Jericho - When I'm Gone

No reason in posting this other than this vid has some great scenes from Jericho, which are always cool to see, and I love this song by 3 Doors Down...

Jericho - The City Slicker

Another funny vid showing the exploits of poor Mimi stuck in lil' ol' Jericho...

Jericho - When A Big City Girl Gets Hungry

When I first saw this scene on a Jericho episode with Alicia Coppola, as "Mimi Clark", I nearly hurt myself laughing so hard. I could see both my mother and sister behaving in a similiar manner if ever confronted with having to slaughter their own food. I have no doubt that either would rise to the occasion if ever they had to, especially out of concern for hungry loved ones, but their reactions would still be priceless. Coppola did a superb job in this scene and she has done well so far in showing her talents as an actress not only in comedic situations but dramatic as well. It is writing like in this scene and the acting skill of cast members like Coppola that makes watching this show very enjoyable.

New Poll Shows Senior Military Officers Support DADT

The findings of this CNAS poll are interesting in what active duty and recently retired senior officers think about various proposals to "fill the ranks" of the military:

78% - Expand options for legal permanent residents to serve in exchange for citizenship
58% - Allow a larger percentage of those who have GED but not a high school diploma
47% - Increase enlistment bonuses
47% - Increase the maximum age restriction
38% - Reinstate the draft
22% - Allow gays and lesbians to serve openly
7% - Increase use of criminal, health, and other "waivers" for service

The second and third ideas are worthwhile to examine and in some instances are being implemented as we speak. The first idea makes me wary a bit of following ancient Rome's poor example of accidentally creating a mercenary army composed largely of foreigners, but does provide some benefits as well. I'm also wary of the fourth idea, yet again there are benefits to exploiting the knowledge and skills of older Americans who are able to serve. The idea of resinstating the draft is a non-starter, a bit of a third rail in politics that the current conflicts will not generate enough support to implement. I'm glad to see a lot of skepticism by officers about the various waivers that have been used by the military in recent years. Except for the draft, this idea concerns me the most about the effectiveness of our military.

Finally, we get to the idea of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell to allow gays & lesbians to serve openly. It doesn't really surprise me that among senior officers this garners only 22% support. They tend to be more conservative and first began serving under a very different era than the current climate for homosexuals in our society. We saw the same kind of angst and opposition among all levels of the officer corps when racial desegregation was pushed through in 1948 and later when women were allowed to serve. Such change always brings its own set of unique problems that have to be dealt with, no matter how minute. No officer worth his or her salt generally takes on additional problems in fulfilling their mission unless they are ordered to do so. Some have difficulty adapting to new situations and environments from what they have always known. We saw evidence of this when the Cold War ended in the early 1990s and the military was forced to examine how to perform its mission given the new realities. The idea of large armies battling for control over the Fulda Gap, for example, went out the window. Recent conflicts have shown that the old strategies were obsolete in the face of asymmetric warfare. It should be noted that among the respondents to this poll, 89% are 51 or above in age, 71% of the retirees had left the service 11+ years ago, and only 9.9% "have been to Iraq and/or Afghanistan at least once". It would be interesting to see if the results of this poll differ with the junior officer corps, usually of younger age, as well as a larger sample of officers who have served one or more times in Iraq/Afghanistan. I'm also curious if the number of tours in either conflict for each officer may have an impact on the results as well. Finally, how different would the results be for retirees who left the service in the past 5 years?

If there is one constant in military matters, it is that change is inevitable. The current opposition among senior officers to repealing the ban against gays openly serving may delay its repeal, but in the long run will not prevent it. In my view, the time has come now for the military to take advantage of the change in our society regarding homosexuals and Congress should repeal the ban. The struggle to achieve this isn't over by a long shot, but support for such a move is growing every day and sometime soon full integration will take place in spite of the skepticism. I predict that much of the angst we see now will in the future be looked back upon with great puzzlement.

UPDATE: Oops. I missed the other CNAS poll that was attached to this one. This one had a much smaller sample but of the respondents, all were active duty or had retired no more than 1 year ago, 83% were 50 years or younger, and 30% had served in Iraq at least once while 13% were in Afghanistan for at least one tour. The results concerning DADT were almost the same: only 23% of respondents favored repeal. I'm still curious what factor the other items I mentioned play into the results of both of these polls. While all of this is interesting, this doesn't change my view on repeal.

UPDATE: I must be having an off day today. My apologies. I also missed the disclaimer CNAS put out concerning these two polls. Of particular note is the following that may have some impact on the results:

Like many surveys conducted by the media and other organizations, including past FP indexes on terrorism, the CNAS/FP effort was not a randomized poll. Instead, emails were sent to thousands of individuals, mostly members of the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), but also to additional active duty personnel currently serving in fellowships or at senior service schools, as well as to several hundred retired general and flag officers who were selected for their long service and extensive experience...

When we sent out the survey, we were unsure what mix of retired and active officers would respond, particularly through MOAA. As it turned out, although 285 active duty personnel responded, the response from the retired community was much larger, so that 92 percent of the 3,437 total respondents were retired. Some 700 participants had retired within the past 10 years, so that 29 percent of survey respondents were active duty or retired within the last ten years, while 71 percent had retired more than 10 years ago. Finally, and as noted in the FP article, more than two-thirds of respondents had combat experience and 10 percent had operational experience in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

(this is also posted over on Gay Patriot)

Jericho - Season 1 Trailer

Pretty decent effort by an obviously devoted fan of the show. This video hits most of the highlights from Season 1 and shows why this Jericho is one of the best programs on TV.

On a related note, while CBS for some bizarre reason hasn't put out a soundtrack of the music from Jericho, I was able to find a list of songs used in all the episodes to date. What an awesome collection! Most of these I didn't have before but thanks to iTunes, I do now! You'll notice on "My iPod Top Ten" that all of these songs are used in the show.

"I married a gay man."

Moving story by an anonymous woman who had the misfortune of marrying a deeply-closeted gay man. Both come from a very religious and conservative backround and this upbringing made it nearly impossible for "Chris" to accept the fact that he is gay. To make matters worse, her gay former husband was also in the military, so the DADT policy contributed to keeping his closet door nailed firmly shut.

You might wonder why Chris couldn't accept his homosexuality, but the sin factor was ingrained in him at an early age. Being gay would not only endanger his job and family life, it could also cost him his relationship with his parents, his church and God. Chris feared that coming out would invalidate him as a human being — and might even send him to hell...

