Links Archive: In the News
For each subcategory on the Want More? page, only one to two links will be on the active page. All others will take up residence here in their respective categories as they drop. Links are in reverse chronological order, with the newer links at the top of the category.
5 September 2011
OutServe Magazine has obtained permission from both the Army and Air Force to distribute at base exchanges. Its September 20th special edition will feature a collection of 100 photos and biographies of gay, lesbian and bisexual soldiers.
Late last week, news media reported that the administration was pushing a federal court to vacate their judgment that DADT was unconstitutional, citing the death of the policy later this month as grounds for redundancy. It looks as though "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will get its 'day in court' despite the Obama administration's attempts to thwart it.
From the article [emphasis added]:“Lawyers acting on behalf of the Log Cabin Republicans argued that while they agree the portion of the ruling dealing with discharges is now no longer of concern, the ruling has broader scope and establishes a precedent about the unconstitutional nature of DADT, paving the way for DADT-discharged soldiers to seek compensation because they are still denied military benefits, equal treatment while in the military, and a fast track back into the army. They also note that the legislative repeal contained no form of nondiscrimination language, meaning that while overt anti-gay sentiment likely won’t be tolerated in the military, it may still present itself in more subtle ways and leave soldiers without adequate recourse.”
Of course, if it's successfully determined unconstitutional in a federal court that'll be a large chunk of money out of the government's pocket for restitution and benefits--and they're already crying about wanting to restructure military retirement because the current twenty-year plan isn't fiscally viable anymore. Right, that shows real intellect, inflicting financial punishment on individuals whose viable employment capacity rarely extends beyond that twenty years. Take the ax to the men and women in uniform, defending your political freedom to fluff your own paycheck.
Late last week, news media reported that the administration was pushing a federal court to vacate their judgment that DADT was unconstitutional, citing the death of the policy later this month as grounds for redundancy. It looks as though "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will get its 'day in court' despite the Obama administration's attempts to thwart it.
From the article [emphasis added]:“Lawyers acting on behalf of the Log Cabin Republicans argued that while they agree the portion of the ruling dealing with discharges is now no longer of concern, the ruling has broader scope and establishes a precedent about the unconstitutional nature of DADT, paving the way for DADT-discharged soldiers to seek compensation because they are still denied military benefits, equal treatment while in the military, and a fast track back into the army. They also note that the legislative repeal contained no form of nondiscrimination language, meaning that while overt anti-gay sentiment likely won’t be tolerated in the military, it may still present itself in more subtle ways and leave soldiers without adequate recourse.”
Of course, if it's successfully determined unconstitutional in a federal court that'll be a large chunk of money out of the government's pocket for restitution and benefits--and they're already crying about wanting to restructure military retirement because the current twenty-year plan isn't fiscally viable anymore. Right, that shows real intellect, inflicting financial punishment on individuals whose viable employment capacity rarely extends beyond that twenty years. Take the ax to the men and women in uniform, defending your political freedom to fluff your own paycheck.
29 August 2011
An excerpt from an article on The Daily Beast, written by "JD Smith," an active-duty member of the Armed Forces, and co-founder of OutServe:
While building OutServe I have heard the stories of countless gay and lesbian service members serving under this policy. Over the past year I have been working on a personal project to help record this moment in history, allowing active-duty LGBT military members to share their stories and experiences under DADT in written form. It was one of the most reflective periods of my life, as these stories share the heartbreak, pain, and death this policy has caused.
Make no mistake about it: people have killed themselves because of this policy. One story I often share about DADT is that of a soldier whose partner died from a roadside bomb while deployed. Without the ability to talk through his grief with another American soldier, he turned to a few Australian service members for emotional support. No soldier who fights for our freedoms deserves that type of abandonment.
For the past few months the military has provided training to its forces in anticipation of DADT’s repeal. No words can explain how it feels to sit in a room and listen to a PowerPoint presentation about how people should treat you once this policy changes. I don’t believe anyone needed training to learn “how to deal” with me; they just needed to meet me and realize I am no different from them. I share the same aspirations, the same dreams, and the same desires to have a family and succeed in life. On Sept. 20, when DADT officially ends, my integrity and the integrity of thousands of other gay and lesbian military members will begin to be restored. The years I lost lying to my friends, family, and co-workers will begin to be repaired. Like the lady I met at the wine store, on Sept. 20, America will realize the pain this policy caused to the very people that are fighting for their freedoms.
