U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 25, 2010 11:32 PM UTC
29 Comments
I don’t claim to have the answers. I do think that’s why it makes sense for Gates to have the year-long study, with a lot of feedback from the ranks, before implementing the new policy. As far as I’m concerned, gays have the same (dubious) right to have their brains scrambled by an improvised explosive device as heterosexual soldiers do. But given the lack of privacy in barracks life, it will take a bit of getting used to.
I wasn’t sure what kind of response I’d get! I wish I could get more input somehow.
The answer from the many other countries that don’t make being gay a fireable offense is that you don’t need separate barracks — any more than high schools or colleges need separate “gay locker rooms” or any such nonsense. E.g., http://www.advocate.com/News/D…
Personally, my own view is that our troops put up with so much — risk of death, massive stress, irregular hours, unpredictability of mission, etc. — that I fully believe the reports from other countries: if you’re a straight man in the army, you probably have about 100 more serious and stressful things to worry about than whether another guy in the barracks is gay and saw you naked.
while directly in harm’s way. But what about when not stationed in a combat zone? I’m not talking about who’s in a foxhole with you. I’m talking about 2-3 man rooms, communal showers, etc in everyday life as a single soldier. Roomates, not battle buddies.
To follow your logic, couldn’t you just put men and women together too?
… but as you note, having “the gay barracks” doesn’t eliminate the supposed problem of “some soldiers will like what they see in the shower.”
But I don’t really follow the logic you’re now suggesting — that soldiers actually at war (e.g. in Iraq or Afgh. now) could deal with it, but those safe on an American military base might have trouble getting past it. Once you’re conceding the point (which is consistent with other countries’ experiences) that a soldier can get past worrying about who’s seen his penis in the shower, I think you’ve conceded that there’s no weighty enough interest in the gay ban to justify rank discrimination.
in a foxhole, with bullets whizzing by you and bombs going off, I agree with your point about having much more serious things to worry about.
But when you’re working at the motor pool, stationed at Ft. Carson- your immediate perspective is different.
I think it’s more than just seeing someone in the shower. The very nature of being a roomate is typically an intimate (not necessarily sexual) one.
If hetero and homo – sexuality have similar dynamics & characteristics, shouldn’t they present the same problems too?
than it has been since time immemorial? News flash, 20th — gay and lesbian soldiers are sharing rooms and showers! gasp! with their straight comrades right now. So are gay professional athletes, and college students, and … and …
This is a complete non-issue.
cases, RG, the gay guy isn’t openly gay. It is very rare to find straight and gay men as roomates. It’s even rarer to find an openly gay athlete on a sports team. So it MUST be an issue.
Your point validates the military’s current policy.
And I’m not talking about women who room with their gay guy friends. I addressed that scenario in my original post.
Is my assumption wrong?
Soldiers (most of them) can contemplate that the guy next to them in the barracks/showers might be gay. Knowing doesn’t change anything.
You know what? Ending don’t ask don’t tell doesn’t mean everyone’s gonna tell. GI Joe still won’t know whether his junk is safe from leering soldier eyes, no matter what. Same as it ever was.
What about a guy who wouldn’t personally suck a dick, but would let a guy suck his dick? What about guys who get turned on by two-chicks-one-dick porn? What about guys who just really like giving backrubs?
Military people are supposed to have some respect for each other, in addition to some self-control. Unless you imagine that any guy who’s ever liked seeing another guy naked cannot control his slobbering, what’s the issue?
Military groups in some other countries are not segregated by sexual orientation. How does it work there? I’ve not read about any big issues. Are Americans soldiers thought to be more sex-crazy than others?
20th, you have likely shared a locker room with gay people, more than you know. I know I have. I have also been to nude beaches with people of both genders. After about one minute it feels the same with one gender as another– a bit embarrassing and funny.
I think gay people know when sex and romance is appropriate and that making advances on fellow soldiers in the shower is not a great idea.
My bet is that inexperienced people used to talk about race this way. “Where do we house the black soldiers?”
Humanity!
but they didn’t announce it and I didn’t know it.
Like your nude beach comment, wouldn’t the same apply to straight men and women? Should we put them in rooms together?
As for your race comment, there is a world of difference. As Colin Powell once said:
Though his views have changed on DADT, this specific quote would be true in any context.
I don’t want to get off on a tangent, and I’m not trying to be obstinate. But just because it is easy to have close gay friends doesn’t mean it’s necessarily that easy to integrate the military.
I don’t think I’m bringing up unlikely scenarios or unreasonable challenges here.
and you didn’t know it… is precisely the point. It’s not the deal you’re making of it. Just ask a gay person. They’ve been in the straight locker rooms their entire lives through all of history and managed to survive without molesting people or being molested, the exceptions proving the rule.
Women soldiers are a lot closer to their male fellow soldiers in the field than civilians are close to one another pretty much most of the time. The problem is not the quotidian things like proximity or showers. It’s how well they understand the code of conduct and respect one another that matters.
You’re thinking about genitals and horny-ness. That’s just not it. If high schoolers can mix, soldiers can too. It’s the expectations that count. And there should high expectations on soldiers.
I think these are “unlikely scenarios and unreasonable challenges.” I just do. Gayness is no big deal unless you make it so.
