Study: Military Gays Don't Undermine Unit Cohesion

[Carlos_E]

Study: Military Gays Don't Undermine Unit Cohesion

WASHINGTON — Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.

To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.

Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.

Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.

The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches. According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate."

Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military _ Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.

Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.

Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.

"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.

Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."

"Everyone was living a big lie _ the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.

[Tock]

Huh . . . Who woulda thunkit?

[Panzerfaust]

LMAO @ using the "British and Israeli militaries" as an example as to why AMERICAN military should/would have the same reaction.

Always something retarded..always.

[Billy-the-kid]

Why stop there? Lets take Equal Protection and Due Process to the next level!

Congress has the right to raise and regulate the military. Lets go 1 step further and make women register for the draft and overturn Rostker v. Goldberg.

Next time there is a draft we can have everyone serve our great country equally. Remember, it is a 2 way street. Gays got a free pass out of the military during a draft. No more, make them fight & serve (or at least cut hair).

[Tock]

Why stop there? Lets take Equal Protection and Due Process to the next level!

Rather than "Equal protection" and "due process," think of it as nobody getting out of their patriotic "Responsibility." There's no reason why Mr. & Mrs. Straight on Main Street have to send both their heterosexual sons to war, when Mr. and Mrs. Gay have two gay sons who don't have to fight at all. Think of the tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of gays the military kicked out or exempted from service, and all the other heterosexual guys who had to take their place. Figure a certain % of those guys got killed on duty. Think of all their heartbroken mothers who knew instinctively what the uniformed officer had to tell them when he knocked on their front door. And their wives and children.
That, mes petites, is what the government ban on gay people, has cost y'all heterosexuals. While Sgt. Straight was off getting killed, Gary Gay was off having a good time in San Francisco, happy to have someone willing to take his place in war.

That's what a pig-headed policy of bigotry will get ya. As they say, "Your Tax Dollars At Work."

[Billy-the-kid]

Thats exactly what I mean. Do the gays really want this policy? It is a 2 way street. Your either in and get drafted, or your out. They want their cake and they want to eat it too. Sorry , I mean a strudal & a nice spicy cafa' lata!

[Tock]

Thats exactly what I mean. Do the gays really want this policy? It is a 2 way street. Your either in and get drafted, or your out. They want their cake and they want to eat it too. Sorry , I mean a strudal & a nice spicy cafa' lata!

Speaking for myself, yep. I'd be happy to finish out the rest of my 6 year enlistment. I used to train police and sniffer dogs, I'll be glad to do it again.

BTW, I'll pass on that cafa' lata (whatever that is), but I'll be happy to share a nice tuna strudel with ya . . .

[illwillogical]

The military is a melting pot of different people anyways. People learn "don't have a choice" to adapt to different lifestyles and cultures.

There are a lot of gays in the military already. Letting the gays be open about it would piss some people off. But as in everything in the military you learn to deal with it. I think there could possibly be some issues with bashing of the males in combat arms units, but I guess if you are going to be open about it that is the risk you are going to have to take. By the way I am not gay, but don't have a problem with the lifestyle in the military as long as it don't interfere with the tasks at hand.

[Carlos_E]

Thats exactly what I mean. Do the gays really want this policy? It is a 2 way street. Your either in and get drafted, or your out. They want their cake and they want to eat it too. Sorry , I mean a strudal & a nice spicy cafa' lata!

You're a fucking dick. My ex boyfriend is in Iraq right now getting shot at while you sit behind a keyboard. You don't know shit about gays in the military. You show your ignorance with your cafe lata drinking stereotypes.

[Carlos_E]

The military is a melting pot of different people anyways. People learn "don't have a choice" to adapt to different lifestyles and cultures.

There are a lot of gays in the military already. Letting the gays be open about it would piss some people off. But as in everything in the military you learn to deal with it. I think there could possibly be some issues with bashing of the males in combat arms units, but I guess if you are going to be open about it that is the risk you are going to have to take. By the way I am not gay, but don't have a problem with the lifestyle in the military as long as it don't interfere with the tasks at hand.

My ex is openly gay and his superiors and friends didn't have a problem with it. I met the guys from his unit while we were together and they were cool people. They didn't believe he was gay until they saw him sit in my lap and kiss me. He did it on purpose to prove a point to them. Yes, he is gay! They saw him the same as the rest, just one of the guys. They said to me when they're getting shot at and someone is saving their life the last thing on their mind is rather or not the person is gay or straight.