While building OutServe I have heard the stories of countless gay and lesbian service members serving under this policy. Over the past year I have been working on a personal project to help record this moment in history, allowing active-duty LGBT military members to share their stories and experiences under DADT in written form. It was one of the most reflective periods of my life, as these stories share the heartbreak, pain, and death this policy has caused.
Make no mistake about it: people have killed themselves because of this policy. One story I often share about DADT is that of a soldier whose partner died from a roadside bomb while deployed. Without the ability to talk through his grief with another American soldier, he turned to a few Australian service members for emotional support. No soldier who fights for our freedoms deserves that type of abandonment.
For the past few months the military has provided training to its forces in anticipation of DADT’s repeal. No words can explain how it feels to sit in a room and listen to a PowerPoint presentation about how people should treat you once this policy changes. I don’t believe anyone needed training to learn “how to deal” with me; they just needed to meet me and realize I am no different from them. I share the same aspirations, the same dreams, and the same desires to have a family and succeed in life. On Sept. 20, when DADT officially ends, my integrity and the integrity of thousands of other gay and lesbian military members will begin to be restored. The years I lost lying to my friends, family, and co-workers will begin to be repaired. Like the lady I met at the wine store, on Sept. 20, America will realize the pain this policy caused to the very people that are fighting for their freedoms.
22 August 2011
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is calling upon President Obama to put in place an executive order banning discrimination or harassment based on sexual orientation. As it stands, come September 20th, this unprotected class of servicemembers will not have the legal recourse of using the existing Military Equal Opportunity system to lodge complaints the way females and minorities can. Their only option would be to go through the chain of command—and the strong possibility exists that the chain of command is where the discrimination could very well originate. Read the full article here, at The Rainbow Times.
From the same article, a very interesting quote: Department of Defense regulations, medical and mental health standards, bar from military service anyone with "a history of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia, such as sex change [and] hermaphroditism" and "current or history of psychosexual conditions, including but not limited to transsexualism [and] transvestism." Let’s tackle this discrimination, next. Seriously.
Also, I’m not the only one rearing back with a strange look of horror at the statements that Michelle Bachmann is tossing around on her campaign trail. ‘Officer X’ writes articles for the Times in the Battleland section, “Where Military Intelligence is not a Contradiction in Terms.” (Or an oxymoron.) He writes anonymously because he's an active duty member of the US Air Force, and he's gay. His article of 19 August addresses this now-rampant concern of a reversal of DADT’s revocation. From his post:
The training I went through to become a pilot cost the government approximately $1 million. That would mean $1 million lost plus the cost of inflation to replace every pilot we lose (not to mention the hundreds of other career fields who would be losing personnel).
But let's assume they let me stay. Would the entire DoD be forced to just pretend the time when gays served openly never happened? It would be suspicious to say the least if on the day gays and lesbians were no longer able to serve openly, we all just showed up and said "Gotcha, I was just kidding before" and went back to playing straight. If not, would every gay soldier be forced to enroll in one of these types of re-orientation camps that tries to straighten out gays? Luckily Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemember's Legal Defense Network assures us the repealing of the repeal of DADT is very unlikely. I just get concerned when bold statements are made concerning national defense policy while putting little thought into the logistics or the consequences.
Yeah, Officer X… you and me both. And a whole lot of other people, too.
From the same article, a very interesting quote: Department of Defense regulations, medical and mental health standards, bar from military service anyone with "a history of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia, such as sex change [and] hermaphroditism" and "current or history of psychosexual conditions, including but not limited to transsexualism [and] transvestism." Let’s tackle this discrimination, next. Seriously.
