DREAM Act Dies, DADT Passes CloturePolicy

The DREAM Act which would have in essence granted citizenship to any immigrant who completed two years of post-secondary schooling (I’m simplifying here) failed in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 55-41, while ending the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy of the U.S. military regarding homosexuals sailed through with a 63-33 vote:

The Republican senators voting “yes” with the Democrats were Mark Kirk of Illinois, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine.

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who previously stated he opposes repeal, was the only Democrat to miss the vote.

“We are on the verge of ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ for good. This is one of those moments in our history when we stepped up and squared our policies with the values this nation was founded upon,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement after the vote. “I applaud those Republicans who have joined us to repeal this policy, and hope that even more will join us on the right side of history when we complete our work, and end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’

So — I guess that means we’re just a little closer to our Greek cultural progenitors?

We are all Greeks now.

And for Harry Reid’s benefit, I hardly think the American revolution was fought over values such as these… in fact, had a poll been conducted of the Founding Fathers on this topic, I’m not sure they would have sized up with Reid’s value system.

At all.

UPDATE:  Lee Talley in the comments section brings up the example of Baron von Steuben:

I do find it ironic that a policy like DADT would have kept the man considered the founder of the US Army, Baron von Steuben, out of the Army today. Yes, there is conjecture on wether or not he was gay but with the rumors surrounding him even back at Valley Forge that would have been enough to remove him from the modern US Military.

Apparently Baron von Steuben ran into some problems with young men (and boys) according to the American National Biography Online in an article dating back in February 2000.  Newsweek apparently reference the same claim in a February 1993 article, which referenced a letter included in a 1937 biography on the general.

The book does makes reference to an anonymous 1777 letter which concluded that the charge of homosexuality was “probably a malicious slander that originated among Steuben’s enemies.”  Baron von Steuben’s 17-year old interpreter, who is alleged to be von Steuben’s lover, was in fact later married (to a woman) and was indeed very proficient in languages.  In other words, the young man was selected for his abilities, not for his abilitiesat least according to WallBuilders (no friend to homosexuals).

There is also some mention that von Steuben served at the court of Frederick the Great… who is also rumored to have been a homosexual.  Who makes this spurious claim?  None other than Voltaire — who published an anonymous tract entitled The Private Life of the King of Prussia which forced Frederick to place Voltaire under house arrest.  Voltaire eventually left Prussia never to return, and though while Frederick never acknowledged the work and Voltaire never recognized that he wrote the tract, the anonymous tract remains nonetheless.

So was von Steuben gay?  He never married, and had no children.  Frederick the Great may have been… though rumors were set out to argue that he had deformed genitalia form a venereal disease (hence the reason why his marriages were never consummated).  Did von Steuben serve at Frederick the Great’s court?  Undoubtedly so, as that was one of the laurels which von Steuben wore in his attempt to gain employment in the service of the American Army.  But was he really a homosexual?

Most of the direct evidence hinges on that one single letter repudiating the charge.  Either the charge was rejected outright as a calumny, or various excuses were drafted such as this one circa 1796 being cited by the same gentleman included in the 1993 Newsweek article, stating that the charge was:

“…abominable rumor which accused Steuben of a crime the suspicion of which, at another more exalted court of that time (as formerly among the Greeks) would hardly have aroused such attention.”

This does raise the question of  pederasty (since we’re talking about 17 year old boys here).  Not being a historian of all things von Steuben, I couldn’t precisely say.  Most of the evidence is against the idea, but on a single thread — given the mores of the time and the crowds von Steuben mingled in — it’s not entirely inconceivable (but highly unlikely) that von Steuben enjoyed the company of young men.  Whether that points towards von Steuben’s homosexuality or pederasty is still up for a great deal of research and debate, and whether that distinction matters really depends on whether or not you conflate homosexuality with pederasty.  I’ll let others more concerned with the issue debate the merits of that one…

Of course, all this could be an exercise in how a falsehood travels around the world before truth has an opportunity to get their shoes on.  It’s unquestionable that von Steuben did a tremendous service to the American military in its most perilous time, and in fact served well both during the Point of Fork engagement (which just happens to be down the road from where I live in Columbia, Virginia) and the subsequent Yorktown campaign.