The only thing that saved my sanity was the Straight Spouse Network, an international support group founded by another woman who'd been married to a gay man. During my first SSN meeting, I sat in the corner and cried the entire time. At least I knew I wasn't alone. I soon learned that straight spouses typically blame themselves for not being sexy enough to keep their husband from straying. As bad as it is when another woman manages to steal your husband, at least you believe you can compete. When your husband wants another man, it denies your entire being. I also learned that a surprising number of gays in the military are married because marriage is such a useful front. You can't be gay in the military, and if you're married, then of course you're not gay. (MSNBC)

When I was younger I was tempted to do the same thing "Chris" had done: marry some girl I was friends with and hope that a loving, heterosexual relationship would develop. Yet at the time I knew that it would be wrong to do this as long as I still had the 'problem' of being gay, something I figured I'd 'outgrow' in time. Naive as that may sound now, thank God this stopped me from making the biggest mistake of my life and deeply hurting some poor woman. It really angers me when I hear the so-called "exgay" groups pushing this kind of crap that puts straight spouses at a tremendous risk of emotional harm, as well as the "exgay" one. What "Chris" did by marrying this woman when he knew he was gay, and others like him, was very, very wrong. I certainly am not qualified to judge him and the others on this matter, only God is. Yet those who encourage such actions either directly or indirectly through their hostility towards homosexuals have much to answer for. I hope that all of them will find the forgiveness they need and the courage to soldier on by righting as much of the wrongs they have done as possible.

Thailand's Gay Past

“Contrary to conservative beliefs, homosexuality has long existed in our society, as evidenced by these mural paintings,” said Varaporn, a book editor who has researched the topic.

Varaporn recently presented her findings at Thailand’s first ever national conference on sexuality and sexual diversity, where she displayed photographs of murals painted on old temples in various parts of Thailand.

Varaporn started with images of the 18th century Buddhaisawan Chapel in the National Museum, where the sacred Buddha Sihing image is housed for public reverence. There, she found some murals with images of lesbianism. One, located on the middle of the left wall after the main entrance, depicts two mermaids frolicking with each other above the ocean waves.

On the opposite wall is the scene on the Buddha’s Great Renunciation, the night Prince Siddhartha decided to leave palace life to ordain. In the portion of the mural that shows a group of court ladies sleeping in front of the royal chamber some of the women are embracing one another... (Bangkok Post)

Interesting article and something I was unaware of. However, these murals do not "equate to social acceptance" of homosexuality during that time. As Varaporn notes:

“These scenes appear in the context of mainstream values of heterosexuality, so what they convey ranges from a humorous peek at homosexuality to outright ridicule and condemnation.”

An example of this is a depiction at Suwannaram Temple of sodomy used as punishment. Found on the ubosot wall to the left of the main Buddha image, it reflects social contempt of homosexuality and how some men used rape as a means to punish and humiliate other men...

Yet according to Varaporn, what these murals do prove is that homosexuality in Thailand isn't a Western import as many believe, but instead has long roots in their country's history.

Jericho

Which Jericho Character Are You?

More on Jericho. Created by BuddyTV

Thanks to 'subtle' prodding by Kevin, I decided to give this show a look-see. Wow. I soured on TV shows a couple of years ago and cut off cable (meaning in my area I get no TV at all) because I was tired of paying so much money for crap. I cannot say enough just how much I do not care about "American Idol", "America's Top Model" and other 'reality' shite that has flooded television in recent years and passes for 'entertainment' nowadays. Yet occasionally a show comes along that does interest me and when I discover them it is like savoring a fine wine. Since cutting off TV, I've downloaded programs from iTunes that I enjoy, mostly Battlestar Galactica (another excellent series) and the occasional History Channel show, along with watching DVDs from Netflix. I have to say though that Jericho is one of the best shows I've seen on television in a long time. I downloaded Season 1 from iTunes the other night and had a marathon of sorts, watching every available episode from the pilot on through those I found from Season 2. The writing, acting and even the special effects (a-bomb explosions, etc.) are extremely well-done especially for TV. I just cannot understand why it has such low ratings. Perhaps it hits too close to home for many after 9/11. I know that it was chilling for me to see video clips of the people running away from the dust cloud in NYC used in an earlier episode. Nevertheless, if you haven't seen this show I highly recommend it!

One more thing, the cast. They did a fantastic job in assembling this cast. It was good to see Gerald McRaney (Johnston Green) again. He has played many roles over the years I've liked and he also reminds me a bit of my father. Pamela Reed (Gail Green) is a treat to see starring in this, she stole theshow IMO in the 1990 comedy Kindergarten Cop. Alicia Coppola (Mimi Clark) has brought a lot of amusement to the show as the "Big City Girl" stuck in a farm town after the nuclear holocaust. The above quiz says that I am supposedly more like the character Stanley Richmond (played by Brad Beyer), which is probably more accurate than not in basic personality traits though not interests, but my favorite by far is Skeet Ulrich (Jake Green):


I've never heard of him before watching this show. He is definitely a hottie and is quite good in the role he plays! I hope we see more of him in other shows soon.

Cherubic Angels: Bad To The Bone?

An amusing exchange between two cherubic angels who'd rather be smiting than seen as being 'cute'.

Body Of King Edwards II's Gay Lover Found

A mutilated body found in an abbey graveyard has been identified as that of a notorious medieval villain rumoured to have been the gay lover of Edward II.

The remains, which bear the hallmarks of having been hanged, drawn and quartered, are thought to be those of Sir Hugh Despenser the Younger, who was executed as a traitor in 1326.

Sir Hugh had been favourite of Edward II - who was widely believed to have been homosexual - but was brutally executed before a mob after the king was ousted from the throne.

The decapitated remains, buried at Hulton Abbey, Staffs, have intrigued experts since they were uncovered during the 1970s and now Mary Lewis, an anthropologist, says she has uncovered compelling evidence of their true identity.

The manner of execution, carbon-dating of the bones, and the absence of several parts of the body all point towards Sir Hugh being the victim, she said... (Telegraph)

From most accounts, Hugh was a paricularly nasty rogue and the brutal nature of his execution demonstrates just how hated he was. Some of this was probably related to persistent rumors that he was the homosexual lover of Edward II, but there was far more to why the man was despised. He was accused of cheating and murderering several people, including members of his own family. Edward II was a failure as King, which is why he was deposed and possibly murdered, and apparently his choice in male lovers wasn't any better. Interesting find though.

BSG fix for the day...

The final season in April is a looooong way away, dammit!

Dick Cheney & Gays in the Military

One of the more interesting aspects of Randy Shilts' book Conduct Unbecoming that I have finally finished reading, are some of the people mentioned and their roles involving gays in the military. This is especialy true of Shilts' telling of the mostly hostile atmosphere during the 1970s & 80s. Some of the people wouldn't achieve much attention until years later, while others were already at the height of their fame and power. From Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat from Georgia who pressured a decorated Vietnam veteran that served on his staff to seek other employment because he was gay (pp.390-391), to then-Colonel Peter Pace who sought to have charges pressed against two Marines that had participated in an attack on patrons of a gay bar in Washington, DC (p.721). Nunn a few years later of course would infamously mount a fierce opposition to President Bill Clinton's plan to repeal the ban against gays in military, while General Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stirred up controversy with some seemingly anti-gay remarks during an interview. Perhaps most interesting of all, however, is the role of then-SecDef Dick Cheney, who currently serves as Vice President admired by some some and reviled by others. While Cheney could hardly be considered a champion for gay rights, neither was he "homophobic" or antagonistic towards homosexuals either. It's possible that his love for his lesbian daughter Mary Cheney may have been behind some of this. It is notable that he strongly defended his daughter when her sexual orientation became a political issue many years after he headed DoD and Vice President Cheney would publicly express support for same-sex unions. In the early 1990s, blatant hostility against homosexuals in uniform was rampant among top leaders in the Defense Department, which caused Cheney a number of difficulties during his tenure as SecDef. In 1990, he personally intervened to force the U.S. Navy to drop demands for repayment of tuition after expelling 3 gay Midshipmen from the Naval Academy, whose cases became cause célèbre for the gay rights movement (p.708). When disgruntled Navy officials attempted to quietly pressure another expelled gay Midshipman to repay his tuition, Cheney exploded in anger, fuming, "Goddamn it, I've told the military departments not to hit people up for back tuition!". He quickly dispatched an aide to reiterate his previous order to both the Chief of Naval Operations and the Chief of Naval Personnel and the matter was promptly dropped. The extent of the purges of gay military personnel during previous administrations and the continued focus of top brass on expelling homosexuals disgusted Cheney and he ordered such "witch-hunts" to immediately stop. Unfortunately though, this order didn't meet with a lot of success at the time. Perhaps the most telling episode of Cheney's tenure as SecDef and how he related to gay personnel both civilian and military is when his aide Pete Williams was outed by a gay magazine (pp.739-740):