[BigLittleTim]

A good friend of mine is a VERY Senior Naval Officer who served over four years on the ground in Iraq, as well as in the Persian Gulf War. He now holds posts at the Pentagon and the NSA.

He is one of the most honourable and upstanding men I have ever known; an exemplary officer and a complete gentleman. His entire life has been given in service to his country, even though the LAW of that country would prohibit him from service while living honestly and openly as a gay man.

The only dis-honest word to ever mar his character has been the LIE he is required to live every day so that he may continue to serve in the armed forces of the country he loves.

Hopefully, Congress and the next President will follow the open-minded example of the enlisted men and women, and allow my friend to serve openly.

-BigLittleTim

[RA]

Im going to go out on a limb and say that his experience isnt the norm...

My ex is openly gay and his superiors and friends didn't have a problem with it. I met the guys from his unit while we were together and they were cool people. They didn't believe he was gay until they saw him sit in my lap and kiss me. He did it on purpose to prove a point to them. Yes, he is gay! They saw him the same as the rest, just one of the guys. They said to me when they're getting shot at and someone is saving their life the last thing on their mind is rather or not the person is gay or straight.

[Billy-the-kid]

You're a fucking dick. My ex boyfriend is in Iraq right now getting shot at while you sit behind a keyboard. You don't know shit about gays in the military. You show your ignorance with your cafe lata drinking stereotypes.

I served, my brother is serveing right now, and so did the majority of my family; So don't tell me I don't know shit about the military!

Gays have always been in the military and they always will. All I did was raise a question. Do they really want this policy, and do they want to get drafted?

I can see why he is your ex, you have a potty mouth!!!

[Carlos_E]

Im going to go out on a limb and say that his experience isnt the norm...

Do you know gay men who serve or are you just making an assumption? My ex, and another friend from my gym who is in the military, both have the same experience. They're open with their direct superior but not beyond that. And they're openly gay to their unit and the guys don't care. Matter of fact my ex is the God father to one of the guys 3 kids. I met the guys in his unit when we all got together to exchange gifts and bring gifts for the kids.

[Carlos_E]

I served, my brother is serveing right now, and so did the majority of my family; So don't tell me I don't know shit about the military!

Gays have always been in the military and they always will. All I did was raise a question. Do they really want this policy, and do they want to get drafted?

I can see why he is your ex, you have a potty mouth!!!

I take offense to you stereo typing gay men as hair cutting, strudal eating & a nice spicy cafa' lata drinker (feminine). I can make the same stereotype and call you a sister fucking tobaco chewing redneck. But I won't. I won't stoop to your level.

By the way, I tell you right now the admins are doing an IP check and watching you. Your IP address and join date matches closely to someone banned.

[illwillogical]

I take offense to you stereo typing gay men as hair cutting, strudal eating & a nice spicy cafa' lata drinker (feminine). I can make the same stereotype and call you a sister fucking tobaco chewing redneck. But I won't. I won't stoop to your level.

By the way, I tell you right now the admins are doing an IP check and watching you. Your IP address and join date matches closely to someone banned.

Hey now! Why'd you have to go there? LOL

[Billy-the-kid]

I'm an open book, never been banned, so feel free to do a search. If they want to ban me it is because they don't like what I'm saying and they want to shut down my point on view.

But I think it is you "Carlos-E" who wants to shut me down because you don't like any opposition. You don't like someone questioning your posts. Your so sensitive!

[Carlos_E]

I'm an open book, never been banned, so feel free to do a search. If they want to ban me it is because they don't like what I'm saying and they want to shut down my point on view.

But I think it is you "Carlos-E" who wants to shut me down because you don't like any opposition. You don't like someone questioning your posts. Your so sensitive!

I disagree with PLENTY of people here and they're still here! What I don't like is piece of shit homophobes. You want to throw around sissy stereotypes go do it some place else. See ya at McDonalds.

[SMCengineer]

Do you know gay men who serve or are you just making an assumption? My ex, and another friend from my gym who is in the military, both have the same experience. They're open with their direct superior but not beyond that. And they're openly gay to their unit and the guys don't care. Matter of fact my ex is the God father to one of the guys 3 kids. I met the guys in his unit when we all got together to exchange gifts and bring gifts for the kids.

I actually tend to agree with Roidattack. There are many close minded people out there that are not so accepting of others.