As to his sexual preferences, if that’s your focus in life, I’m sure there’s plenty to discuss.  The evidence for it on first glance is scant, built on conjecture and a great deal of speculation, as von Steuben apparently never repeated such acts while in America (or elsewhere).

Still, Mr. Talley does bring up a pretty interesting tidbit from American history, one that can be disbelieved but not entirely disproven.

  • HisRoc

    Shaun,

    I’m not sure why you think repealing DADT is so awful. The truth of the matter is that we probably had gays in the military long before it was prohibited at the beginning of the 20th Century, we had them all through the 20th Century, and they are there today. In my 25 years of active duty service, I knew many gays and lesbians and they were uniformly as competent and professional soldiers, officers, and NCOs as any straight soldier. As a commanding officer, I practiced DADT long before it became official policy. Do your job, respect your peers and subordinates, and leave your personal life at home–regardless of whether you are straight or gay. In fact, in several command tours I took disciplinary action dozens of time for fraternization or sexual misconduct by straights. Over 25 years I only had one soldier disciplined for a homosexual assault. And I was hardly alone. The vast majority of my peers held the same opinion on the subject and the younger leaders coming along today see even less of an issue than my generation did.

    Yes, the Commandant of the Marine Corps thinks that this is horrible and that it will get Marines killed. Well, that view point is not shared by his subordinate commanders except for the religious fanatics who think that homosexuality is a mortal sin as well as a personal choice. Sorry, but it is laughable to believe that anyone would willingly choose to be homosexual and my religious upbringing taught me that God does not create sinners.

    Talk to people who have made a career in the military and you will find that, by and large, they believe that this is the time to drop the prohibition.

  • http://www.novacommonsense.com Brian Schoeneman

    I’m happy to see the DADT repeal move closer to passage. It’s unfortunate that the DREAM act ended up where it did.

  • http://www.shaunkenney.com Shaun Kenney

    @HisRoc –

    Didn’t say one way or the other. I’ve never served in the military (one of my greater regrets), so I feel totally incompetent to answer the question.

    Being a student of history though… it’s pretty well known what the Greeks thought of DADT.

  • http://www.shaunkenney.com Shaun Kenney

    @Brian –

    Perhaps on the DREAM Act, but I can entirely sympathize with the argument that it is one more inducement to come to the United States illegally.

    The DREAM Act makes much more sense if the borders are enforced. Until then, it’s one more golden apple to dangle in front of those who want to come here, and are willing to brave the gauntlet.

  • http://www.novacommonsense.com Brian Schoeneman

    I have no problems with the idea of focusing on closing the borders first, before we start figuring out what to do with the illegals already here. That being said, I have an issue with punishing kids for the sins of their parents.

    The biggest issue that I see with ICE is the fact that they don’t track people as closely as they should – most illegals didn’t come here over the border at night. They came here on legal visas and overstayed those visas. ICE does a horrible job of tracking those people and that needs to be fixed.

  • http://www.shaunkenney.com Shaun Kenney

    Totally agree on all counts.

  • HisRoc

    Shaun,

    Sorry if I misunderstood.

    As to the Greeks, if their prowess against Emperor Xerxes at Thermopylae was in any way related to their embrace of homosexuality, then perhaps we should restrict the Marines and Special Operations Forces to gay men.

    ;)

    Seriously, I also agree with you on the DREAM Act. It really has no legitimate purpose but to create a new generation of Democratic voters and will encourage illegal immigration as an unintended consequence. And Brian is spot on: other countries do a far better job of tracking aliens who over-stay their visas and deporting them. I lived in Germany in the military for many years. Over-staying your visa as a foreigner was just not an option for people ranging from Great Britain to Turkey. The German Border Police would quickly round them up, throw them in prison, and then deport them after they either paid a fine or served time. Kein Problem!

  • http://www.shaunkenney.com Shaun Kenney

    Of course, the Greeks did *lose* at Thermopylae… :)

  • valentinus

    The problem with the repeal of DADT is not whether homosexuals serve in the military. It’s the creation of another special interest group within the military that leftists can exploit. Leftists are devoted to the creation of different classes taht can be pitted against each other and exploited.

