The DoD Policy on DADT, Post-Repeal

So y'all, my whole unit got sat down for our mandatory Phase 1 of DADT Repeal training. Essentially a big powerpoint showing the attitude of the DOD on this issue and what it means to different parties and regulations. I took the time to flip out my handy dandy notebook so I could take some notes, as I felt it would be appreciated here. Because I just scribbled a bunch of shit as I went, it's going to just sort of spill out in bullet point format.

• Chaplains with a moral or religious disagreement so severe that they feel that they cannot continue to serve under the current Do D regulations may be granted a separation with very little resistance.

• The above does not apply to regular members of the armed forces. We are not allowed to refuse to do a duty because of our political, moral, or religious stance on sexual orientation and we are to treat all members with the same respect and courtesy that is expected of anybody.

• There is no change in medical status regarding same sex partners where one partner is a civilian. They are not entitled to any sort of military provided medical care. Medical policies stay the exact same as they did before the repeal at the moment.

• Being HIV positive is still a disqualifier, just like it was before. If someone is infected by HIV, they can still petition that they are fit for service and can do their job despite the disease, regardless of orientation.

• There will be no authorization for the designation of alternate facilities of any kind for people based on sexual orientation. In other words, bathrooms, locker rooms, berthing/billeting et cetera will stay as they have always been.

• Orientation will not be made a factor for or against the promotion of any soldier. That's pretty much par for the course, that promotion is based on merit alone.

• Sexual Orientation will by no means ever be recorded on file, no database will be kept on this statistic, no sort of census, etc. If the information is pertinent on any sort of paperwork regarding a situation, it will still be included on said paperwork.

• Joint Spouse assignments for two people of the same sex are still not allowed. Meaning two active duty military members of the same sex cannot apply for special considerations of being sent to the same base when they transfer to a new one. They are treated the same way a heterosexual couple that is not legally married would be.

• Overseas laws on sexual orientation in the host nation countries will be taken into consideration and honored. I'm not sure what it entails, but it could very well mean that in countries where being gay is literally a crime, we might not deploy gay troops to those theatres unless we're toppling said government.

• If you were discharged under DADT as a direct result of simply being homosexual, you may now reapply to join the Armed Forces in the same manner as someone would if they were honorably discharged and wanted to apply to come back into the military after a break in service.

• The discharges under DADT mentioned above are to be treated the same as a voluntary separation, meaning an honorable discharge when your contract ended with the decision not to reenlist.

• There will be no compensation to the individuals mentioned above who were discharged under DADT, because at the time, it was a lawful order and regulation under the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ).

• Family services will offer the same services to a same-sex couple that they would offer to an unmarried heterosexual couple where one of the individuals in question is in the military.

• To achieve parental status, you must qualify under the same regulations as a heterosexual couple that has adopted a child. For the same-sex civilian partner to be considered a parent by the Do D information systems, they must be at least a 50 percent contributor to the care and welfare of the child.

• Same-Sex couples will not receive family separation pay when deployed overseas away from their spouse or partner. The soldier will not be granted the Base Housing Allowance rate that someone with a dependent would. The civilian in the same-sex couple is also not authorized any medical patronage by the Department of Defense.

• Civilian Same-Sex Partners are not allowed to live at on-base housing, the same way that a heterosexual couple who is unmarried are not allowed to live together on base housing.

That's the lions share of what we were briefed on, though I might have missed a few things. Keep in mind too, most of the restrictions regarding marriage/union/partnerships are things that the Do D does not have the authority to change, regardless of if it wanted to or not. DOMA, or the Defense of Marriage Act of 1997 is the policy responsible for said controls over that aspect of Department of Defense policy. In other words, until same-sex marriage is recognized by the Federal Government, the Do D position on those things will not change.

edited 3rd Apr '11 6:48:28 PM by Barkey

That sounds relatively painless.

We were all discussing it out back today. One of our guys said "You know man, I don't have anything against gays or lesbians, but I really would prefer not to shower with one. It really does bug me. If I don't have a choice and it's a mission critical time frame, then I'll just deal.. But I'm still uncomfortable with it and I'd probably wait till he was done before I took a shower."

He said his reasoning on it is that if he were showering with women, that he would sneak a peek here and there, and he admits that. All 12 of us or so who were discussing the issue unanimously agreed with him on that.

That's a reasonable enough position that was spoken well enough. Which is why I gave my spiel on the best way to resolve said hot-button issue... CO-ED SHOWERS AND RESTROOMS! If people are going to be comfortable, then let's just go the whole 9 yards and get all starship troopers on this shit. People will eventually grow to just ignore the whole naked co-worker thing if we're all using the same showers, and the Do D will save a fistful of money if they only have to pay for 1 and a half bathrooms and shower rooms(increased size to accomodate a larger demographic). They'll save building space, construction costs, and lots of electricity/water. I'm cool with showering with gay dudes if it means I get to ogle women at the same time. Nothing says "team-building" like everybody gawking at eachother together.

Unanimous agreement. The only people we figured might object were the females in the unit. Of which there are like 4, so to be honest we're still getting a pretty shitty deal out of it.

edited 3rd Apr '11 7:01:59 PM by Barkey

You should have told him not to flatter himself.