I have no idea how I would feel if I did know it. Probably awkward. Maybe uncomfortable.
This still boils down to my assumption that gay and straight sexuality are similar and therefore have similar dynamics. If true – I don’t believe anyone has actually addressed the issues I’ve brought up.
Too much at stake right now for social experimentation.
Bring back segregated units, and let’s keep the Catholics and the Jews in their own barracks — there’s just too much potential for conflict with those danged social experiments, putting soldiers in proximity against nature’s laws. When will those libruls stop foisting their fancy views on Amurcans?
This lack of social experimentation has led to the letting-go of some top-notch translators needed for the war/s.
Here’s the REALLY dangerous “social experimentation,” R.Jordan: Firing goddamn Arabic translators (as well as Korean and Chinese translators), just after 9/11, and just before the start of the Iraq war, on a theory that they’re gay, and it’s more risky (a) to let guys see each others’ penises in the showers, than (b) to run short on Arabic and Korean and Chinese translators:
It’s all a matter of national security priorities — whether you’re more paranoid about penis-viewing or about getting blowed up by a terrorist you didn’t know about because you only want translators who aren’t too into said penis-viewing. I’m just glad, Robert Jordan, that polls show more of America is concerned about allowing good folks to serve our national security than about penis-viewing (as you apparently are).
You know – before Bush’s Army discharged all of those gay interpreters we found out we needed?
Now can’t be any worse, and with so many of our military forces having been deployed for so long, it’s an appropriate time to re-evaluate the situation.
DADT is a charade with nasty side-effects. Its very design means it can never be anything better than that.
And this was before “don’t ask, don’t tell”
There were guys in the barracks who knew, or at least assumed, I was gay. (Since I had kids, it confused a lot of them LOL) There was only one guy who had a problem, and he was discharged for unrelated racist conduct against some of the african american guys. So I would say he had the problem, not me.
It was not an issue. The military mind set is such that you are a unit despite the varying characterists and beliefs of the individual parts of that unit. Of course people will have their own feelings on the subject, but they are not for open discussion even under the current regs.
Instilling this ideal is a regular part of basic training and is reinforced with any subsequent training that takes place. Now, I suspect the service will have to make a point of saying “gay is okay” for the first year or so that the law changes, just to make sure evceryone is one the same page, but I forsee it only being a problem for the most biggoted members of the Armed Services and they tend to cause more problmes for the service than they are useful, anyway. This was how the scenario played out with racial integration of the service in 1940’s, and with the gender intergration that has been slowly going on for the past nearly 100 years.
As for the part about “getting too friendly”: it does happen, I won’t say it doesn’t. But it happens just as much in the opposite sex arena as it does in the same sex one (probably more so). There are already fraternization and harassment rules/laws in the UCMJ to address them, all that needs to happen is let the law follow its course.
Dan Willis!
“… and if any of you ‘heteros’ touch my stuff…”
Military service is a study in loss… Elements of one’s dignity are lost, replaced by others, you lose you individuality, you lose your liberties, you lose privilege and oh by the way, if there is a shooting war going on, you tend to lose body parts and your life too.
Gays in the military… The kids won’t care. If they do, like everything else, they get told, “Shut the F%&K UP Private!” Cruel? Too bad, welcome to the Army. (If it’s the Navy or Air Force I think you’d say, “Now boys, can we please get along and not muss your skirts and…”) ha, ha.
I spent ten years as an 11-B… Enlisted (basic at Harmony Church even), to NCO, to Officer, Jump Wings and Crossed Rifles, etc… I’m probably all alone on this one, but the older I get the more I think this is a silly topic. Don’t worry about the logistics of mixing gay with straight, or even men and women. The kids won’t care. A gay “Francis/Psycho” can solve his problems by walking in and outing himself right away and doing what everyone else does in military units where casual violence is quite prevalent… Challenge anyone to knock the chip off his shoulder. Just read Generation Kill. It is hard to envision how an openly gay guy, willing to kick any one’s @$$ could do any worse than Fruity Rudy.
I have stopped worrying about the kids serving in these units. Gay or straight, they will do what they are told. The real problem is us. All of us who are on the outside looking in. The boys and girls are getting it on out in Central Command whenever they can (but I’m told it’s not the easiest thing to arrange), well if we let gays openly serve, you’ll have the same thing with them. Is that acceptable for the kids serving? Who cares? I guarantee they are more concerned about keeping body and soul together on tomorrow’s patrol.
Now, I guess there is concerns about Gay bashing in the different units… Can’t exist. If a homosexual gets beat up because he or she is gay, well, that person doesn’t belong in that unit. No more than anyone else who gets beat up because they are fat, or rich, or poor, or ugly or… Or just too weak to hang in that unit. I had a lot of soldiers work for me in Rifle Companies who were not the He-Man poster boys. They got tough quick. And if they were smart? …Well let’s just say everyone learns that you don’t mess with that guy.
Is that acceptable for you and I… That is the real question. But don’t worry about the kids. They don’t care. If they do care? Too bad.
Now don’t touch my stuff.
(via TPM)
Talk about your repressed sexual fantasies.
Who knows how many other members of the organization have the same suppressed identity issues.