In August [1991], The Advocate ran a story "outing" a very high-ranking civilian Pentagon official. The official, generally referred to in the press as a senior spokesman for the Defense Department, had worked at the right hand of Secretary Cheney for many years, and few believed that Cheney was uninformed of the man's orientation before the story appeared.

The mainstream press generally declined to identify the man, eschewing the newly popular gay practice of revealing the sexual orientation of people who would prefer to remain hidden. But aggressive promotion by the gay magazine ensured that there were several stories about a certain unnamed official. This led to an unprecedented event in the history of gays in the military: A Secretary of Defense admitted that homosexuals did servce in the armed forces.

In fact, in numerous interviews Cheney acknowledged that gays had always served, often honorably, but he tried to draw the distinction between a civilian serving on his senior staff and a soldier serving in a military environment where issues of order, discipline, and morale came into play. Cheney's defense of the military policy was anemic, however, and he frequently referred to it as something he "inherited" from previous administrations. As for the notion that gays were security risks, Cheney called it "sort of an old chestnut". As Congressman Barney Frank told one interviewer: "If Cheney defended the United States the way he defended this policy, we would have been captured by now - by Cuba". Nevertheless, Cheney's comments marked the first time in nearly a decade that anyone in the defense establishment had advanced any argument for the policy beyond the usual 123 words. [DoD Directive 1332.14 (1982)]

What was most remarkable about the outing was what it said about shifting attitudes toward gays. The gay Defense Department spokesman kept his job. According to one senior Pentagon official, Cheney brought the matter up personally with President [George H. W.] Bush, who approved the man's retention. And there was the marvel of a Republican Secretary of Defense from the conservative wing of his party saying he did not care about the private lives of his closest aides.

All in all very fascinating reading.

(this is also posted over on Gay Patriot)

Colin Powell & DADT

I am well aware of the attempts to draw parallels between this position and positions used years ago to deny opportunities to African-Americans. I know you are a history major, but I can assure you I need no reminders concerning the history of African-Americans in the defense of their Nation and the tribulations they faced. I am a part of that history... Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. I believe the privacy rights of all Americans in uniform have to be considered, especially since those rights are often infringed upon by the conditions of military service.
-- General Colin Powell, Chairman JCS, 1993

This statement by Powell is still frequently relied upon by those seeking to keep DADT in place. It is undeniably strong stuff from a respected man. The good General is entitled to his opinion, but I do not entirely agree with him. While race and sexuality are not entirely comparable themselves, the attitudes and prejudice regarding both most definitely ARE.

It should be noted that Powell's views on banning gays in the military have softened over the years. While he is reluctant to remove DADT at the present, he has signaled that his support for it isn't as strident as it once may have appeared to be. In fact, he punted the issue to Congress in this interview. Read this 2007 interview he did with Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: The only two countries from the original NATO group that do not allow openly gay people to serve in the military are the U.S. and Portugal. Is it a time to do away with “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow openly gay people to serve in the military?

GEN. POWELL: I think the, the country has changed in its attitudes quite a bit. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was an appropriate response to the situation back in 1993. And the country certainly has changed. I don’t know that it has changed so much that this would be the right thing to do now. My, my, my successor, General Shalikashvili has written a letter about this.

MR. RUSSERT: Yes.

GEN. POWELL: He thinks it has changed sufficiently. But he ends his letter by saying, “We’re in a war right now, and let’s not do this right now.” My own judgment is that gays and lesbians should be allowed to have maximum access to all aspects of society. In the State Department, we had a very open policy, we had gay ambassadors. I swore in gay ambassadors with their partners present. But the military is different. It is unique. It exists for one purpose and that’s to apply state violence. And in the intimate confines of military life, in barracks life, where we tell you who you’re going to live with, where we tell you who you’re going to sleep with, we have to have a different set of rules. I will not second-guess the commanders who are serving now, just as I didn’t want to be second-guessed 12 or 13 years ago. But I think the country is changing. We may eventually reach that point. I’m not sure.

MR. RUSSERT: Is it inevitable?

GEN. POWELL: I don’t know if it’s inevitable, but I think it’s certainly moving in that direction. I just don’t—I’m not convinced we have reached that point yet, and I will let the military commanders and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Congress make the judgment. Remember, it is the Congress who put this into law. It was a policy. And that’s all I wanted it to be was a policy change, but it was Congress in 1993 that made it a matter of law. And so there are some proposed pieces of legislation up there. I don’t know if all of the candidates the other night who were saying it ought to be overturned have co-signed that or introduced law. But it’s a matter of law now, not a matter of military policy.

Besides the above interview, it should also be mentioned that has signaled he may support Obama for president this year. Obama of course has pledged his support to the repeal of the ban against gays in the military.

Architect Of DADT & The "Unit Cohesion" Argument

The views expressed by Dr. Charles Moskos, considered to be the "architect" of the DADT policy, are used by some opposed to repealing the ban against gays in the military. Yet it is interesting to note that Moskos has no problem with drafting gays during wartime, stating ironically, "Equality before the law has to supersede the virtue of personal privacy". He also believes the policy will end soon and doesn't buy the unit cohesion argument as noted in this 2000 article:

SLOWLY, VERY SLOWLY, the pressure is building to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy.

"I think it's going to end."

That is Charles Moskos talking. Moskos, a professor of military sociology at Northwestern University, is generally regarded as the principal author and staunchest proponent of DADT.

Moskos told the magazine "Lingua Franca" he thinks the policy will be gone in five or ten years.

It would be easy to cite several reasons for its demise, from the increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians in civil society to the growing importance of the gay vote to both political parties.

But just as important, the arguments supporting the policy are unraveling and there is increasing awareness that its rationale is built on sand.

The reason most often cited for barring gays is "unit cohesion," the idea that the presence of openly gay or lesbian personnel would harm a unit's ability to work effectively.

But an excellent article in the October issue of "Lingua Franca" summarizes the evidence for and against the "unit cohesion" argument-and leaves the rationale in tatters.