Also, I’m not the only one rearing back with a strange look of horror at the statements that Michelle Bachmann is tossing around on her campaign trail. ‘Officer X’ writes articles for the Times in the Battleland section, “Where Military Intelligence is not a Contradiction in Terms.” (Or an oxymoron.) He writes anonymously because he's an active duty member of the US Air Force, and he's gay. His article of 19 August addresses this now-rampant concern of a reversal of DADT’s revocation. From his post:
The training I went through to become a pilot cost the government approximately $1 million. That would mean $1 million lost plus the cost of inflation to replace every pilot we lose (not to mention the hundreds of other career fields who would be losing personnel).
But let's assume they let me stay. Would the entire DoD be forced to just pretend the time when gays served openly never happened? It would be suspicious to say the least if on the day gays and lesbians were no longer able to serve openly, we all just showed up and said "Gotcha, I was just kidding before" and went back to playing straight. If not, would every gay soldier be forced to enroll in one of these types of re-orientation camps that tries to straighten out gays? Luckily Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemember's Legal Defense Network assures us the repealing of the repeal of DADT is very unlikely. I just get concerned when bold statements are made concerning national defense policy while putting little thought into the logistics or the consequences.
Yeah, Officer X… you and me both. And a whole lot of other people, too.
15 August 2011
Discharged gay troops are looking forward to re-enlisting, come September 20th. For Thomas Cook, deciding whether or not to re-enlist in the U.S. military after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is officially off the books is a no-brainer. Cook, a Houston resident discharged in 2004 under the anti-gay law, said he “absolutely” plans to rejoin the armed forces on the day that the military’s gay ban is lifted.
“That’s the life I was destined to lead,” Cook said. “I think military service is in my blood and my past experience in the military — I absolutely loved it. I wouldn’t have changed anything about it. I come from a family of military people, and I’m looking forward to going back into the military as soon as I can — Sept. 20.”
There may be a bit of a stumbling-block, however. Conservative politicians--specifically Michelle Bachmann--have asserted their support of DADT being reinstated. Sadly, it wouldn't be impossible to do.
From the NY Times article:The law repealing the ban did not expressly order the Pentagon to allow openly gay or lesbian troops to serve. Congress merely laid out a process under which the ban could be lifted. Under that process, the president, secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had to certify that repeal would not undermine recruiting, retention, morale and other indicators of what is commonly called military readiness.Once that certification was made and sent to Congress, the secretary of defense then had to prepare and issue new regulations allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly.
That is where the process is now: the regulations are being written and the ban will be lifted on Sept. 20. But because Congress did not require the military to allow open service, a new president could order his or her new secretary of defense to issue new regulations that effectively reinstate the ban, said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which advocates for gay and lesbian troops.
“That’s the life I was destined to lead,” Cook said. “I think military service is in my blood and my past experience in the military — I absolutely loved it. I wouldn’t have changed anything about it. I come from a family of military people, and I’m looking forward to going back into the military as soon as I can — Sept. 20.”
There may be a bit of a stumbling-block, however. Conservative politicians--specifically Michelle Bachmann--have asserted their support of DADT being reinstated. Sadly, it wouldn't be impossible to do.
From the NY Times article:The law repealing the ban did not expressly order the Pentagon to allow openly gay or lesbian troops to serve. Congress merely laid out a process under which the ban could be lifted. Under that process, the president, secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had to certify that repeal would not undermine recruiting, retention, morale and other indicators of what is commonly called military readiness.Once that certification was made and sent to Congress, the secretary of defense then had to prepare and issue new regulations allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly.
That is where the process is now: the regulations are being written and the ban will be lifted on Sept. 20. But because Congress did not require the military to allow open service, a new president could order his or her new secretary of defense to issue new regulations that effectively reinstate the ban, said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which advocates for gay and lesbian troops.
8 August 2011
Don’t forget to go vote and make your voice be heard. Eric Rader states it more eloquently than I could hope to, in his article “Speak Out” on Pridesource.com:
…there still remain great challenges when it comes to legal equality for LGBTs. While President Obama successfully ended DADT, …he has so far been unsuccessful in persuading Congress to repeal the "Defense of Marriage Act." Given the current partisan and ideological makeup of the U.S. Congress, especially the tea party-dominated House of Representatives, there is no chance that DOMA will be repealed legislatively before the 2012 elections.
