Printable View
He compares it to racism and essentially says get with he program (if it should change) or get out.
Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/.../new-gay-army/Quote:
"But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you're always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today."
Actually I think he is saying you will always have people who are can't accept homosexuals in the military just you will always have those who are racist; and if that is a showstopper issue for a person they should remove themself from the organization rather than making a big fuss about it. He could have just as well said there will always be those who like to grow their hair long or sleep in late. The organization will be what the heirarchy says it will be, and if that's a problem pack it up and move on.
No one has a right to a military career, and no one should be excluded from opportunities they are fully qualified for as a matter of status either. I guess if 60% of the force took LTG Bostick up on his offer and resigned they would probably have to reconsider a policy change.
I don't know what the best answer on this particular issue is, but I do know that it's not my call as well. In the course of my career I have worked for two field grade officers who were widely known to be homosexual and one was very open about that fact. I also had an NCO who worked for me the same; and have surely encountered thousands who have probably had isolated thoughts or encounters that would throw them under this same bus as well. It's just not that interesting of a topic and should not distract us from the larger issues we need to contend with.
I don't need to comment on how Lt. Gen. Bostick is handling this matter.
There is a parallel here with females in the military.
The article The Case Against Gays in the Military states as follows:
I suggest that there are two distinct and separate issues to be addressed here. One, relates to consensual relationships with any restrictions (say between which ranks), and two, relates to the categories of sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact and sexual assault.Quote:
... This they do by means of an ethos that stresses discipline, morale, good order and unit cohesion. Anything that threatens the nonsexual bonding that lies at the heart of unit cohesion adversely affects morale, disciple and good order, generating friction and undermining this ethos.
There are already codes of conduct covering the area of consensual relationships (in most armies I presume). Those one assumes would merely be extended to cover all such relationships. This would (I assume) be as manageable as it was/is with heterosexual relationships.
The second category I would suggest is of real concern.
The BBC article US military sex attack reports up (now 18 months old) contains the following:
There is of course a double edged sword here, one side is the potential continued victimisation of gays while the other relates to the potential for increases in sexual assault incidence levels to that suffered by women in the military and possibly beyond.Quote:
Of the 6.8% of women and 1.8% of men who indicated they had experienced unwanted sexual contact, the majority - 79% of women and 78% of men - chose not to report it.
How the military will deal with this already has legal precedence through the sexual assault cases relating to serving females. (Can't start to make new rules to cover only gays now can you)
Now sit back and wait for the report of the first gay version of Tailhook '91.
This week, the DoD started enlisting openly gay individuals based on a Federal circuit court judges "interpretation" of the constitution... nice, really nice.
How about we soldiers stay deployed and the rest of you "American's" keep f'ing it up by the numbers.... seriously, when are you going to drop you balls?
"E"
You're rapidly gaining a reputation for thoughtful commentary on complex issues, Ethereal.
IMLO-
The debate over allowing openly gay men and women into the military is a lot of political theatre. I have to agree with LTG Bostick in that eventually openly G&L people will be allowed to enlist. It will happen as society gets more progressive. Also leaders who do resist this will be viewed under the same lamp as racism.
Amazingly to me, is that it is still under debate. The military has been on the leading edge of integration for the country, enlisting blacks and women into roles they could not play in the civilian arena well before the surrounding society. I can only speak from my tiny corner of the battalion, but in my years I have served with gays and lesbians. As far as the impact they had on morale it was nil. If they were good soldiers they did fine, if they could not carry their ruck so to speak, they were viewed like any other slacker. Their sexual preference did not impact their treatment, from what I saw, in the least. When asked by my civilian friends and acquaintances if I agree with allowing openly G&L people to enlist I say yes I agree. If they are willing to soldier and do a good job then we need them. If they can effectively lead and train subordinates, then by all means.
However the rub lays in perceptions. When openly G&L people serve, and it will be when not if, how they are treated will be under a microscope. The military is a big mess of people, and interactions are varied and never clear cut. Was SPEC. Smith given extra duty every day for a week because the PSG does not like homosexuals, or was it because SPEC. Smith has been late to formation every day the week prior. Different people will view things according to the filter they have on the world. The key will be how the military does in the limelight of this social integration. I believe after all this happens it will be pretty well scrutinized until the media gets tired of it and then fizzle out to be no big deal.
I think the current DREAM initiative being considered in congress will have a larger impact.