Briefly put, the evidence shows that:

- Cohesion is a result or by-product of working together, not a pre-condition for doing so;

- Successful performance is due to agreement on the importance of the task, not social closeness or group pride;

- There is no evidence that more cohesive military units perform better in combat situations.

Surprisingly, Moskos himself seems to dismiss the "unit cohesion" argument as unimportant.

"Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that," he told "Lingua Franca."

Moskos' own argument is that gays and lesbians should be barred because of "modesty rights for straights." That is, people (heterosexuals) have the right not to be looked at as objects of sexual desire.

"I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay [man]," Moskos says.

That is what his argument in support of DADT boils down to: gays and straights being forced to shower together.

To his credit, he submitted testimony in support of SCPO Timothy McVeigh (no relation to the bomber), who was facing discharge under DADT. He also supported Stephen E. Herbits, an openly gay man who some criticized after his appointment as a consultant to then-SecDef Donald Rumsfeld.

Lessons Learned About Gays By Top Military Brass

I believe something in Randy Shilts' Conduct Unbecoming is relevant and should be kept in mind when looking at the opposition by some to repealing DADT.

In 1979, Dan Stratford was a young cadet at the United States Air Force Academy. Throughout the 1970s & 80s the NIS, CID and other military investigative bodies conducted great purges of gays from all levels. This resulted in highly questionable investigative methods along with folks being snared who shouldn't have been. In this case, Stratford never told anyone he was gay (nor does Shilts indicate if he really was or not) and was never caught in any homosexual act. Yet his roommate suspected that Stratford was, and rifled through his personal stuff to find evidence to turn over to authorities. What he found was a letter from a gay friend which said nothing about Stratford's sexuality. However, he was still forced to resign for "associating with a known homosexual". What Shilts writes next I believe is important to note as this still effects matters today:

Perhaps the most enduring impact was not on the gay students, however, but on the entire student body, which learned lasting lessons from the ongoing gay purges at the service academies. Cadets learned that rifling through another student’s desk and reading their personal letters was justified if it resulted in the dismissal of a homosexual; that normal rules of justice did not apply; that homosexuals had no rights, only punishments; that no expense was too great to deter the enforcement of the ban on homosexuals; that merely “associating with a known homosexual” could be grounds for punishment; that it was in the natural order of things that homosexuals just disappeared. Even if some cadets did not believe this was right, and there were clearly some who did not, the events of the year showed that the system was set up in such a way as to be in accord with those who did and that it was best to hold one’s peace.

These were the lessons taught to a very important audience: The people in the Air Force Academy in 1979 would be a large share of the officers in midlevel Air Force management in another ten years, major making career decisions for others. Five years later, they would be lieutenant colonels and colonels in senior staff positions at the Pentagon, and, five years after that, the best of them would be earning their first generals’ stars. Then they would work their way up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because that was where Academy graduates ended up; they would be the very people who would run the military through the first decade of the twenty-first century.

UPDATE: At the Military.com forums where I posted this entry today, I received an objection from one advocate of DADT. His comments and my reply follow:

I wasn't there but if the roommate suspected he was 'gay' and was so uncomfortable with living in the same room that he went to the extreme of searching another man's possessions to find evidence that could be used to get rid of him, I suspect that he asked to be moved to another room and was told no. He then did what he did in desperation. This should tell you that some people are adversly effected by having to live in close quarters with a 'gay' person. This is why homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service. Why Dan Stratford didn't defend his honor in the fight of his life if he wasn't 'gay' is beyond me. Instead he cut a deal and got his diploma and an honorable discharge. The armed forces allows those things for the good of the service and it's image.

And yet if you've read the whole thing, beyond doing a Google search on Shilts' book, you'll note several things:

1. Stratford certainly wasn't the only one forced out for "associating with known homosexuals". These were witch hunts that were conducted then, especially against women.

2. Most people accused at that time of being gay, whether they really were or not, were railroaded into being discharged.

3. Nowhere did Shilts indicate what Stratford's sexuality was nor did the AF have anything indicating the man was gay.

4. Stratford's roommate was never punished for breaking what I'm willing to bet was a violation of at least the Air Force Academy honor code.

Since you've found Shilts' book online, look up the case of Barbara Underwood. She was one of many that the Navy attempted to railroad during the purges of the 70s & 80s on the flimsiest of evidence. Fortunately for her, she was one of the few who fought back and actually won (a 2-1 vote btw). Underwood was straight and engaged at the time of being accused, but that didn't stop the military from trying to kick her out as a lesbian. She brought in witnesses to prove that she wasn't gay, but interestingly enough the Navy didn't give a damn about what she did admit to:

During the course of the hearings, one petty officer had admitted to having sex with Barbara Underwood, a lower-ranking enlisted woman directly under him in the chain of command, and another officer had admitted to adultery. Under the UCMJ, both offenses were punishable with prison sentences, but neither sailor was ever charged or even investigated.

iPod Random Song List Game

Rules: Set your iPod on shuffle and post the first 10 songs that appear. No cheating!

1. "Roxanne" - The Police
2. "Come Sail Away" - The Styx
3. "Game of Life" - Jason & DeMarco
4. "Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Me" - Elton John
5. "Black Velvet" - Alannah Myles
6. "Still The Same" - Bob Seger
7. "Eternal Flame" - The Bangles
8. "Tainted Love" - Soft Cell
9. "Ramp! (The Logical Song)" - Scooter
10. "Voices Carry" - 'Til Tuesday

Good mix. I listen to most of these quite often.

A Navy Chaplain Defends His Gay Son

It may seem a bit ironic that I'm posting this, but I've confirmed many aspects of this story from other sources online. One thing Shilts has done well in his book Conduct Unbecoming, at least what I've read thus far, is relating the turbulent times of 1960s of 70s. Most people may know that these were times of great social change in the United States, some good and some bad depending upon one's perspective. One compelling story I've come across is that of Ensign Vernon E. Berg III at his discharge hearing in 1976. He was the first Naval officer who admitted to being gay and challenged being discharged because of it. His father was a career Navy chaplain, who for many reasons didn't believe his son was really gay. Ensign Berg had dated women in high school and while in the Academy, for example, which made it difficult for his father to accept that he was gay. Yet, when he reviewed the investigative reports at his son's discharge hearing he not only came to accept the fact his son was gay, but was ashamed at how poorly the Navy had treated him. Some proponents of DADT will undoubtedly dismiss this all as personal bias since this was his son on trial, but even so I find his testimony to be powerful and quite compelling - especially his telling of his experiences in Vietnam:

The climax of the eight-day hearing occurred the next morning when a sandy-haired Navy commander took the stand. His dress blue uniform only highlighted the striking resemblance the man bore to the defendant. On his chest, among all the other ribbons Commander Vernon Berg, Jr., had accumulated during the course of his career, was the Bronze Star he had won when he almost died ministering to marines during the Tet offensive… [Ensign] Berg’s Navy lawyer, Lieutenant John Montgomery, asked the chaplain about his experience with gay sailors.