… DOMA prohibits the federal government from offering benefits to same-sex couples or recognizing in any way a legal marital relationship between two people of the same gender in any state. While gays and lesbians will now be able to serve openly in the military, their spouses/partners will not enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual spouses receive. For example, straight members of the military do not have to worry about whether their partners will be allowed to live with them in housing provided on a military base. Heterosexual soldiers also know that their spouses are eligible to receive health benefits through the military, and can access commissaries and other military base amenities. All of these benefits will be denied to lesbian and gay soldiers as long as DOMA is the law of the land.
Never mind death benefits, should something happen to their deployed significant other. So long as DOMA remains in place, a soldier’s partner -- even if a recognized spouse at the state level -- will be denied any measure of respect, recognition, consideration or support from the Armed Forces. And that? That is discrimination, of the foulest kind.
Like this family. Jessica Lohmeier served two years in the Reserves and is considering marrying a man, just so she can serve in the military. She has a young toddler son, and the Armed Forces will not --because of DOMA, cannot -- recognize her lesbian partner as a viable relationship, even if she were to get married. And the Armed Forces is prohibited from enlisting an unmarried individual with a child under the age of 18. Read the full article by Rachel Thomas, a reporter for WILX in Lansing Michigan, here. NBC also ran the story, here.
…there still remain great challenges when it comes to legal equality for LGBTs. While President Obama successfully ended DADT, …he has so far been unsuccessful in persuading Congress to repeal the "Defense of Marriage Act." Given the current partisan and ideological makeup of the U.S. Congress, especially the tea party-dominated House of Representatives, there is no chance that DOMA will be repealed legislatively before the 2012 elections.
… DOMA prohibits the federal government from offering benefits to same-sex couples or recognizing in any way a legal marital relationship between two people of the same gender in any state. While gays and lesbians will now be able to serve openly in the military, their spouses/partners will not enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual spouses receive. For example, straight members of the military do not have to worry about whether their partners will be allowed to live with them in housing provided on a military base. Heterosexual soldiers also know that their spouses are eligible to receive health benefits through the military, and can access commissaries and other military base amenities. All of these benefits will be denied to lesbian and gay soldiers as long as DOMA is the law of the land.
Never mind death benefits, should something happen to their deployed significant other. So long as DOMA remains in place, a soldier’s partner -- even if a recognized spouse at the state level -- will be denied any measure of respect, recognition, consideration or support from the Armed Forces. And that? That is discrimination, of the foulest kind.
Like this family. Jessica Lohmeier served two years in the Reserves and is considering marrying a man, just so she can serve in the military. She has a young toddler son, and the Armed Forces will not --because of DOMA, cannot -- recognize her lesbian partner as a viable relationship, even if she were to get married. And the Armed Forces is prohibited from enlisting an unmarried individual with a child under the age of 18. Read the full article by Rachel Thomas, a reporter for WILX in Lansing Michigan, here. NBC also ran the story, here.
1 August 2011
Carol Ann Alaimo of the Arizona Daily Star interviewed five-year Army veteran David Bolden of Tuscon, who shared his reaction to the revocation of DADT. More striking is the impact its existence had on his life, and his career. From the article:
"I loved the military. I miss it," he said. "People who have worn the uniform know: It's not just a job. It's the camaraderie, the structure. It becomes part of who you are."
Bolden said he didn't know he was gay when he enlisted as a teen. He married a female soldier and tried to force himself to feel content, even as he began to realize he wasn't attracted to women. But his inner turmoil took a toll. He developed symptoms of severe depression, he said, and received a medical discharge.
"I had to choose between my career and my health," he recalled. "I couldn't stay in a situation where I wasn't allowed to be who I am."
With the death of DADT looming, Bolden wants to serve in the military again in the near future. He's pursuing a psychology degree, works in the mental-health-care field, and hopes to become an officer in the military mental health system.
