Marine general: Gays would get their own rooms

[RamboLiberal]

Source: MSNBC/AP

WASHINGTON - The Marine Corps' commandant said he won't force his troops to bunk with gays on base and would give them separate rooms if Congress votes to allow openly gay service.

The comment, by Gen. James Conway, is the latest pushback by a small but vocal faction of senior military leaders opposed to a repeal of the 1993 law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

President Barack Obama says the ban is unfair, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates has launched a lengthy study to determine how to allow gays to serve openly without hurting military effectiveness.

----

Earlier this month, a three-star Army general called on troops and their families to "speak up" against allowing gays to serve openly.

Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, who heads Army forces for U.S. Pacific Command, was publicly admonished by Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen for using his rank to advocate a political position and challenge the president.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36056512/ns/politics/

---

Time for Gates & Mullen to tell these generals to salute and STFU or do as Mullen suggested and vote with their feet by retiring.

[Robb]

1. Agreed. Go write your books, you fucking bigots

...and get out of our armed forces. :grr:

[babylonsister]

2. And sadly, it's guys like this who are making the process

move so slowly imo. Neanderthals. I'm glad Gates and Mullen are publicly admonishing them.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. Do they really think that gay men will jump on them?

Conway Twit

[JonLP24]

8. It doesn't make any sense

I know when I did basic and AIT the reason they separated females and males on separate floors for one is obviously privacy issues and they didn't want trainees having sex with idea that everyone is straight or some will pretend that they are. I was wondering how they would handle an issue like that if they ever do get rid of DADT but keeping them in their own room makes no sense. Gay men are not going to have sex with straight men or females for that matter but if they are in the same room?? I'm over thinking this it seems but it doesn't make any sense. Oh what about gay females? Do they share a room with the men or will they have 4 different rooms?

[awoke_in_2003]

20. How often...

do you hear about gay people raping other people? Never, and priests do not count- homosexuality and pedophilia are NOT even remotely related (just in case someone tries to tie these together like republicans do)

[RKP5637]

36. +1000, n/t

[boppers]

52. Never use a word like "never". It's too easy to find exceptions to generalizations.

For example: Jeffrey Dahmer's tastes (ahem) trended towards men, not children.

That being said, it's still worth repeating that pedophilia and homosexuality are different things. A great many pedophiles consider themselves "straight", regardless of their victims.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. the whole thing is ridiculous

[RKP5637]

35. I always find this quite funny because often it's the most repulsive ones generally

in life that think a gay guy is going after them. It's really flawed logic. It's amazing, therefore, that coed dorms work. When someone makes a statement like that it makes me wonder what part of ones body they are focused on... are they repressed, what sexual hangups do they have...

[MattBaggins]

4. And this General can be demoted and drummed out

Take a hit on his retirement but a General Officer advocating disobeying orders needs to be made an example of.

[RamboLiberal]

5. They ought to bump Conway and Mixon back to Lieutenant

[shedevil69taz]

39. he will probably be allowed to retire

Even though he was specifically ordered not to make public comments about the policy, he could be court martialed.

[MattBaggins]

6. Been out for about 15 years but I don't think they could bust that low.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. Bust him so low he has to salute civilians!

[Alcibiades]

7. Reminds one of Executive Order 9981

When Truman signed that, my grandfather and many other southerners serving in Korea fell in line immediately. WTF is wrong with today's military?

[RamboLiberal]

10. 1948 US was not fighting in Korea yet

In fact many units remained segregated.

At the end of June 1950, the Korean War broke out. The U.S. Army had accomplished little desegregation in peacetime and sent the segregated Eighth Army to defend South Korea. Most black soldiers served in segregated support units in the rear. The remainder served in segregated combat units, most notably the 24th Infantry Regiment. The first months of the Korean War were some of the most disastrous in U.S. military history. The North Korean People's Army nearly drove the American-led United Nations forces off the Korean peninsula. Faced with staggering losses in white units, commanders on the ground began accepting black replacements, thus integrating their units. The practice occurred all over the Korean battle lines and proved that integrated combat units could perform under fire. The Army high command took notice. On July 26, 1951, the US Army formally announced its plans to desegregate, exactly three years after Truman issued Executive Order 9981.

Soon Army officials required Morning Reports (the daily report of strength accounting and unit activity required of every unit in the Army on active duty) of units in Korea to include the line "NEM XX OTHER EM XX TOTAL EM XX", where XX was the number of Negro and Other races, in the section on enlisted strength. The Form 20s for enlisted personnel recorded race. For example, the percentage of Black Enlisted Personnel in the 4th Signal Battalion was maintained at about 14 % from September 1951 to November 1952, mostly by clerks' selectively assigning replacements by race. Morning Report clerks of this battalion assumed that all units in Korea were doing the same. The Morning Reports were classified "RESTRICTED" in those years.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation

I don't think back then they all went along so smoothly. Here's also an interesting tidbit about the Battle of the Bulge.