“A person is a person,” Berg began. “I really have felt strained in this whole hearing about people saying homosexuals have different problems. They have the same problems as anyone else. A homosexual can perform badly or spectacularly well. Homosexuals that I have known in the military have done extremely well, getting to extremely high ranks after I first met them.”

“Are you saying that you know of homosexuals who are officers in the United States Navy today?” Montgomery asked.
“Certainly,” the chaplain answered.
“Do you know any of them of the rank of commander?”
“Certainly.”
“The rank of captain?” Montgomery asked.
“Certainly.”
“The rank of rear admiral?”
“Yes, sir,” Berg said. The room fell utterly silent while the chaplain continued. “Therefore, I would like to interject what I think it behooves all of us to look at what we do. We condemn blithely with prejudice and, you know, we must be careful whom we condemn.

When Montgomery asked about Berg’s experience as a chaplain to Marine units in Vietnam, the commander said that at least once a week one or another Marine would come to him and admit to being gay. He also acknowledged, somewhat painfully, what he would have done not too long before if a commander had sent him a gay soldier.

“This week has been a learning experience for me,” the elder Berg said, “and I’m sure it has been for all of us. I’m a product of Navy society also, and, sadly to say, years ago in 1960, ’61, ’62, I would have told him carte blanche, ‘If you are homosexual, you had better get out.’” [...]

“Getting back to the Marines,” [a board member] said to the commander. “You say you served with the Marines in Vietnam and it came to light that certain Marines were homosexuals and their buddies knew about them. From my experience, they were not accepted. They were sort of outcasts.”

“In the Marines, we’re talking about a Marine unit,” Berg answered. When one of those guys in that small unit finds their buddy is a homosexual, and if anybody else tells on him, watch out. They will protect him.”

“Why?” asked [the board member].

“Knowing Marines as I do,” Berg said, “why would a given unit of Marines, once they know a man, live with him, fight with him, watch friends die with him, what do they care about what he does in his bedroom? It becomes unimportant, like color, or like male or female. Gosh, who cares? Sometimes, even in combat, I have had all sorts of men come to me and say, ‘Gee, why can’t the real world be like this? Why can’t we all sit down and have communion together and drink wine together? Why can’t we all love each other as human beings and accept each other as we are?'"

Another board member interrupted Berg. “I’m having difficulty in trying to interpret homosexual behavior and tendencies,” he said. “What is normal homosexual behavior that makes it identifiable?”

“When I hold a dying Marine in my arms and cry because he is dying, and I stroke his face and kiss him on the head, am I a homosexual? Tears appeared in his eyes. He paused briefly while he brought his hands up to cover his face.

“Pardon me,” he said. “When I talk about Marines I get out of control, because I love them. Does that make me a homosexual?“ He looked at the board. “What is a homosexual?” he asked. “Where does emotion and love stop and perversity take up?”

Ensign Berg unfortunately lost his battle to remain in the Navy and was given an other than honorable discharge. These kind of discharges were regularly given to homosexual servicemembers at that time, which didn't change until a few years later. However, Berg challenged his discharge in court and while he didn't win reinstatement he was successful in having his discharge upgraded to honorable.

UPDATE: Welcome Washington Blade readers! If you haven't read Randy Shilts' book Conduct Unbecoming yet, I highly recommend it. Be aware though, that it isn't without some flaws.

Randy Shilts & Conduct Unbecoming

Wikipedia has some interesting material on the late Randy Shilts, author of the book Conduct Unbecoming that I've been posting about lately and am still reading. He apparently authored other books that I will have to look into. Unfortunately he passed away from an AIDS-related illness in 1994 right after the book I'm reading was first published. He seems to have been an interesting and stubborn fellow, unafraid to voice his opinions no matter whom he ticked off. I particularly liked this bit from an obituary on his life:

Although he was worshiped by many in gay circles for enlightening heterosexuals, Shilts was controversial among more radical members of the movement, some of whom labeled him a "gay Uncle Tom." In the mid-1980s, his stories suggesting that gay bathhouses in San Francisco were breeding grounds for AIDS made him a pariah, unable to walk through the city's Castro District without being jeered or spat upon.

When "And the Band Played On" came out, he was attacked for charging that gay groups initially pretended that AIDS did not exist. More recently, he was faulted for opposing the "outing" of prominent, closeted gays, including two four-star generals he described anonymously in "Conduct Unbecoming."

Shilts was hurt by such barbs, but refused to alter his message or obscure the truth to win friends.

Frankly, I don't give a damn what some "radical members of the movement" may have thought of the man. I agree with him about bathhouses and not just because they are "breeding grounds for AIDS". As far as those kinds of places go, I suppose you could say that I definitely have a NIMBY attitude towards them.

Shilts' book Conduct Unbecoming has received a lot of praise, rightfully so in my view, but some of this writing has also received a bit of criticism for sloppy work. One example of this is Shilts' telling in the book of the life of the famous Dr. Tom Dooley:

Shilts's first mistake in Conduct Unbecoming is an overreliance on the work of Diana Shaw, whom he misidentifies as a "biographer." Shaw, a researcher for the film industry, published an article on Dooley in the Los Angeles Times Magazine in December 1991 which was riddled with factual errors. (For example, she dismissed Dooley's "Vientiane clinic project" as a "sham"; while it is true he never worked in Vientiane, his village clinics were no sham.)

Shilts describes Shaw's heroic pursuit of the secret Navy file on Dooley: "from the first time Diana Shaw attempted to retrieve Dooley's official Navy records, it was clear that the service had something to hide." Actually, the ONI report is readily available to scholars who will simply pay a visit to the Naval Operational Archives in Washington and request the documents. In relying upon a single journalist's questionable work and a couple of interviews, Shilts has made a remarkable number of errors in his brief but central discussion of the Tom Dooley case, from calling Cardinal Francis Spellman "John" to elaborately setting Dooley's funeral Mass at Saint Patrick's Cathedral. (It actually occurred a thousand miles away in Saint Louis.) [...]

Shilts's discussion is, in its way, as misleading and mistaken as the most garish Dooley tributes in The Sign or St. Anthony Messenger in 1958. Shilts's claim that "everything good and everything evil that he did can be traced back to the shame he carried over his homosexuality" reduces Dooley to the sum of his sexuality for polemical reasons and is no more justified than the ill-fated campaign for his canonization...

One can find such hagiographies of Dooley today on some über-conservative sites, such as this from Daily Catholic which vehemently denies that the man was gay:

The same with slanderous statements that he was homosexual. They base this on wild rumors of his sympathy for those who were gay, the fact he never married, and his successful recruiting of young men at Notre Dame to serve as doctors. Again, these are slanderous statements with no credibility, only more persecution to slur Catholics and the man, perpetuating the ridiculous myth that if one doesn't marry, they must be gay; sinisterly implying that priests as well were gay and there was a vast homosexual network within the Catholic clergy in America. It was merely more Catholic-bashing by many in the secular media who were unabashedly anti-Catholic, a trend that began with Nast in the 19th Century and continues to our present day. The truth is Dr. Dooley never married for he did not have the time. He was married to his vocation in life. Though not a priest, nevertheless he lived a celibate life and held his faith dear to him. Yes, he was sympathetic to gays, but he was sympathetic to everyone. Rank had no privileges with Dr. Dooley. Like Mother Teresa he saw in each person Jesus Christ and used his God-given talents of healing and reaching people in his mild, bedside manner to heal both body and soul.