[Carlos_E]

I actually tend to agree with Roidattack. There are many close minded people out there that are not so accepting of others.

I agree there are. But there are many who are not. I don't assume the worst in everyone. From my experience being out at work, the gym and every where, people are accepting. Maybe because I'm bigger and can kick their ass.

[SMCengineer]

I agree there are. But there are many who are not. I don't assume the worst in everyone. From my experience being out at work, the gym and every where, people are accepting. Maybe because I'm bigger and can kick their ass.

All joking aside, that's probably exactly what it is.

[Tock]

Im going to go out on a limb and say that his experience isnt the norm...

It was my experience way back in 1977.
Ill go out on a limb and say that most people are ok with gays in the military.

[RA]

Well I would like to see a truly unbiased sponsor for the study....

[Tock]

Well I would like to see a truly unbiased sponsor for the study....

How about the US Army?
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...nzella_062708/


Iraq vet discharged for admitting he is gay




By Suzanne Gamboa - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Jun 30, 2008 8:37:36 EDT

WASHINGTON — The Army has discharged a decorated medic who was deployed to Iraq despite acknowledging he was gay.
Darren Manzella, 30, said he revealed his sexual orientation to his military supervisor in August 2006, and was redeployed to Iraq anyway. He has since spoken out publicly several times about being a gay service member.
Manzella was discharged this month for “homosexual admission.” His commander’s discharge recommendation included a transcript of an interview he gave to television show “60 Minutes” in December 2007, in which Manzella said he is gay.
He did the same in a number of other interviews and even at a Washington news conference. The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy prohibits active-duty service members from openly acknowledging they are gay or lesbian.
The discharge was effective June 10, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a news release. Manzella was traveling and not immediately available for comment.
The Army press office declined to comment by phone Friday but requested an e-mail query, which was submitted and awaiting response.
Manzella first told a military supervisor about his sexual orientation in August 2006 while he was stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, and working in division headquarters. Three weeks after Manzella made the revelation, his battalion commander told him an investigation had been closed without finding “proof of homosexuality.”
A month later, Manzella was redeployed to Iraq. Manzella and his supporters have said his case demonstrates how the military has been arbitrarily enforcing its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy during the war.
Manzella enlisted in the Army in 2002. In Iraq, he provided medical care to other soldiers and accompanied his unit on patrols. He was awarded the Combat Medical Badge.
Manzella’s last assignment was to Fort Hood with the 1st Cavalry Division.

[Tock]

And this is another good one, too . . .

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...ntask_080119w/

Sgt. comes out, but is allowed to stay in



Don’t ask, don’t tell discharges down 50 percent from 2001
By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jan 21, 2008 7:30:51 EST