In the midst of the Battle of the Bulge in late 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was severely short of replacement troops for existing military units--all of which were totally white in composition. Consequently, he made the decision to allow Afro-American soldiers to pick up a gun and join the white military units to fight in combat for the first time. This was the first step toward a desegregated United States military. Eisenhower's decision in this case was strongly opposed by his own army chief of staff, Lieutenent General Walter Bedell Smith. Indeed, it was stated that Bedell Smith was outraged by the decision and had said that the American public take offense at the integration of the military units.

On edit a bit more:

Ironically, the most celebrated pronouncement on segregation at the moment of the Truman order came not from publicists or politicians but from the Army's new Chief of Staff, General Omar N. Bradley.7 Speaking to a group of instructors at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and unaware of the President's order and the presence of the press, Bradley declared that the Army would have to retain segregation as long as it was the national pattern. 8 This statement prompted questions at the President's next news conference, letters to the editor, and debate in the press.9 Bradley later explained that he had supported the Army's segregation policy because he was against making the Army an instrument of social change in areas of the country which still rejected integration.10 His comment, as amplified and broadcast by military analyst Hanson W. Baldwin, summarized the Army's position at the time of the Truman order. "It is extremely dangerous nonsense," Baldwin declared, "to try to make the Army other than one thing�a fighting machine." By emphasizing that the Army could not afford to differ greatly in customs, traditions, and prejudices from the general population, Baldwin explained, Bradley was only underscoring a major characteristic of any large organization of conscripts. Most import, Baldwin pointed out, the Chief of Staff considered an inflexible order for the immediate integration of all troops one of the surest ways to break down the morale of the Army and destroy its efficiency.11

But such arguments were under attack by the very civil rights groups the President was trying to court. "Are we to understand that the President's promise to end discrimination," one critic asked,
was made for some other purpose than to end discrimination in its worst form�segregation? General Bradley's statement, subsequent to the President's orders, would seem to indicate that the President either did not mean what he said or his orders were not being obeyed. We should like to point out that General Bradley's reported observation . . . was decidedly wide of the mark. Segregation is the legal pattern of only a few of our most backward states.... In view of the trends in law and social practice, it is high time that the Defense forces were not used as brakes on progress toward genuine democracy. 12

General Bradley apologized to the President for any confusion caused by his statement, and Truman publicly sloughed off the affair, but not before he stated to the press that his order specifically directed the integration of the armed forces.l3 It was obvious that the situation had developed into a standoff. Some of the President's most outspoken supporters would not let him forget his integration order, and the Army, as represented by its Chief of Staff, failed to realize that events were rapidly moving beyond the point where segregation could be considered a workable policy for an agency of the United States government.

The Army: Segregation on the Defensive
The President's order heralded a series of attacks on the Army's race policy. As further evidence of the powerful pressures for change, several state governors now challenged segregation in the National Guard. Generally the race policy of the reserve components echoed that of the Regular Army, in part because it seemed logical that state units, subject to federal service, conform to federal standards of performance and organization. Accordingly, in the wake of the publication of the Gillem Board Report, the Army's Director of Personnel and Administration recommended to the Committee on National Guard Policy14 that it amend its regulation on the employment of black troops to conform more closely with the new policy. Specifically, General Paul asked the committee to spell out the prohibition against integration of white and black troops below battalion level, warning that federal recognition would be denied any state unit organized in violation of this order. 15

http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/IAF-13.htm

[proteus_lives]

27. It took awhile to iron out.

My dad served in Vietnam and he said they often had to separate the black and white soldiers because they were fighting too much.

[Scairp]

48. What I was thinking

But w/o the essay. Separate but equal isn't going to fly legally, and anyway, how do you provide a soldier their own quarters in a combat zone? This is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard when discussing this issue. They should be housed like any other soldier, otherwise nothing is ever going to get any better amongst the homophobic ideology permeating the military.

[24601]

31. Don't know of any EO he would be violating. The President is

not supposed to ignores the laws with which he disagrees but to work with Congress to change them. Until then, a President owed as much fidelity to the law as any Marine.

The Truman EO example is not a valid example.

[JonLP24]

34. He can issue an executive order in a time of war

to halt discharges but you're right it is up for Congress to change the law and the President to sign it. Both discussed in great detail by military law experts here:http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf

[24601]

53. Legally, we aren't at way but at "Authorized use of Military Force"

Which the President's OPM has ruled does not qualify as "war" since Congress has not declared was.