Perhaps most interesting to me about how Conduct Unbecoming was received when it was published, was the reaction of the U.S. Navy after Shilts had sold the electronic rights to ApolloMedia:

The controversial subject matter dealing with gays in the United States military provoked the United States Navy to threaten a First Amendment lawsuit—the first time a court would be required to determine whether First Amendment protections afforded to traditional media applied to electronic publishing as well.

Days before the release of Conduct Unbecoming, the Navy attempted to bar the use of a 1972 recruiting poster featuring the first African American used in a recruiting campaign. Servicemember Ed Graves had been discharged from the Navy a few years later for being gay. ApolloMedia refused to pull the image.

Following high profile press attention ApolloMedia announced its intent to defy, the Navy obliged and withdrew their initial threats.

ApolloMedia, represented by Michael Traynor at Cooley Godward, effectively established the de facto acknowledgement that First Amendment protections must be extended to CD-ROM publishers.

Bloggers and publishers everywhere should be grateful for ApolloMedia's firm commitment to the First Amendment.

UPDATE: Perhaps I should take what Shilts writes in this book with a great deal of caution. His overall theme is correct, but there are serious charges that some of the details are fabricated. Besides the criticism above on Shilts' telling of Tom Dooley's story, there are similiar charges that he falsified one of the most compelling stories in this book: that of Gerald Rosanbalm & Donald Winn. These charges are coming from conservative websites from what I could find, but Stolen Valor isn't exactly a disreputable source in my eyes. Politics about the Vietnam War aside, that book helped expose some genuine phonies who made fantastic claims to military heroism only to be shown for the liars they are. These critiques are also citing military records and other sources that at least appear to be credible. Since I'm coming into this many years later, it's very difficult for me to know what the truth in all of this is. However, if there is any validity to these charges than I am greatly disappointed that Shilts sunk to such a level instead of being honest and forthright in his research. I despise it when authors lie about history, regardless of their reasons. I'm still finishing this book, but I must admit that I'll have to be skeptical of the details unless I can find some substantiation for them elsewhere.

Mysterious Troop Deaths Like Heath Ledger's

Lt. Gen. Eric B. Schoomaker, the Army's surgeon general, said there has been "a series, a sequence of deaths" in the new, so-called "warrior transition units." Those are special units set up last year to give sick, injured and war-wounded troops coordinated medical care, financial advice, legal help and other services as they transition toward either a return to uniform or back into civilian life.

Without giving a number, Schoomaker said the deaths among the convalescing troops were "accidental deaths, we believe, often as a consequence of the use of multiple prescription and nonprescription medicines and alcohol."

"This isn't restricted to the military, alone, as we all saw the unfortunate death of one of our leading actors recently," Schoomaker told Pentagon reporters.

The New York medical examiner announced Wednesday that Ledger, the 28-year-old "Brokeback Mountain" star, died Jan. 22 from an accidental overdose - the effects of taking six types of painkillers and sedatives... (Associated Press)

Given how over-medicated we are as a society (there's a pill for darn near everything), this sad news shouldn't be a surprise. I hope Schoomaker and others will help bring about some real changes.

Service Before Self: Sacrifice from the Closet

Let's look at the bottom line... money and benefits. Free health care for straight families... none for a gay family. "With dependent rate" housing allowance equals "withOUT dependent rate" housing allowance for gay families. "Family Separation Pay" for servicemembers deployed to combat is a clear misnomer. It needs to be renamed "Straight Family Separation Pay" since gay servicemembers are denied this benefit (essentially taking a pay cut). Freely given "time off" to take care of an ill straight spouse is "Chargeable Leave" for gay servicemembers. When moving from base to base, household good weight allowances are higher for straight families than for unrecognized gay families. Spouse employment benefits, overseas sponsorship, immigration privileges for foreign-born spouses, on-base services access... the list goes on and on. Denial of all these benefits for homosexuals and their families is how DADT discriminates against homosexuals...

Ultimately, I want to sit on a stage at my retirement ceremony one day and thank my chosen family in front of my peers. I want the Air Force to present my partner a certificate thanking him for his support of me and ultimately the nation. To say his sacrifice didn't go unnoticed. My partner supports me unconditionally knowing he will probably never be recognized publicly and thanked. He never raised his hand to support and defend the Constitution like I did. By supporting me, he does just that. I want America to recognize me, him... and all of us. Is that so much to ask?

Excellent post by "Todd Allen Knots", the nome de plume of an active duty Air Force NCO. Read the whole thing.

Discharging Homosexuals During Wartime

It's not exactly news that gays are retained despite regulations in the current conflicts. In reading Conduct Unbecoming by Randy Shilts, I found this passage concerning previous wars:

Between 1963 and 1966 the Navy discharged between 1,600 and 1,700 enlisted members a year for homosexuality. From 1966 to 1967, however, the number of gay discharges dropped from 1,708 to 1,094. In 1968, the Navy ejected 798 enlisted men for homosexuality. In 1969, at the peak of the Vietnam buildup, gay discharges dropped to 643. A year later, only 461 sailors were relieved of duty because they were gay. These dramatic reductions occurred during the period of the service's highest membership since World War II.

The flexible enforcement of the antihomosexual regulations was not without precedent. From their adoption in 1943, implementation of such rules has been almost entirely dependent on the manpower needs of the services at any particular time. In his research on gays in World War II, Allen Berube discovered that during the height of the final European offensive against Germany in 1945, Secretary of War Harry Stimson ordered a review of all gay discharges during the previous two years, with an eye toward reinducting gay men who had not committed any in-service homosexual acts. At the same time, orders went out to "salvage" homosexuals for the service whenever necessary... The Army's official history of psychiatry in World War II reports that in the Thirty-eigth Division, commanders often merely reassigned to different regiments those soldiers who made passes at other men. In these cases, the history records, "this was the last that was heard of the case"...

The Korean War also saw a dramatic plunge in gay-related discharges. In the fifteen years before Vietnam, for example, the Navy, the service that kept the only records on the issue, typically meted out 1,100 undesirable discharges a year to gay sailors. In 1950, at the height of the Korean War, that number was down to 483. The next year, it was 533. But in 1953, when the armistice was signed at Panmunjom, the Navy cracked down again with vigor, distributing 1,353 gay-related undesirable discharges in that year alone.

In conflict after conflict - from World War II to Desert Storm - the paradox has persisted: during World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and a generation after Vietnam, when the United States went to war again in 1991. The gay exclusion policies were enacted ostensibly to ensure good order and discipline in the military. At no time is order and discipline more essential than in combat. History also demonstrates that at no time are the regulations banning homosexuality more routinely sidestepped.

