The Virginian-Pilot carries a story out of Norfolk covering a meeting of The Military Equity Alliance.
"An Alabama native, Hoven said she grew up in a patriotic family and dreamed of the day when she could wear a military uniform. She would have likely retired from the Navy.
However...
"During her nine years in the Navy, Hoven hid the fact that she is a lesbian. She made no hint of her sexual orientation but, she said, she endured harassment that eventually led her to leave the Navy. The military interviewed her co-workers and friends, interrogated her three times and threatened to search her home, she said.
Hoven was honorably discharged in 1995 after nine years of service."
Now, I don't know the exact details of Hoven's case. It's not 100% clear that all of these incidents were tied to sexuality, though I will point to the honourable discharge as suggestive.
What I will say is that the US military has lost many good people to this policy already - and it isn't the military's fault. It's Congress who sets the rules, and that's where change must happen.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: gays should be allowed to serve openly. If we're at war, and we're serious about it, we should be serious enough to get the obstacles out of their way. Hoven again:
"It's not a special right," Hoven said. "We just want to serve our country... without the fear of reprisal."
Indeed. Let them, I say. Then honour them for their service.
There was no gay exemption during WW2.
If the war heats up a bit more, there won't be for the Muslim/Civilization war, either. A point is reached when the makeup of the forces becomes a point of necessity, not philosophy.
To reprise a recurring theme:
Many on this site have argued that we as a nation are not serious about our wars anymore, at least not since Reagan. It's also been argued that the current WoT is indicative of the unspoken "no sacrificing" goal that seems to in vogue any time the US undertakes military action; keep casualties to a minimum, try not to tick off the locals, stop insisting on black-and-white moralizing, fight with one hand tied behind our backs, etc.
To hear the hawks tell it (and I'm one of them) we are in the middle of a life and death fight with an ideology that seeks to destroy or enslave all of Western civilization. But has the country been put on full-time war footing? Has the President made even one speech to the nation, a single leader-to-country appeal, asking for additional volunteers to join the Armed Forces, instead of just relying on increased advertising or signing bonuses?
This is not really an argument against allowing gays to serve openly. But I'd say we are not taking war seriously (to our detriment); and until we are, until we publicly announce we are hurting for troops, you need to make a case for changing the rules--which presumably the military itself is fine with since I haven't heard of a big push from the military establishment to change them--such that it proves the military would be better off under the new paradigm.
This is why one knows the Bush administration is not serious about this war. Bushies and Brownies keep telling you we are in one but to my way of thinking turning down resources tells you we are not.
Tom's logic says that the USA wasn't in World War II after Pearl Harbor, because blacks were prevented from serving in a number of units (the Tuskegee Airmen didn't serve until 1943).
I'm not exactly sure what America was doing between December 1941 and April 1943. No doubt one of Tom's revised leftist history books will successfully explain it all to us some day.
And Tom, have you the slightest clue what a juvenile moron you sound like when you use terms like "Bushies"? But that's a rhetorical question - of course you don't.
I dont see a post from "tom", so im not sure what the above is in response to. I would say that the US in 1941 was fairly thoroughly mobilized (a mobilization that started before Pearl) and that limits on black participation were the exception to the rule. Today we really dont seem mobilized (and yes, I know that contemporary warfare is different and we dont need scrap drives) and the continued limits on gays seems of a piece with that.
Im also not sure that "bushies" is any less mature than, say, "deaniacs" or "clintonistas"
Yes, liberhawk, "Deaniacs" is similarly immature. The word "leftists" serves perfectly well, and avoids the juvenile angle. Political terms need to be descriptives, not just personal insults - because once you get out of the schoolyard, it's about bigger things.
RE: comment targeting - sorry, should have addressed #5 to Robert M. Who clearly said that turning down resources means you're not in a war. Which was dumb.
Had he made an argument instead that this was symptomatic of a larger failure to mobilize in this war, and avoided the juvenile dreck, he would have had a smart comment and I would have agreed with him.