[JonLP24]

54. War was a simple way of saying it

He still has the authority.

10 U.S.C. § 12305 gives the President authority to suspend laws relating to separation of
members of the military if two requirements are met. First, the suspension must occur
during a period of national emergency in which members of the military reserve are
involuntarily called to active duty under sections 12301 (reserve components generally),
12302 (ready reserve), and 12304 (selected reserve and certain individual ready reserve
members). As of April 7, 2009, there were 93,993 members of reserve components or
retired members serving on active duty after involuntary activation. Second, the President
must make a determination that retention of members of the military—and suspension of
any law requiring their separation—is essential to the national security of the United
States. The conditions of 10 U.S.C. § 12305 are sensible because they give the President
authority to suspend laws relating to separation when a national emergency has strained
personnel requirements to the point that members of the reserve forces have been
involuntarily called to active duty. The constitutionality of 10 U.S.C. § 12305 was upheld
in Santiago v. Rumsfeld, 425 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2005).
Under 10 U.S.C. § 123 (“Authority to Suspend Officer Personnel Laws During War or
National Emergency”), Congress grants the President similar authority to suspend laws
relating to the separation of officer personnel.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy itself, as codified by Congress, also grants authority to
the Department of Defense to determine the procedures under which investigations,
separation proceedings, and other personnel actions under the authority of 10 U.S.C. §
654 will be carried out. Section 654(b) states: "A member of the armed forces shall be
separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense
if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with
procedures set forth in such regulation." Under this section, the Secretary of Defense has
discretion to determine the specific manner in which “don’t ask, don’t tell” will be
implemented. Furthermore, the statute does not direct the military to make any particular
findings of prohibited conduct or statements; it only states that members shall be
separated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary if such findings are made. The
Secretary has broad authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those
findings may be made.
A recent decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Witt v. Department of the Air
Force, 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2008), calls into question whether “don’t ask, don’t tell,” as
implemented by regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, violates the due
process rights of service members under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The court remanded the case for further findings on whether the separation of this
specific service member would significantly further an interest in military effectiveness,
and whether less intrusive means would be unlikely to further the same interest. The
Secretary has authority under 10 U.S.C. § 654 to determine whether regulations


From the link. It's discussed in great detail by military law experts from the University of California at Santa Barbara. I tend to trust that they know wth they are talking about.

[Botany]

9. Gays would get their own rooms?

Fabulous!





and while your are at it can you get some better uniforms too?

***********

BTW I am not gay General but I am willing to bet that right now gay marines are sleeping and showering w/ straight marine
and nothing at all is happening.

[JonLP24]

12. Out of all the armed forces

I believe Marines have the best sets of uniforms and I was an Army guy. I second your last paragraph.

[awoke_in_2003]

21. when I visited...

the recruiting offices when I was 17, the Navy and Army recruiters were fat, and for some reason cannot tailor their pants to go down to their shoes. The Marines were, of course, impeccable

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

59. But the straight Marines all quake in fear

of dropping a bar of soap in the shower.

Like werewolves at the full moon, the gays would morph into sex-crazed monsters, causing the straight Marines to catch "the gay".

Or, at least that's how it was in the Army. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of Marine life.

:hi:

[mzteris]

11. cool - i bet they'll all claim to be gay,

just so they can get their own room!!


Idiot - what does he think is going on right now and has been since the Corps was founded?

[Javaman]

13. Right, because segregation always works wonders.

what a jerk.

[DeSwiss]

14. So is he saying that the Marines are taking us back.....

....to "Separate but equal?"

- How many stars general is this guy????

K&R

[JonLP24]

15. 4 Stars n/t

[DeSwiss]

17. And those 4 stars come with brass balls too, I see.

;) - Which reminds me of another general that a president had to fire when he got too big for his breaches.....

[JonLP24]

19. While looking him up.....he finds that the lack of WMD is "surprising"

"It was a surprise to me then, it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered weapons...It's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there....What the regime was intending to do in terms of its use of the weapons, we thought we understood—or we certainly had our best guess, our most dangerous, our most likely courses of action that the intelligence folks were giving us. We were simply wrong. But whether or not we're wrong at the national level, I think, still very much remains to be seen."

From Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_T._Conway

The lack of WMD never surprised me, in fact even though I didn't for sure I knew there wasn't going to be any.

[DeSwiss]

23. He needs to retire.

- Or be retired.

[jmowreader]

18. You mean "separate but unequal," correct?

If straight Marines have to room with other straight Marines, but gay Marines get their own rooms, how long will it take the Marines to be the first "all-gay" branch of service in American history? Sounds to me like the gays are getting the better deal out of it.