There's a Canadian museum in a bit of a snit because of rumor circulating that the nationally-famous John McCrae, the soldier-poet who wrote In Flanders Field, was homosexual. And that the poem he wrote during the 1915 Battle of Ypres, in Belgium, following the death of a 22-year-old fellow officer Lt. Alexis Helmer, was in mourning for his lover. Props to Dr. John Prescott, of the University of Guelph and author of a 1985 profile In Flanders Fields: The Story of John McCrae. The Guelph Mercury article discussing the subject includes a quote from the historian who states that even if evidence supporting McCrae's homosexuality surfaced, nothing would change. "The poem stands on its own. I don’t think it changes anything at all, in any way.” Thank you, Dr. Prescott, for your sanity.
"I loved the military. I miss it," he said. "People who have worn the uniform know: It's not just a job. It's the camaraderie, the structure. It becomes part of who you are."
Bolden said he didn't know he was gay when he enlisted as a teen. He married a female soldier and tried to force himself to feel content, even as he began to realize he wasn't attracted to women. But his inner turmoil took a toll. He developed symptoms of severe depression, he said, and received a medical discharge.
"I had to choose between my career and my health," he recalled. "I couldn't stay in a situation where I wasn't allowed to be who I am."
With the death of DADT looming, Bolden wants to serve in the military again in the near future. He's pursuing a psychology degree, works in the mental-health-care field, and hopes to become an officer in the military mental health system.
There's a Canadian museum in a bit of a snit because of rumor circulating that the nationally-famous John McCrae, the soldier-poet who wrote In Flanders Field, was homosexual. And that the poem he wrote during the 1915 Battle of Ypres, in Belgium, following the death of a 22-year-old fellow officer Lt. Alexis Helmer, was in mourning for his lover. Props to Dr. John Prescott, of the University of Guelph and author of a 1985 profile In Flanders Fields: The Story of John McCrae. The Guelph Mercury article discussing the subject includes a quote from the historian who states that even if evidence supporting McCrae's homosexuality surfaced, nothing would change. "The poem stands on its own. I don’t think it changes anything at all, in any way.” Thank you, Dr. Prescott, for your sanity.
25 July 2011
President Obama certified the military’s training as complete on Friday: DADT is scheduled for official execution September 20th. The White House staff and all parties close to the process, however, are limiting acceptance, engagement, or discussion—or any formal acknowledgement—until after the repeal is officially finalized and DADT is firmly in the grave. While it may seem strange for them to do this, and for legal counsel to advise active/current military personnel to keep quiet until after DADT is firmly in the grave, it makes sense from a legal standpoint. The DoD doesn’t want to create any risk for legal precedence or deviating behavior. There's like a number of legal suits that will arise from this.
And technically, the policy is still in effect through September 20th, even though the 9th Circuit Court previously barred it from being enforced.
From the LA Times article: But current law prohibits the Pentagon from offering many health, housing and education benefits to married same-sex couples. The major impediments are the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits giving federal benefits to same-sex couples, and a separate federal statute governing the armed forces that defines a spouse as a "husband" or a "wife." Sarvis said he was hopeful that senior military officers would urge Congress to revise the statutes, but he acknowledged that could be a difficult fight, especially with Republicans in control of the House, "because it might be seen as a back door" way of getting Congress to recognize same-sex marriage.
An article in the NC Times out of San Diego had some interesting comments from soldiers on the Commander-in-Chief’s certification:
At Camp Pendleton, Marine Cpl. Jaime Rincon, 21, said the move means "no one has to be scared anymore of who they are. We can serve our country and not worry about repercussions." And Eriberto Baltadano, a 17 year-old Marine recruit of Oceanside, said he sees no problem with the change. "I really don't mind it. If they can get the job done, they should be allowed to serve just like anyone else."
Sounds like the politicians are more concerned than the troops are.
And technically, the policy is still in effect through September 20th, even though the 9th Circuit Court previously barred it from being enforced.
From the LA Times article: But current law prohibits the Pentagon from offering many health, housing and education benefits to married same-sex couples. The major impediments are the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits giving federal benefits to same-sex couples, and a separate federal statute governing the armed forces that defines a spouse as a "husband" or a "wife." Sarvis said he was hopeful that senior military officers would urge Congress to revise the statutes, but he acknowledged that could be a difficult fight, especially with Republicans in control of the House, "because it might be seen as a back door" way of getting Congress to recognize same-sex marriage.
