Pentagon Study: Low Risk if Don't Ask Ends

[Damocles]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...+foxnews/politics+(Internal+-+Politics+-+Text)

WASHINGTON -- Following a survey of U.S. troops and their families, a Pentagon study group has concluded the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

The newspaper quoted two people familiar with a draft of the study, which is to be completed for Defense Secretary Robert Gates by Dec. 1., but with an uncertain public release date.

More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays and lesbians in uniform would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, the sources told the newspaper.

More at link.

 

[Jarod]

Why can we not end this silly policy?

 

[Phantasmal]

Why can we not end this silly policy?

We have, I thought all that needed doing was the military implementing it!

 

[Phantasmal]

We have, I thought all that needed doing was the military implementing it!

And let me explain that, I don't see how Congress can ignore it anymore at this point, unless they do it to keep President Obama from getting the credit! which is what they are doing with all legislation at this point! IdiotS!

 

[Damocles]

And let me explain that, I don't see how Congress can ignore it anymore at this point, unless they do it to keep President Obama from getting the credit! which is what they are doing with all legislation at this point! IdiotS!

That might make sense if the Obama Administration wasn't trying to keep it...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...+foxnews/politics+(Internal+-+Politics+-+Text)

 

[Phantasmal]

That might make sense if the Obama Administration wasn't trying to keep it...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...+foxnews/politics+(Internal+-+Politics+-+Text)

Damo, I am not looking at the Fox reference, I will check it on my own!

 

[Phantasmal]

Damo, I am not looking at the Fox reference, I will check it on my own!

One could see it as pandering, and I do wish he would grow a spine, but I also think he is right in that Congress needs to change this law and not the courts!

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

The problem Froggy, is that it would require an act of congress to amend the UCMJ, which currently makes it illegal to be gay in the military. The other 'problem' as I see it, is the eventual legalization of gay marriage resulting in a literal flood of contract marriages for increased military benefits and pay. I'm not against openly gay people serving or marrying, I'm just saying that those two factors will result in a gigantic abuse of our current system, and I honestly don't know how to fix it.

 

[Phantasmal]

The problem Froggy, is that it would require an act of congress to amend the UCMJ, which currently makes it illegal to be gay in the military. The other 'problem' as I see it, is the eventual legalization of gay marriage resulting in a literal flood of contract marriages for increased military benefits and pay. I'm not against openly gay people serving or marrying, I'm just saying that those two factors will result in a gigantic abuse of our current system, and I honestly don't know how to fix it.

Thanks, I hadn't even thought of those issues!

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Thanks, I hadn't even thought of those issues!

Most advocates of open gays and gay marriage don't, and it's a very legitimate concern, especially in an era when decreasing the pentagons budget it's more and more the only option for fighting deficit.

 

[christiefan915]

The problem Froggy, is that it would require an act of congress to amend the UCMJ, which currently makes it illegal to be gay in the military. The other 'problem' as I see it, is the eventual legalization of gay marriage resulting in a literal flood of contract marriages for increased military benefits and pay. I'm not against openly gay people serving or marrying, I'm just saying that those two factors will result in a gigantic abuse of our current system, and I honestly don't know how to fix it.

You wrote "a literal flood of contract marriages for increased military benefits and pay."

First, one have to calculate the percentage of gays v. straights in the military, and then get hard evidence on what percentage of gays would be contracting marriage.

I found an estimate ranging from 2.5-2.8% gays in the military. Even if all of them contracted marriage, which is highly unlikely, the financial hit would be far less than that of straight marriages.

 

[Phantasmal]

You wrote "a literal flood of contract marriages for increased military benefits and pay."

First, one have to calculate the percentage of gays v. straights in the military, and then get hard evidence on what percentage of gays would be contracting marriage.

I found an estimate ranging from 2.5-2.8% gays in the military. Even if all of them contracted marriage, which is highly unlikely, the financial hit would be far less than that of straight marriages.

Good research Christie, I was going to look into the matter today, thanks so much for providing this.

 

[christiefan915]

Good research Christie, I was going to look into the matter today, thanks so much for providing this.

You're welcome, and this wasn't meant as a criticism of Billy. I was just trying to look at the numbers.

 

[Phantasmal]

You're welcome, and this wasn't meant as a criticism of Billy. I was just trying to look at the numbers.

I was thankful he brought it up, hand' thought about it, have you seen the Cindy McCain ad?

 

[Phantasmal]

I was thankful he brought it up, hand' thought about it, have you seen the Cindy McCain ad?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/11/cindy-mccain-end-dont-ask-dont.html

 

[christiefan915]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/11/cindy-mccain-end-dont-ask-dont.html

I meant to answer this before, and forgot. I was really proud of Cindy and Megan for taking this stance. Then today, the news is that Cindy's flip-flopping on her comments. Now suddenly she stands with John.

Cindy McCain appeared in a campaign protesting Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Cindy McCain announced that she is against the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" one day after she appeared in a video where she lends her support to end the ban on gays openly serving in the military.

Earlier this week, the former Presidential candidate's wife appeared in a video campaign for the group NOH8 railing on the United States' controversial military policy – a policy that her husband supports.

"Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future ... They can't serve our country openly," she said on the video.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...n_dont_ask_dont_tell_despi.html#ixzz15CrXdhGC

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

You wrote "a literal flood of contract marriages for increased military benefits and pay."

First, one have to calculate the percentage of gays v. straights in the military, and then get hard evidence on what percentage of gays would be contracting marriage.

I found an estimate ranging from 2.5-2.8% gays in the military. Even if all of them contracted marriage, which is highly unlikely, the financial hit would be far less than that of straight marriages.

There a huge flaw at work here. You're assuming the military has some way of knowing who is and is not gay. It'd be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to tell whether two guys getting married are actually in love, or just straight guys who want to not live in a barracks and get twice as much money. I know I'd abuse such a system when I was enlisted. And just about everyone else would too. Barracks life sucks, and more money is nice.

 

[christiefan915]

There a huge flaw at work here. You're assuming the military has some way of knowing who is and is not gay. It'd be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to tell whether two guys getting married are actually in love, or just straight guys who want to not live in a barracks and get twice as much money. I know I'd abuse such a system when I was enlisted. And just about everyone else would too. Barracks life sucks, and more money is nice.

Yeah, but marriage is a legal contract. How many guys would go that far for the extra bucks and the hassle?

 

[charver]

There a huge flaw at work here. You're assuming the military has some way of knowing who is and is not gay. It'd be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to tell whether two guys getting married are actually in love, or just straight guys who want to not live in a barracks and get twice as much money. I know I'd abuse such a system when I was enlisted. And just about everyone else would too. Barracks life sucks, and more money is nice.

I appreciate that our army, after the recent cuts, amounts to a hundred or so chaps walking around a drill square with wooden rifles but when we got shot of the "if you're gay you're not coming in" rule, we didn't see a huge upsurge in straight blokes milking the system.

The gays have been fighting for years in our military and, to be honest, they didn't do to badly.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Yeah, but marriage is a legal contract. How many guys would go that far for the extra bucks and the hassle?

A FUCK TON. They already do it with willing women (partially explains the high divorce rate of service members). What extra hassle? Paying $50 to go to the court house?