The effect will be devastating to the national debt, though: the expense the Marines will incur in paying housing allowance to all single NCOs, because there's no other way to house the new all-gay Corps, will boggle the mind. "We need $150 billion to pay Marines' rent outside Camp Pendleton...yeah, the Commandant announced all gay soldiers were to be housed in separate rooms and the entire 1st Marine Division came out of the closet."

[awoke_in_2003]

22. I think the fact...

that the poster put separate but equal in quote marks was pointing out the fact that separate is not equal.

[DeSwiss]

25. Yeah, I was defintely being sascastic.

- Because I remember it vividly.....

[RKP5637]

37. Yeah, good one, taking us back to separate but equal. It's a ridiculous and

backward statement the General made.

[kickysnana]

16. and other lies told by recruiters. n/t

[donco6]

24. Cuz GAYS are SCARY!

I never knew our Marines were such wimps.

[happygoluckytoyou]

26. at least the rooms would be clean neat and with fabulous window treatments!!!

and that GREEN......gotta get rid of that.....it's so....

[David__77]

28. These officers are in serious violation of their roles.

They do not get to make policy - not even inside the military. They are completely subject and must totally obey the civilian authorities. The can only command service members according to the guidelines laid down. Time to clean out the officers corp of this reactionary rabble - it's a danger to national security.

[24601]

33. It's an interesting question, do they put loyalty to a CinC above

adherence to the law?

Different story if DADT is repealed and the CinC issues on order "no separate rooms."

Question, does a person have any right not to dress or shower in front of someone who sees them as a sexual object? I keep telling these women at work they have no such right as long as I don't touch them, but I think I may be in trouble anyway. You will all defend me won't you? After all, there's a major principle at stake here.

[David__77]

46. I'm not sure I understand.

If one is not being sexually harassed, then there is no injustice. Some subjective mind state does not constitute harassment; obviously it would have to manifest through unwanted words or touching of a blatantly sexual nature.

If anything, in the military, there should be a higher threshold. There are fewer rights generally, and unless one is being physically assaulted, you better just adhere to discipline and get over it. I'm certain that patriotic individuals will still be moved to serve.

[gvstn]

29. What part of

approximately 90,000 gay service men/women does it not understand? They are already there. The only difference is that they will not have to LIE! That is a good thing. Who wants to teach their officers to lie and practice lying ever single day? How does that help the military?

[Jefferson23]

32. Separate but equal, eh?

[pipoman]

38. I think it is easy for outsiders to think of the Marines

as monolithic when in fact they are as diverse as any community in the US. Every Marine base has medical and legal professions on base, as well as waste water technicians (shit suckers) and garbage men and everything in between. There are going to be bigots on these bases just as there are on your block, in your city and at your work....

[Skittles]

43. yes, but we hope to fuck they are weeded out before they make GENERAL

[pipoman]

49. This Marine Commandant

I believe has spent most of his 40 years among the 'grunts' (infantry), which is a large part of the Marines to be sure. I would suspect that as a whole, the infantry might be the area of the Corps most likely to have problems. A large part of infantry are the dirt eating, ground sleeping, belly crawling, he men of the Marines. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of dadt, or agree with the commandant's assessment...just know that he has been there and knows the ins and outs of the infantry....he's not the clean cut college boy...he's definitely old school, blood and guts marine..

[MadMaddie]

40. Seperate but equal?

Sound familiar? This is a sham..

[bemildred]

41. What a maroon. nt

[Skittles]

42. disgusting

[kestrel91316]

45. Disgusting segregationist mofo.

[EFerrari]

47. What an idiot. And THESE are the generals defending our country?

Omfg.

:rofl:

[buckrogers1965]

50. Confused.

Aren't they bunking with gays now? What would change?

[RFKHumphreyObama]

51. Oh yes the good old "seperate but equal"

:eyes: :eyes: :puke:

Conway is the modern day version of Strom Thurmond. Next thing you know these people will produce their own version of the Southern Manifesto

:puke: :puke:

[RainDog]

55. GROW UP YOU FUCKING TWERP! gays don't have cooties

this person is too immature to lead any troops, it seems.

or he's so concerned about what others do with their precious bodily fluids he needs to check into betty ford for homophobes.

[KurtNYC]

56. And by "room" he means "closet" n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

57. Amen to your comment...

There need be no accommodation for bigots. And to those bigots afraid of bunking with a gay person: chances are, they're just not that into you. Keep your over-sized ego in check.

[mainer]

58. These men are supposed to fight Al Qaeda but they're afraid of teh gay?

It makes them seem like such wussies.

[Old Troop]

60. If I'd known I'd get my own room

I would have declared myself gay!