An article in the NC Times out of San Diego had some interesting comments from soldiers on the Commander-in-Chief’s certification:
At Camp Pendleton, Marine Cpl. Jaime Rincon, 21, said the move means "no one has to be scared anymore of who they are. We can serve our country and not worry about repercussions." And Eriberto Baltadano, a 17 year-old Marine recruit of Oceanside, said he sees no problem with the change. "I really don't mind it. If they can get the job done, they should be allowed to serve just like anyone else."
Sounds like the politicians are more concerned than the troops are.
18 July 2011
Video of interviews with gay service members, one active duty, the other discharged under DADT. This CNN clip is a year old, and while suing the Department of Defense isn’t a viable action thanks to laws, I wonder how many of the 17,000 who were directly affected by this policy will step up. The discharged Air Force Major wants his job back. Like a true zombie, DADT keeps popping back up after being struck down. Apparently the government’s appeal, which resulted in the temporary reinstatement of the policy, was a symbolic gesture of resistance on the grounds that the Department of Justice should not be stepping in and infringing on the right of Congress and the President to “raise an army” and how they choose to manage said force. Said the judge, “the government is not allowed to investigate, penalize or discharge anyone who is openly gay.” While this logic is perfectly understandable—and nobody wants to set a legal precedent that usurps that—the seesawing act of the past few weeks has created an atmosphere of confusion and stress for more than just a few who are directly affected by this policy. Like the soldier in the selected video clips in the next section.
11 July 2011
On Wednesday of this past week (July 6th) a judge handed down an injunction for the immediate cessation of DADT enforcement: no more discharges from the military for being homosexual, effective immediately. On Friday, the Pentagon issued the official order instructing the military to begin accepting enlistments from individuals who were otherwise qualified to serve. This marks the end of ousting those who come out of the closet—but over the course of this past spring, at least three of the four military personnel discharged under DADT submitted voluntary requests for separation from military service. Why? Because of a fear of what’s to come in the near future. (Check the archives link for last week's news article about this.) The fear of repercussions from “old-school” mentality which will take time to overcome. That’s the way of such changes in the Armed Forces; the cultural shifts are slow in occurring, but when they do they are complete.
Sadly, it seems the message didn't matriculate down through the ranks just yet. Or maybe someone just needs to check their email? Because Jim Pietrangelo is still being turned away by Pentagon recruiters due to sexual orientation. From the short news update here: "...there is a disconnect between the Pentagon's late-breaking announcement [...] and the reality on the ground. Fifteen minutes ago (4:45 p.m. EST), I called the Los Angeles Central Army Recruiting station back--one of the stations I had previously been rejected by because I am Gay--and they in no uncertain terms stated that they cannot enlist Gays and have received no change in policy from the Pentagon to do so."
Sadly, it seems the message didn't matriculate down through the ranks just yet. Or maybe someone just needs to check their email? Because Jim Pietrangelo is still being turned away by Pentagon recruiters due to sexual orientation. From the short news update here: "...there is a disconnect between the Pentagon's late-breaking announcement [...] and the reality on the ground. Fifteen minutes ago (4:45 p.m. EST), I called the Los Angeles Central Army Recruiting station back--one of the stations I had previously been rejected by because I am Gay--and they in no uncertain terms stated that they cannot enlist Gays and have received no change in policy from the Pentagon to do so."
4 July 2011
Bhakti Shah joined the Nepal Army eight years ago and rose two stations above soldier for outstanding physical prowess. Her colleagues called her a eunuch, claiming her excellent physical fitness was due to her not being a woman. She was thrown out of the army four years ago (after four years of service) when she befriended a young female recruit. She promptly filed two suits against the Nepal Army: one challenging her dismissal, the other the army’s governing policy, the Military Act. This past Thursday, June 30th, the Supreme Court judges ruled that it was not in sync with either Nepal's interim constitution or international laws and should be reformed. Read more, here.