Darren Manzella was out of the closet.
The Army sergeant told an officer he was a homosexual, and the officer turned him in. During the investigation, Manzella admitted he was gay and even offered visual confirmation: a home videotape showing him kissing his civilian boyfriend.
Needless to say, Manzella was surprised with his commanding officer’s verdict:
“They found no evidence of homosexuality,” he said.
Manzella took that as evidence, he said, that “they were trying to retain the best and most qualified soldiers. And I’m hoping to see a growth in that pattern among commands throughout the Army and the military branches.”
Manzella, 30, is assigned to Headquarters Company, 1st Cavalry Division, and works in the Division Surgeon section. He just completed his second deployment to the Middle East. During the first, he served in the Iraq war zone and earned the Combat Medical Badge; more recently, he spent the better part of 15 months as a medical liaison at a Navy hospital in Kuwait.
He’s spent the past two years serving as an openly gay soldier, hiding nothing from his fellow troops. His story aired nationally Dec. 16 on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” making Manzella easily the most out-in-the-open gay service member in the entire military.
Three weeks later, it still hasn’t mattered. “No reaction from my command,” he said in a Jan. 8 interview at the Washington offices of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a national advocate for gay service members, which says it knows of about 500 gay troops who are serving openly.
“I’ve had an outpouring of support from my family, from my peers, my colleagues — military people,” Manzella said. And if his command’s support holds, Manzella won’t join the nearly 12,000 service members who have been booted out of the service under the 1994 “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that allows gay troops to serve only if they keep silent about their sexual orientation.
Driven by what gay rights advocates say are the increasing manpower pressures of fighting two wars, discharges under the law have fallen to nearly half of the 2001 peak of 1,273, despite service assertions that nothing has changed.
“The Army enforces the law and averages about 300 discharges per year from fiscal years 1993 to 2006,” said Army spokesman Paul Boyce.
Manzella said he knew he was gay while still a young boy but accepted it only a few years ago. He “came out” at age 28. To his knowledge, no one in his unit knew.
“I was there. I did my job. I was very good at it,” he said.
But Manzella came to realize how boxed in he had come to feel. “That fear turns into lying,” he said. “And that’s the main reason why I wanted to take a stand and speak out for all these people that do have to lie about their life.”
After he re-upped for six years, Manzella and his unit returned from the war to Texas. Buoyed by his strong performance in the war zone, Manzella said he became more comfortable with himself and more open about his sexual orientation.
Then it got weird. Manzella started receiving anonymous phone calls at work and e-mails from outside the dot.mil domain suggesting that he was being watched and investigated. They started out with a friendly tone but turned sinister and derogatory.
In early summer, Manzella, feeling paranoid, called SLDN to seek legal guidance regarding the harassment. He was told he could either ignore it or take it to his command and risk being kicked out of the Army.
Manzella went to his supervisor, a lieutenant, and told him the whole story. “Go home,” the lieutenant said. “I’ll see you in the morning.” He then went down to the commander’s legal office and reported that Manzella had admitted he was gay.
In short order, Manzella was standing before his battalion commander. An investigation ensued. He answered questions honestly and admitted what he had told his lieutenant. He also handed over the videotape.
“I was looking for help,” he said. “I really was at the end of the line — I didn’t know where to go. So I just wanted to say ... this is me.”
About three weeks later, his commander called him back in. “I didn’t expect to be told I wasn’t gay, and to go back to work,” Manzella said, “but that’s what they did. I went back to work. And I deployed with my unit, later on in the year.”
It was a liberating moment. “I didn’t feel silenced anymore,” he said. “It was a huge relief for me to not have to live that closeted lifestyle. And I think that’s one reason why I’m speaking now. It’s because I know the relief.”
Manzella remains on leave; he’s due back at Fort Hood on Jan. 24. New challenges could await. While he serves under the same battalion commander, he has preliminary orders to transfer in May to Fort Drum, N.Y.
Meanwhile, Big Army plays down the whole issue.
“This particular soldier’s unit only recently returned from the war to Fort Hood,” Boyce said. “So it’s premature to speculate on any future actions until the young man’s situation can be considered by his chain of command.”

[RangersLTW]

It is still don't ask, don't tell. If he was never asked then it can be advoided. Trust me if he was infantry, he would get the boot. First, my regement would discharge. Second, same post, different unit and mos, like a medic, no way, to hard to fill slot. The goverment all about paper trail, if he did not time and date it, it never hapened. His chain of command never asked but he told, does not work that way. Consider his chain of command thoughts, time of war, new deployment, easy way out, kiss this guy, make a tape, discharge. Not going to happen, not when you look around a post at all the dumb ways soldiers try to get out of deployments, like all pregnancy that happen.

[RA]

and?

How about the US Army?
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...nzella_062708/


Iraq vet discharged for admitting he is gay




By Suzanne Gamboa - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Jun 30, 2008 8:37:36 EDT

WASHINGTON — The Army has discharged a decorated medic who was deployed to Iraq despite acknowledging he was gay.
Darren Manzella, 30, said he revealed his sexual orientation to his military supervisor in August 2006, and was redeployed to Iraq anyway. He has since spoken out publicly several times about being a gay service member.
Manzella was discharged this month for “homosexual admission.” His commander’s discharge recommendation included a transcript of an interview he gave to television show “60 Minutes” in December 2007, in which Manzella said he is gay.
He did the same in a number of other interviews and even at a Washington news conference. The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy prohibits active-duty service members from openly acknowledging they are gay or lesbian.
The discharge was effective June 10, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a news release. Manzella was traveling and not immediately available for comment.
The Army press office declined to comment by phone Friday but requested an e-mail query, which was submitted and awaiting response.
Manzella first told a military supervisor about his sexual orientation in August 2006 while he was stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, and working in division headquarters. Three weeks after Manzella made the revelation, his battalion commander told him an investigation had been closed without finding “proof of homosexuality.”
A month later, Manzella was redeployed to Iraq. Manzella and his supporters have said his case demonstrates how the military has been arbitrarily enforcing its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy during the war.
Manzella enlisted in the Army in 2002. In Iraq, he provided medical care to other soldiers and accompanied his unit on patrols. He was awarded the Combat Medical Badge.
Manzella’s last assignment was to Fort Hood with the 1st Cavalry Division.