    There are a few other countries in Europe which permit open homosexuals to serve. I have read several analyses which show that the process has not created anything better. In fact they tend to be in de facto segregated units and second class soldiers. Of course these other countries are not burdened with an out of control legal class. I foresee all kinds of lawsuits and endless turmoil. But that’s exactly what the Left wants.

  • valentinus

    @ Brian

    “That being said, I have an issue with punishing kids for the sins of their parents.”

    Unfortunately you don’t have an issue with them getting preferential treatment over those legally applying for citizenship nor do you have an issue with their family getting preferential citizenship once the kids get citizenship. (This is leaving aside the issue of properly enforcing the provision [ICE???] or the Dems awarding preferential scholarships to children of illegal aliens so that they can preferentially go to college etc etc)

    Just noting that you are using one sided results oriented arguments like any liberal.

  • HisRoc

    valentinus,

    I really don’t know where you get your information from, but in 26 NATO countries only Portugal and Turkey still prohibit gay military members, besides the US. And having served numerous assignments with NATO forces, I have never experienced segregated units or second class soldiers.

    It just isn’t an issue, regardless of what you have read.

    BTW, just to be clear on this point, I am not gay nor do I have any family members, close friends, etc who are gay and would color my opinion on the subject. My views on the subject are simply the pragmatic conclusions of a life-long military professional.

  • Steven Osborne

    @HisRoc,

    Homosexuality in the military was prohibited before the 20th Century.

    Exhibit A:
    http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101

    Shaun is right concerning the Founder’s opinion. Sen. Reid is wrong about this lining up with America’s founding principles as evidenced by the article above.
    ***
    I also find it interesting that while people are dying on the border and immigrants both legal and illegal are being taken advantage of, that the Democrats cannot effectively tackle immigration reform. Meanwhile, they are expending time and energy on this repeal measure. Nice to know where their priorities are.

  • HisRoc

    Steven,

    You are confusing a regulatory proscription against homosexuals serving in the military with disciplinary actions taken against sexual misconduct that was homosexual in nature. Rape and other forms of sexual assault have always been punishable offenses in the military. It was in 1905 that simply being a homosexual was proscribed.

    This is a common boogieman argument that is used to refute the repeal of DADT, that flaming queers will be accosting straights in the showers and raping their fellow soldiers in foxholes.

    That doesn’t happen in civilian society and to think that it would happen in a military environment is ludicrous. As I explained in my original post, my experience over 25 years of active duty was that sexual misconduct by straights was far more of a problem than any misconduct by homosexuals.

  • valentinus

    @HISROC,

    NB I specified “de facto segregated” but you left off the “de facto”. I acknowledge that the analyses I read were done back in the 1990s and were on the Dutch army and several others that I just can’t recall at this time.

    All this is not really my main point which is that the Dems will simply use it to provoke turmoil and litigation. It will not improve anything in the military.

  • HisRoc

    Shaun,

    Yes, the Greeks lost at Thermopylae. But, depending on whose account you accept, they were out-numbered about 10,000 to 1. Perhaps this was the origin of the phrase, the Gay Blade?

    ;)

  • HisRoc

    valentinus,

    I was a battalion commander in the only US combat brigade located in NATO’s Northern Army Group in the early 1990′s. We had partnerships with other NATO units in the area, including the Netherlands 41st Brigade. Sorry, but the 41st Brigade didn’t have any de facto segregated units or any other signs that homosexual soldiers were a problem. In fact, one of their battalion commanders was openly gay.

    One of the first lessons that I learned as a college freshman was to determine the editorial prejudice of anyone you read before you accept their premise. I hope that they are still teaching that in college.

  • Lee Talley

    I do find it ironic that a policy like DADT would have kept the man considered the founder of the US Army, Baron von Steuben, out of the Army today. Yes, there is conjecture on wether or not he was gay but with the rumors surrounding him even back at Valley Forge that would have been enough to remove him from the modern US Military.

    I think as Christians in these cases we should recognize sin in all our lives and show humility and also show the Grace God has shown us. So unless somebody can show me a ranking of sins in the Bible I think its just one of many we all as humanity suffer from and should seek God’s Grace to cover when we all finally face the Devine when we leave this world and enter into the next.