Kara: You should not be so openly hostile and critical of people who live a different life style.

His concern is kind of valid you know, we didn't say we would find a gay dude at fault for looking, just that it would probably be happening for the same reason we all said we would look if we showered with women.

I don't see any reason to be dismissive of his concerns if he voices them appropriately, which he did. It's not some sign of ignorance or bigotry to be a straight individual who is kind of uncomfortable with homosexual behavior in front of them. To be honest, this sort of stuff being out in the open is rather new, especially in a military environment.

edited 3rd Apr '11 7:18:14 PM by Barkey

Oooh. Thanks for sharing this, Barkey. This is interesting to know about.

...also co-ed bathrooms and showers sounds like a great solution. Though that may be my slight lack of shame and desire to experience such a thing at least once speaking.

It has nothing to do with "lifestyle." It's a joke about straight guys assuming that gay guys would consider them worth looking at. Quite a common joke, actually.

And I maintain that if a straight man would be uncomfortable being checked out by a gay man, then he should refrain from checking out women. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

edited 3rd Apr '11 7:23:28 PM by Karalora

The only thing I have problem with is that second point. You know there are some folks who will just not adapt well at all. Forcing them to stay in a situation that will only lead to trouble seems like a deliberate set up to weed folks out. If they really have that much of a serious issue with it let them out.

Kara: My apologies then. I am not familiar with said joke as I have never actually heard it used before.

edited 3rd Apr '11 7:22:11 PM by TuefelHundenIV

If there was an opt out for being uncomfortable, then presumably, instead of the previous (probably somewhat apocryphal) idea of getting out of military service by claiming you were gay, now, you'd be able to get out by claiming you were anti-gay.

That's probably why it isn't included except for Chaplains.

I.E. if you aren't a Chaplain, get the fuck over it.

Kara: That's why we don't get to shower with the women. I think it's more the idea that with gays involved it's a one way street. We're all willing to look at attractive examples of the gender we like, but it feels kind of shitty that gays get to win out on that.

Like say if we do temporary duty somewhere or live in a barracks. You usually get a roomate in a barracks, but it's always required to be the same gender. Kind of a skewed situations once gays get involved. Two dudes who like eachother can be roomates, but a straight couple can't?

Besides, I've always wanted to know what that one Airman looked like if she wasn't wearing that uniform.. -_-

edited 3rd Apr '11 7:27:42 PM by Barkey

There may be some hard line Christians who would find this a serious problem. (I would rather have them out then stirring up shit or causing trouble while in) I am willing to bet there will be case by case examinations on this problem as they crop up. But as barkey sometimes says about them. Fuckem they can adapt.

I have a feeling the military would rapidly shed it's body shyness taboos. It might help with other issues as well.

I wonder what the next phase of this will be.

edited 3rd Apr '11 7:28:41 PM by TuefelHundenIV

To be honest, I don't meet many folks in the military who absolutely and utterly loathe gays and will get furious from this. Mostly it's just that the majority of us aren't really that comfortable being around it. We would really rather not, but if we have to, we'll do so without being assholes about it.

^

On the shyness thing, I think it would also cause a spur in PT attendance and off-duty exercise.. Don't want to be known to your whole unit as the fat guy..

And on the phases, all I know so far is that Phase 2 is for NCO's and Officers, while phase 3 will be force Commanders. You take every phase up until you get to your level of competence, so I'll do 1 and 2, our Commander does all 3, etc.

edited 3rd Apr '11 7:30:27 PM by Barkey

That is a good point on the personal physical perception.

And Suddenly I have the image of some gay service members using that status to give the uncomfortable guys loads of shit. >:3

edited 3rd Apr '11 7:33:49 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Yeah I know if I was to be showering with chicks I'd get off my ass to work out and make sure I was in good physical shape.

Same. Or at least more so than usual.

Had good PT today. Fought the redman with a baton and then we did a 4 mile formation run with exercises at the halfway and finish points.

We've had that rule in civvie street too for quite a while, like twelve years or something. And we've had gay people for like a decade or something. Even the showering thing. I think it tends to pass by without much ado because the shower room exists as this culturally desexualised zone that smells of feet and it all occurs normally in an atmosphere of unifying team exercises, monotone chanting and uniform clothing. It's just a shame that the military is full of budding flowers of individuality.

Monotone chanting is creepy.

Same-Sex couples will not receive family separation pay when deployed overseas away from their spouse or partner. The soldier will not be granted the Base Housing Allowance rate that someone with a dependent would. The civilian in the same-sex couple is also not authorized any medical patronage by the Department of Defense.

This point, when it means couples does it specifically mean unmarried couples and is this the same for straight couples?

English Ivy: creepy and can be psychologically powerful as well.

Teams don't know how to have a good breakdown nowadays.

"You should have told him not to flatter himself." - Karalora

Would you say the same for women who believed they were being checked out by men?

That depends. Would you have asked that of a man who made the same joke?

edited 3rd Apr '11 10:02:09 PM by Karalora

Kara: I would now thanks to you :P

Just tell them to carry a piece of bathroom tile around in their pocket to bring out for the Pavlovian response. It has worked for me for the past 6 years.