[Carlos_E]

My ex is openly gay and his superiors and friends didn't have a problem with it.

Im going to go out on a limb and say that his experience isnt the norm...

It was my experience way back in 1977.
Ill go out on a limb and say that most people are ok with gays in the military.

WASHINGTON — The Army has discharged a decorated medic who was deployed to Iraq despite acknowledging he was gay.
Darren Manzella, 30, said he revealed his sexual orientation to his military supervisor in August 2006

and?

That is the point he's making. You said you feel it's not the norm. Here are a few examples.

[RA]

That is the point he's making. You said you feel it's not the norm. Here are a few examples.

Not one thing in that story addressed unit cohesion.

[Tock]

It is still don't ask, don't tell. If he was never asked then it can be advoided.

Not really . . .
Sometimes it's a 3rd party who brings the soldier's orientation to the attention of the military. And then they kick 'em out because of that.

So it's not, "Don't ask Don't tell." It's "Don't ask, Don't tell, and Nobody else better tell us, or else."

[Tock]

Not one thing in that story addressed unit cohesion.

He's been openly gay for quite a while. If unit cohesion was affected, don't ya think somebody would have groused about having to put up with open gays?

He’s spent the past two years serving as an openly gay soldier, hiding nothing from his fellow troops. His story aired nationally Dec. 16 on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” making Manzella easily the most out-in-the-open gay service member in the entire military.

[Tock]

JHC . . . why is this so difficult for some people to understand . . .

Fighting a war alongside someone who's gay isn't going to rot your liver or make your hair fall out.

[RA]

I never said it would or that there should be a problem. I am making assumptions and havent yet seen a study that would help me make up my mind. Ive heard hearsay on both sides.

JHC . . . why is this so difficult for some people to understand . . .

Fighting a war alongside someone who's gay isn't going to rot your liver or make your hair fall out.

[Tock]

I never said it would or that there should be a problem. I am making assumptions and havent yet seen a study that would help me make up my mind. Ive heard hearsay on both sides.

Well, what the US military has been doing for the past umpteen years is Social Engineering. They have been trying to create a military society in the way that they would like civilian society to be.

Of course, once they stop this nonsense, then the conservatives will claim that liberals are doing the social engineering.

Either way you go, somebody is trying to make the military over in its own image. Good thing you have me to help you figure all this mess out, eh?


The US military should anyone who meets their employment qualifications. Perverts, rapists, molesters, etc, need not apply. Since homosexuality is abundant in nature, it is not un-natural, and therefore not a perversion.
In time of war when the military needs more soldiers, there is no legitimate reason for exempting gays strictly on the basis of their sexual orientation.
We all know that lots of heterosexual perverts exist. But not all of them are perverts. Common sense prevents the military from banning all heterosexuals, and common sense ought to prevent them from banning all gays. But, we all know that "Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron.





You want a study? Here's some studies. From the GAO, Government Accounting Office:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf

(an excerpt)

Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills
Due to DOD’s Homosexual Conduct
Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated

The total costs of DOD’s homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated
because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and
investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and
discharge reviews. However, DOD does collect data on recruitment and
training costs for the force overall. Using these data, GAO estimated that,
over the 10-year period, it could have cost DOD about $95 million in constant
fiscal year 2004 dollars to recruit replacements for servicemembers
separated under the policy. Also, the Navy, Air Force, and Army estimated
that the cost to train replacements for separated servicemembers by
occupation was approximately $48.8 million, $16.6 million, and $29.7 million,
respectively.
Approximately 757 (8 percent) of the 9,488 servicemembers separated for
homosexual conduct held critical occupations, identified by DOD as those
occupations worthy of selective reenlistment bonuses. GAO analyzed and
selected the top 10 most critical occupations for each year from fiscal year
1994 through fiscal year 2003. About 59 percent of the servicemembers with
critical occupations who were separated for homosexual conduct were
separated within 2.5 years of service. The typical military service contract is
for 4 years of service. Also, 322 (3 percent) of separated servicemembers had
some skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, or
Korean. A total of 98 servicemembers had completed training in an
important language at DOD’s Defense Language Institute and received a
proficiency score; 63 percent of such servicemembers had proficiency
scores that were at or below the midpoint on DOD’s language proficiency
scales for listening, reading, or speaking. Students can graduate from the

basic program with proficiencies somewhat below the midpoint of this scale.

