

[jon77]

IMO, there's no place for this nonsense in the military. If this should happen,which I see as highly unlikely, we would have new reality tv shows, starting with military soap operas.

IMO...