(this is also posted over on Gay Patriot)

Sodomy, UCMJ & Lawrence v. Texas

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) contains the laws that govern service in the military. Given the mission and conditions of the military service, there are certain limitations on individual rights that most would find unacceptable in the civilian world. One of these would be Article 125 which prohibits "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal", stating that "penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense". Sodomy under the UCMJ doesn't just comprise anal sex, but oral as well:

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

It appears that the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is making some headway in gutting this ridiculous law that effects both heterosexuals and homosexuals regardless of marital status:

United States v. Marcum, 10/2/03: A homosexual airman had his conviction for giving "oral sodomy" to another man tossed out due to the 2003 Lawrence decision by SCOTUS. The "oral sodomy" was deemed consensual and hadn't taken place in public. He had been charged with other crimes which were not part of this decision.

United States v. Bullock, 11/30/04: A heterosexual male soldier had his conviction for receiving "oral sodomy" from a female tossed out due to the 2003 Lawrence decision by SCOTUS.

Appellant asserts that his conviction for consensual sodomy, in violation of Article 125, UCMJ, violated his constitutional rights. We agree that the facts admitted by appellant during the providence inquiry fail to establish that Article 125 was constitutionally applied in this case and we will grant relief accordingly.

United States v. Meno: A heterosexual male soldier had his conviction for giving "oral sodomy" to a female tossed out due to the 2003 Lawrence decision by SCOTUS. They did nail him on an Article 134 though.

On 14 May 2003, this court unanimously affirmed the findings of guilty and affirmed only so much of the sentence as provides for a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $670.00 pay per month until the discharge is executed, and reduction to Private E1. United States v. Meno, ARMY 20000733 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 14 May 2003) (unpub.). In the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), appellate defense counsel requested, and our court granted, reconsideration. We find that, under the circumstances of this case, appellant’s consensual sodomy constituted the exercise of a protected liberty interest not punishable under Article 125, UCMJ. And we now agree with appellate defense counsel that the evidence failed to establish that appellant’s other sexual conduct, as explained below, was prejudicial to good order and discipline or ser vice discrediting under Article 134, UCMJ. We also uphold appellant’s conviction for false swearing in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.

DADT & The "Unit Cohesion" Fallacy: One Veteran's Story

I finally received the copy of Conduct Unbecoming: Gays & Lesbians In The U.S. Military by Randy Shilts I had ordered and began reading it today. I'm only about 10% finished, but so far this book is just amazing. Growing up an Army brat, I've always enjoyed "war stories" from military veterans. It's not the violence I find appealing but instead learning how these veterans faced such adversity and how these experiences forever changed their lives. This book certainly seems to fall into that genre thus far, with the added challenge of these veterans being gay in an environment unfriendly to their sexuality. I truly regret not knowing about this book in 1994 when it first published. Given how much I usually get out of the personal stories of veterans, this book could have helped save me about a decade of struggling with this issue myself. Pity.

While there are other stories I've read so far in this book that are more compelling in terms of gay veterans participating in combat, with undoubtedly more to come, the story of Perry Watkins has caught my interest the most. His story is also relevant in today's debate about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that bars gays from openly serving in the military. In 1967 Watkins was a young black man who had grown up in the virulently racist Old South. Amazingly enough, he was open and upfront to others about his homosexual orientation which at that time made him a hated minority within a hated minority. The official policy of the U.S. military back then of excluding homosexuals was similar to what it is today under DADT, in that "the presence of homosexuals would seriously impair discipline, good order, morals and the security of our armed forces". During the latter part of the Vietnam War, the military found itself in desperate need of more soldiers and then as seems to be happening in today's conflicts in many cases turned a blind eye to the presence of openly acknowledged homosexuals within the ranks. The main difference between gays openly serving then and those doing so today is that the former were mostly draftees in a largely draftee military, while the latter freely enlisted into an all-volunteer force. Yet even with this difference, the "unit cohesion" argument used by advocates of DADT today falls flat given the military's own undermining of it during wartime. Thus we get to the story of how Perry Watkins served in Vietnam despite being very open about his sexuality:

It was in Germany, in August 1967, that Perry [Watkins] was summoned to the U.S. Army Ninety-seventh hospital in Frankfurt and given his draft physical. In the course of filling out the forms, right after checking no to the questions about drugs or alcohol, Perry checked yes to the question about homosexual tendencies.

Watkins would later be asked to recall what happened next, and no one would ever step forward to challenge his recollections. The Army psychiatrist wanted to know precisely which sexual acts Watkins performed with men.

“Oral and anal sex,” Perry answered evenly.

“I can’t accept that answer,” the psychiatrist said.

“I like [oral sex] and [anal sex],” he said.

“Do you ever date women?” the psychiatrist asked.

Perry thought it was strange that when he talked about having sex with men the doctor wanted to know about precise acts but when he talked about sex with women he referred to it as “dating”. The psychiatrist, a lieutenant colonel, pressed further, trying to dissuade Watkins from his admission – to no avail.

Perry was sent to another psychiatrist, with no explanation on the accompanying paperwork as to why he was there. But Perry took a number-two pencil and wrote in big block letters in the space provided, “I’m here because I checked ‘homosexual tendencies’.”

“Why did you do that?” asked the second psychiatrist.

“Because it’s the truth.”

“Do you want to go in the Army?”

“I don’t object going in the Army,” Watkins said. He was not trying to get out of the draft; he was simply telling the truth.

“Do you want to go to Vietnam?” the psychiatrist asked.

“I wouldn’t object going to Vietnam.”

“Why did you check the box?”

“Because it was the truth.”

The psychiatrist then wrote on Perry’s form: “This 19 year old inductee has had homosexual tendencies in the past…Patient can go into military service – qualified for induction.” And May 1968 saw Perry Watkins, an acknowledged gay man, into the United States Army…

A few months later, in advanced training at Fort Dix to become a clerk/typist, Perry was talking about the local gay hangouts with another gay draftee. Perry suggested they go barhopping the next weekend.

“I won’t be here next week,” the recruit said.

When Perry asked why, the young man said, “Because I’m gay.”

He had not engaged in any sexual acts in the Army, he said. He had just told his commanding officer that he was gay and they started the paperwork to kick him out.

Perry marched into his commander’s office and explained that he was homosexual and that wanted to be discharged. For a month, Perry did not hear anything. Then he was told that he could not be discharged for being gay, because he could not really prove he was gay. In order to do that, he would have to be caught in a sexual act.

Perry contemplated this odd treatment. There was one difference between the draftee being bumped and himself, Perry observed. The other man was white.

It's almost amusing how the essentials of his story could be repeated many times over by gay soldiers openly serving today. If you haven't read this book I highly recommend that you get a copy.

(this is also posted over on Gay Patriot)

DADT Proponents Dismissive of Our Allies

Many advocates for the ban against homosexuals in the military blithely dismiss the evidence from our Allies who allow gays to serve in their forces without a breakdown in "unit cohesion". One such example came from Congress Duncan Hunter on a recent 60 Minutes program, that was very insulting to the sacrifices our Allies have made in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Over on the forums at Military.com, I came across this dismissive attitude last month and below is my response (slightly edited for clarity):

The Armed Forces of our Allies that have an 'open 'gay'' policy have not had their forces engaged in anywhere near the combat violence that our forces have been engaged in.