Corporal Andrew Wilfahrt is the soldier whose photo was passed around in the Minnesota congress last week. His name is everywhere, now. From the Stars & Stripes article: In a biography he left on his laptop, Andrew described himself as someone who "espoused casual solipsism, the idea that ultimately one can know only oneself and nothing more. "Although close to my parents and siblings, I generally prefer solitude and introspection, and have but few close associates," he wrote. "I have maintained 'bachelor status' with the strictest of discipline, and a discipline I secretly wish would be compromised by a charming beauty." CNN also ran a video interview with Corporal Wilfahrt's parents, and an article with a slideshow series of photos.
A number of service members who voluntarily remained closeted under DADT, are outing themselves and requesting discharges before the policy is fully revoked. There appears to be some prevalent concern over harassment increasing in the ranks despite the military’s retraining efforts. The Pentagon has confirmed that there have been four know DADT-related discharges just this spring.
Corporal Andrew Wilfahrt is the soldier whose photo was passed around in the Minnesota congress last week. His name is everywhere, now. From the Stars & Stripes article: In a biography he left on his laptop, Andrew described himself as someone who "espoused casual solipsism, the idea that ultimately one can know only oneself and nothing more. "Although close to my parents and siblings, I generally prefer solitude and introspection, and have but few close associates," he wrote. "I have maintained 'bachelor status' with the strictest of discipline, and a discipline I secretly wish would be compromised by a charming beauty." CNN also ran a video interview with Corporal Wilfahrt's parents, and an article with a slideshow series of photos.
A number of service members who voluntarily remained closeted under DADT, are outing themselves and requesting discharges before the policy is fully revoked. There appears to be some prevalent concern over harassment increasing in the ranks despite the military’s retraining efforts. The Pentagon has confirmed that there have been four know DADT-related discharges just this spring.
27 June 2011
The Stars & Stripes ran an interview yesterday of a still-closeted active duty officer and his male lover on the condition of anonymity. While professionalism certainly has a place amongst the ranks of the uniformed services, the content of this interview paints the reality of what DADT has done in broad, harsh strokes. It has forced uniformed homosexuals to stay firmly in the closet, whether they want to be there or not. From the article: It was their last evening together before an Afghanistan deployment would separate the Army officer and his longtime love. They’d planned a cozy dinner at a neighborhood Italian place. But when they got there, they saw people they knew — the officer’s supervisor, in fact, out with his family. So instead of gazing at each other in the candlelight, or making toasts to their future, they pretended they were college roommates. “It was utterly demeaning,” said the officer’s partner. “Resorting to ‘Hey, bud’ comments when we were trying to have the last romantic evening we’d get until his mid-tour leave six months later. “Relationships are hard enough,” he said. “I wanted us to have a dignified existence together.”
Minnesota hits the front page of political news (again) when it stirs up a rampage of controversy and impassioned speech against an anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendment. The strange thing about this? The most memorable segment in the video is the impassioned speech of a Republican state representative who’s a veteran and lost both his legs to an IED near Fallujah. Paraphrased from the video, starting roughly at 3:05 or so, speaking about a gay soldier whose parents are now strong advocates for gay marriage and rights: ”He gave his life in Afghanistan while keeping us safe. He was gay. I cannot look at this picture and say, ‘you know what, Corporal, you were good enough to fight for your country and give your life, but you were not good enough to marry the person you love.’”
Evidence that discounts the flawed belief that 'gays in the military' will lead to sexual assault: While many might assume the perpetrators of such assaults are closeted gay soldiers, military experts and outside researchers say assailants usually are heterosexual. Like in prisons and other predominantly male environments, male-on-male assault in the military, experts say, is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination. Read more in Newsweek's April 2011 article,The Military's Secret Shame.
Minnesota hits the front page of political news (again) when it stirs up a rampage of controversy and impassioned speech against an anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendment. The strange thing about this? The most memorable segment in the video is the impassioned speech of a Republican state representative who’s a veteran and lost both his legs to an IED near Fallujah. Paraphrased from the video, starting roughly at 3:05 or so, speaking about a gay soldier whose parents are now strong advocates for gay marriage and rights: ”He gave his life in Afghanistan while keeping us safe. He was gay. I cannot look at this picture and say, ‘you know what, Corporal, you were good enough to fight for your country and give your life, but you were not good enough to marry the person you love.’”