--------------


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gao_report.html

(another excerpt)

GAO Analysis

Number of Discharges


During fiscal years 1980 through 1990, approximately 17,000 servicemen and women (an average of about 1,500 per year) were separated from the services under the category of "homosexuality." Approximately 1,000 military personnel were discharged in 1990. No determination that their behavior had adversely affected the ability of the military services to perform their missions was required. In terms of rank, gender, and race/ethnicity, the majority were enlisted personnel; most were men; and most were white. However, some groups were consistently discharged at a rate higher than their representation in the total active force or individual service. For example, between 1980 and 1990, the navy representing 27 percent of the active force, accounted for about 51 percent of the discharges; and women, representing 11 percent of the total active navy force, accounted for 22 percent for those discharged. Cost of Policy

Limited cost information associated with he administration of DOD's policy was available. Basically, only the costs of recruiting and training the personnel need to replace those discharged for homosexuality could be readily estimated. In fiscal year 1990, recruiting and initial training costs associated with the replacement of personnel discharged for homosexuality were estimated to be $28,226 for each enlisted troop and $120,772 for each officer. The total cost of replacing personnel discharged for homosexuality, however, would need to include other factors such as out-processing and court costs.



--------------------

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt...smms_integrity

(another excerpt)

Date: May 27, 2004

SANTA BARBARA, CA, May 27, 2004 - Parameters, the official journal of the U.S. Army War College, published a lengthy exchange between a critic, who labeled CSSMM's research as "gay propaganda," and the Center's director. According to the critique, which was written by Major Joseph A. Craft of the U.S. Marines, the CSSMM is "a homosexual activist group spreading pure propaganda poorly disguised as legitimate research." Craft adds that the Center is "engaged in an intense information campaign to market, normalize, and legitimize the homosexual political agenda." In response, CSSMM director Aaron Belkin questions Craft's use of logic and evidence. For Craft's essay click here. Belkin's response is below:


To the Editor:
Major Craft frames my research as propaganda and implies that anyone who agrees with me is being manipulated by the gay lobby. Even if this were true, Craft does not show that lifting the gay ban would undermine readiness. And, when one realizes that Craft's accusations about my scholarship are, at best, without merit, his failure to engage in honest debate becomes even more apparent. To save space, the editors asked me not to use footnotes, but I have posted documentation for this reply at www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu. [Web editor's note: you are reading the fully footnoted version now.]
Craft asserts that "lifting the ban on homosexuality would significantly detract from combat readiness." But why, if allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly undermines readiness, hasn't anyone been able to identify a single military whose effectiveness deteriorated after the elimination of a ban? [1] To the contrary, U.S. officials praise the performance of Britain and other coalition partners. Scholars at RAND and PERSEREC have concluded that eliminating the ban would not undermine readiness. [2] Admiral John Hutson, former Navy JAG, says that the ban is a failed policy that undermines the military, and General Wesley Clark says the ban does not work. [3] During the first Gulf War, the ban was suspended via stop-loss order without any apparent impact on readiness. [4] Military leaders know that gays don't undermine readiness, or they would never suspend the ban during war.
Craft claims that because gay service members are likely to contract HIV and other STDs, lifting the ban would "overwhelm the military's limited health care system." But many thousands of gays already serve without overwhelming the system, and lifting the ban will not increase their numbers significantly. [5] Currently, approximately 1,000 service members are HIV-positive (.07% of the force) and all personnel are screened for HIV prior to accession and frequently thereafter. [6] There is no evidence that the health care systems of any of the 24 foreign militaries that lifted their bans have been overwhelmed or that rates of HIV or other STDs increased as a result of integration. [7]
According to Craft, gays live "unhealthy, high-risk" lifestyles. But DoD reports that 41.8% of service members engage in binge drinking, 17.9% do not wear motorcycle helmets, and 57.9% of those who are unmarried and sexually active did not use condoms during their last sexual encounter, a troubling finding given our history in places like Olongapo. [8] Sound public policy would address risky behavior as a service-wide problem rather than singling out gays.

[J.S.N.]

bill hicks - the gays in the military