No one said they had been. None of them are able to project force like the United States is capable of, but this doesn't mean their contribution is anything to ignore or dismiss.

Their policies have not been tested in the prolonged exposure to fire that ours have.

That's simply not true. I will grant you that for countries like the UK it was on a much smaller scale, but proportionally they have suffered as many casualties as we have - mostly from hostile fire. In fact, the source you yourself provided indicates otherwise so let's look at the numbers for the 3 countries that have been mentioned the most:

Iraq

United Kingdom:

Hostile fire – 132 (75.9%)
Non-combat related – 42 (24.1%)

Australia:

Hostile fire – 2 (100%)
Non-combat related – 0 (0%)

Canada has no troops in Iraq.

Afghanistan

Non-Afghani Coalition forces are estimated to be around 43,000 of which 8,000 are from the United States. I couldn’t find a breakdown by country for the rest. As for casualties…

Australia: 4 (all hostile fire)
Canada: 73 (60 hostile; 5 friendly fire; 8 non-combat related)
United Kingdom: 86 (60 hostile fire; 26 non-combat related)
United States: 473 (277 hostile fire; 196 non-combat related)

I don't have the time to find a reliable source on the numbers of troops they have contributed to both theaters since 2001. Perhaps someone can do so and give us further percentage breakdowns.

The governments of our allies haven’t seen fit to make anything close to the commitment in boots on the ground in the dangerous places of these two countries.

Yep, makes one wonder why we bother with things like NATO sometimes. It's no secret that most of Europe is incapable of projecting force overseas and what little they bother to send have to rely upon us to get there. Yet even in that situation they have proven to be scrappy fighters when unleashed, especially the Brits, and the presence of gays hasn't hindered them.

If and when they do start taking casualties like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan then they can begin to gauge how their ‘open gay policy’ has contributed to the morale of their forces.

You said that you were there in 2003, did you forget about what the Brits at least did in support from the early days? I grant you that our forces vastly outnumbered them, but are you really saying that they haven't fought with us in Afghanistan? You can dismiss the Brits as being mere "garrison soldiers" all you like, but that's total BS and you know it. We relied upon them in several battles and operations which if the unit cohesion argument was valid, makes our commanders positively stupid for doing so. After all, if the presence of gays eroded unit cohesion, one would think that our allying with the Brits would have endangered our soldiers. Somehow though, their gay soldiers wasn't a factor. One wonders why...

Response to a Supporter of the Military Ban Against Gays

Servicemembers United, composed of veterans working to have DADT repealed, recently received an email from retired US Navy Commander Wayne L. Johnson of Alexandria, VA. You can read his full comments over on Alexander Nicholson's blog. Since Alex is asking for readers to respond to Cdr. Johnson's remarks, below is my contribution to the discussion:

CDR Johnson:
In the 1993 law that bars homosexuals from serving, Congress noted that the military lifestyle is not compatible with a homosexual one.

A 'finding' which has been shown to be without merit for at least 3 reasons:

1. Every major study sponsored by DoD since the 1950s (yes, I said 1950s) has found this claim to be without merit.

2. Just about every major ally of the United States from Australia to Israel to the U.K. since 1993 have compiled quite a record showing this 'finding' to be without merit.

3. DoD's own actions in sharply reducing the number of discharges under DADT when unit cohesion is put to its greatest test: combat.

Most members of Congress are fairly well educated. President Clinton signed it into law and he was a Rhodes Scholar.

Most politicians care more for getting re-elected than anything else. Pandering for votes is not limited to any particular political party. Clinton signed the bill because he was a spineless politician who refused to expend the political capital to get this through. DADT was only one area in which he "forgot" his stated principles. I wonder, sir, whether you'll have the same view of Congress and whomever the president is when DADT is finally repealed?

It is sort of crazy to have a law that bars gays from the military but not being able to ask about it during the recruiting process.

Agreed, which is one reason I believe DADT should be repealed.

If the DADT policy was dropped as the generals recommend, honest homosexuals would be barred from enlisting per the law.

You assume too much. I enlisted prior to the DADT policy and honestly answered "no" when asked. I was a virgin at the time and given what was taught about homosexuality back then, especially in the South where I grew up, homosexuality was a myth. A choice one supposedly made and feelings to overcome. I obviously didn't want to make that 'choice'. Much to my dismay though, such nonsense was proven to be false. Restoring the pre-DADT ban will not remove homosexuals from the military nor make this issue go away.

Gays will always be in the military; they will just have to go back to lying to join.

Again, you assume too much. I didn't lie nor do I believe many others do.

Right now many in the public are not concerned about this since our military is all volunteer, but one day we could have a draft again.

That is something they will have to accept just like those drafted during Vietnam, for example, had no choice about desegregation. Unless we find ourselves in another WWII-type war, I doubt we'll see a draft anytime soon. No politician of either party seriously wants one given how quickly this would cost them their reelection. Well, no politician who is serious about reinstating the draft instead of using the idea to score cheap political points against their opponents (*cough* Rangel *cough*).

There is one form of discrimination that no one has made note of that I am aware of. Under a 1986 Federal law, the military must keep HIV positive personnel, mostly male homosexuals, until their health makes them too ill to work.

Why do you assert the majority of such personnel are "male homosexuals"? Do you have something credible to sustain such a claim or is this just an assumption? I'm not certain what the best course would be in this area. If they present no serious danger to their fellow servicemembers and their commands want to retain them, I'm okay with it.

This is spelled out in gay activists’ organizing materials when it comes to recruiters coming to college campuses.

Once more you assume too much, sir. Homosexuality does not dictate one's moral or political beliefs. These activists you speak of do not represent me or any other gay veteran I know of in seeking to bar military recruiters from college campuses. I wholeheartedly support the Solomon Amendment and reject the reasoning of its opponents. Activism is right and proper in dealing with Congress who passed this law, not with the military who is bound to carry it out.

Their real reason is they know their reasoning would not stand up to a logical and spirited (no name calling) debate.

Um...Commander, are you aware of what Servicemembers United does? This group has had no problem debating this in very conservative forums and will do so again when a good opportunity arises.

UPDATE: I added some links for more information to my comments above.

UPDATE: A recent visitor to this blog came here after a Google search for "Wayne L. Johnson" and the word "gay". Interesting set of links this brought up. Johnson's 2005 opinion column on the Solomon Amendment I largely agree with and he might be surprised to find that we probably also agree about related episodes such as the 2005 decision by San Francisco to refuse the USS Iowa and the despicable resolution passed this week in the city of Berkeley to harass Marine recruiters. Our fight is with Congress, not the military. These kind of actions by overzealous activists dishonor all veterans, straight and gay. Yet Johnson's letter to the Army Times on then-JCS Chairman General Peter Pace's controversial remarks I do not agree with. He certainly has the right to his own views on this or any other subject, but not to have expressed them while acting as JCS Chairman. Even the general seemed to understand how inappropriate this was in the statement he released:

"I made two points in support of the policy during the interview. One, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" allows individuals to serve this nation; and two, it does not make a judgment about the morality of individual acts.

"In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct.

"I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."