Evidence that discounts the flawed belief that 'gays in the military' will lead to sexual assault: While many might assume the perpetrators of such assaults are closeted gay soldiers, military experts and outside researchers say assailants usually are heterosexual. Like in prisons and other predominantly male environments, male-on-male assault in the military, experts say, is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination. Read more in Newsweek's April 2011 article,The Military's Secret Shame.
20 June 2011
Back in September 2010, The New Republic posted an anonymous blog entry titled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Confessions of a Gay Soldier" in which a commanding officer details his weariness with living looking over his shoulder, and why he thinks it drains the military of some of the best it could have. From the article: I know there have been gay soldiers who have served in my unit. For at least one, he too had a nickname. It wasn’t “Shrek”; he was given his own badge—something like “Twinkle Boots.” I think everyone knew he was gay. There were jokes, but they never seemed cruel or hateful. And I’m sure some soldiers may have been uncomfortable, but I never saw or experienced that aspect of it. He was just another soldier, another member of the team. In fact, I remember overhearing one of our leaders talking about this soldier’s partner and mentioning that he was a “really nice guy.”
I never asked the soldier. He never told.
Powerful, powerful words: The military is a covenant between a soldier and his commander. And I need our Commander-in-Chief to keep his promise to my partner and me. I will risk my life, and in return, I ask to be treated simply like anyone else in the service—nothing more and nothing less. An excerpt from yet another anonymous letter, penned by an active duty Lieutenant Colonel serving in Afghanistan and posted in May of 2010 on The Daily Beast.
The Associated Press reported that the military expects to wrap up the DADT revocation retraining by mid-July. This article from the Fay Observer offers a bit of perspective on the training classes being held at Fort Bragg, NC. Some interesting insight: Wheeler, the company commander, said he doesn't foresee any major problems with getting his unit ready for the rules change. Across the Army, there will certainly be problems that pop up, he said. "Hiccups are going to come, because we're humans from all different walks of life," Wheeler said. "It comes down to you treat everybody with dignity and respect."
"The gay soldiers that wanted to be on Fox", a blog article by journalist Dominic Di-Natale, who opens with: It’s the story I regret most not reporting. While in Iraq and Afghanistan throughout 2009 and 2010 I was approached by more than a dozen American gay combat soldiers wanting to discuss living and fighting under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. (Why he elected not to tell the story, I don't know. Still reading the article when I tossed it up here.)
Back in December 2010, Huffington Post shared a soldier's letter -- written before he deployed to Afghanistan. From the letter: I'm writing letters to my loved ones in case I don't return from Afghanistan. I hope my partner never has to open his. If he does, it will ask him to tell who I was, because I couldn't.
I never asked the soldier. He never told.
Powerful, powerful words: The military is a covenant between a soldier and his commander. And I need our Commander-in-Chief to keep his promise to my partner and me. I will risk my life, and in return, I ask to be treated simply like anyone else in the service—nothing more and nothing less. An excerpt from yet another anonymous letter, penned by an active duty Lieutenant Colonel serving in Afghanistan and posted in May of 2010 on The Daily Beast.
The Associated Press reported that the military expects to wrap up the DADT revocation retraining by mid-July. This article from the Fay Observer offers a bit of perspective on the training classes being held at Fort Bragg, NC. Some interesting insight: Wheeler, the company commander, said he doesn't foresee any major problems with getting his unit ready for the rules change. Across the Army, there will certainly be problems that pop up, he said. "Hiccups are going to come, because we're humans from all different walks of life," Wheeler said. "It comes down to you treat everybody with dignity and respect."
"The gay soldiers that wanted to be on Fox", a blog article by journalist Dominic Di-Natale, who opens with: It’s the story I regret most not reporting. While in Iraq and Afghanistan throughout 2009 and 2010 I was approached by more than a dozen American gay combat soldiers wanting to discuss living and fighting under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. (Why he elected not to tell the story, I don't know. Still reading the article when I tossed it up here.)
Back in December 2010, Huffington Post shared a soldier's letter -- written before he deployed to Afghanistan. From the letter: I'm writing letters to my loved ones in case I don't return from Afghanistan. I hope my partner never has to open his. If he does, it will ask him to tell who I was, because I couldn't.
