[theoddz]

I served prior to DADT and I can tell you that, back then, it was even worse. I remember the witch hunts when, specifically, the US Navy and US Marine Corps had a specific division within CID, called "NIS" (Naval Investigative Service) that pursued, prosecuted and then summarily discharged (many with less than honorable discharges) gay and lesbian Sailors and Marines. It was going on in the other branches, too, and it was bad. Many MANY good, squared away service members lost careers and were further punished with less than desirable character grades on their DD214's that would mar them for life. Yes, it was worse. When I enlisted, recruiters outright asked about sexual orientation. If you answered that you were, or possessed homosexual tendencies, you were automatically disqualified. Door closed. Sorry. We. Don't. Want. You. Goodbye.

When DADT came in, I thought to myself that maybe things might be a little easier...and in a sense, they were. You see, I remember the investigations where some of the Marines I served with were dragged into the offices of investigagors and coerced to reveal names of others in exchange for (false) promises of "leniency" in their own treatment, etc. Entire investigations seemed to grow "arms" that way, like an octopus, and then the harassment and punishment would commence. I had a friend who was a (straight) supply Sgt. and they even pulled her in and wanted to discharge her on someone else's heresay, because she had ONCE been spotted in a gay club (the old Peanuts club) in Los Angeles. Yes, I remember that night when she went partying with some of our group....with her boyfriend....because she was our friend and wasn't gay at all. The fact that she was seen going into a gay club was reason enough. You see, NIS had agents they'd station outside of the known gay clubs. They also had agents inside. The one outside would stand around and watch the cars pull up. If a car had a base sticker on it, they wrote the name down as a suspected gay. Inside, the agent would try to talk to the customers, or stand around at the door and see who used a military ID for proof of age to get in. The agent would then try to get that person's name. It was ridiculous. So yes, when DADT came in, I had hoped that things would get a little easier. Something about that "don't pursue" clause.

Nowdays, I work with young service members, both officer and enlisted, because it's a medical environment. These "kids" give me hope that things are, indeed, changing. I see these young people and they are so open minded, on the whole. Yes, there's a few that have some fairly "conservative" prejudicial notions/ideas, but when you find one of them, they usually keep pretty quiet because their peers, who usually outnumber them, tell them "Hey, that's not cool, yanno." As a transgendered man, I have to say that I've gotten more respect and acceptance from these young military members than I've gotten from the (older) civilian employees of my own agency, and I successfully and openly transitioned at work. For this, I have even more hope. These kids aren't daunted or afraid of gays, lesbians or even transfolk who might be serving alongside of them. Hell, most of them know someone, or have a gay family member and they're very accepting of other kinds of people. Of course, I can't speak for other kinds of military environments. I know that there are some unit cultures that, if I were a gay male, I'd be afraid....VERY afraid....to reveal my orientation to. In the Marine Corps, for example, If I were a gay male Marine, I wouldn't be very comfortable serving in an infantry or combat arms unit. The culture is different in something like that than it would be in, say, a supply or administrative, or even communications unit. I have, in the past, known a couple of gay male Marines who did serve (verrrrry discreetly, of course) in combat units.

I know I may not hold a "politically correct" view when I say this, but I happen to think that, for everyone....gay, straight, bi, pansexual....it IS a question of conduct. Bottom line is that the person is there to do a job and it shouldn't matter one iota what that person's gender OR sexual orientation is. You're there to do a job. If you do that job well, then anything in your personal life is your business and none of anyone else's. Just like offensive conduct of any sexual nature is, and should be, excluded from the workplace, it shouldn't matter who perpetrates it...gay, straight, bi, pansexual, etc. It IS a question of conduct and everyone should be held to account if it is inappropriate for a workplace or interferes with an objective or mission. I happen to think that an inappropriate heterosexual "office affair" is most definitely a morale-dropping, inappropriate, counterproductive distraction that can adversely interfere with a workplace's mission. It doesn't matter if it's gay or straight....it disrupts what should be a professional environment and distracts from the work that needs to be done. Period.

Clinton definitely sold us out with the DADT policy, but it was, to me, a slight improvement over what was happening before. It's time to make it even better now and to remove all restrictions on gays, lesbians and bisexuals who want to do their bit and serve.

It's the right thing to do and no other option should be considered or "settled" for.

~Theo~