    God changes hearts not something like DADT.

  • William Bailey

    I am pleased to see the Senate voted to end DADT. As a retired Navy member, I’ve supported allowing anyone who wants to serve and defend this country to do so without fear. It was time to move on.

    Frankly I’ve known gay and lesbian members and as long as they followed the UCMJ and did their jobs, there wasn’t an issue. They served with honor and integrity. It is time we ended the hiding and opened the door to real honesty for all members in our military.

    Once again, it was nice to see the GOP join with the Dems and make this a great day for Americans and those who want to serve and defend this nation.

  • Tim J

    DADT is just one more thing the Radical Islamists can rally around as a recruiting tool and a reason and justification to fight the immoral and heathen infidels and devils they think we are. The Marine Commandant couldn’t say this in an open debate, but he did the best he could to portray this as another distraction in a war where there is enough drama with the body count continuing to rapidly rise. We will now see how “enlightened” our warfighters are on the bleeding tip of our sword as politicians, lawyers, the media and their polls continue to experiment with sexual justice using our military as a laboratory.

    God help us if just one soldier, airman, sailor or marine falls to our enemies or is severely wounded, maimed or killed as a consequence of our new Do ask and Do tell policy.

  • Lee Talley

    Tim,
    The only way DADT would cause out troops to be wounded or hurt is if one of them parachuted into Westboro Baptist Church where those hate filled bigots go that protest soldiers funerals. I don’t they are over there going thats it… now they send gays to fight us. Guess what gays have been fighting them from the beginning.

  • Steven Osborne

    @HisRoc,

    Perhaps you did not read the article that I posted earlier closely enough. Yes, military members have always been subjected to expulsion for sexual misconduct both heterosexual and homosexual. However, you seem to agree that the account of the event indicates that his homosexual behavior caused him to be discharged.He was not charged with a general indictment of sexual misconduct, rather he was specifically charged with sodomy.

    As a matter of fact, people can be charged with sodomy today, albeit under limited circumstances. If homosexuality is considered to be a morally neutral issue in the eyes of the law, then why do we charge some heinous sexual predators with it as a crime? (I realize that Lawrence v. Texas, attempted to establish a “right” to certain behavior, but we do still charge people with sodomy, so bear with me)

    If a particular behavior is singled out as being against the military’s code of conduct, which homosexuality is, did it make sense for the military to admit people who claimed to go against that code?

    Now the Congress has changed that code and expects the military to comply. Responsibility for all negative consequences of this, however, must be laid primarily on the President and then those in Congress who supported this.

    The supporters of this bill have invoked the Founders and claimed that this is based on American principles.

    For those who want some historical perspective on what our Founders actually thought about such matters, I will again post this article:

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101

    It completely refutes what President Obama, Harry Reid, and Joe Lieberman have been claiming.

  • http://www.novacommonsense.com Brian Schoeneman

    Valentinus, as the husband of a first generation American, whose in-laws waited in line and came here legally like everyone else, I don’t appreciate being accused of preferential treatment for people who broke the law. That’s not what I’m saying. Those kids didn’t have a choice. They weren’t breaking the law – they had no intent to do so. And I don’t consider requiring them to serve in the military or perform other kinds of public service as their getting preferential treatment. They have been here for most of their lives, they get a chance at citizenship by earning it. I see nothing wrong with that.

    If you do, I wonder why?

  • http://www.novacommonsense.com Brian Schoeneman

    Tim, do you honestly think the jihadists need any more reasons than the ones they already claim for killing us? That reminds me of the cop in the Fugitive explaining to Tommy Lee Jones that Harrison Ford killed his wife because, while Ford was rich, she was “more rich.”

    It doesn’t wash.

    You’re acting like the jihadists are treating our soldiers just fine right now. They aren’t. They could care less about the Geneva convention, and the fact that one of our soldiers may be gay isn’t going to make them any more likely to get killed than their being Christian or Jewish, or simply for being American.

  • Brian Kirwin

    I guess there will be a flood of homosexual activists who fought for this joining the military.

    I mean, that’s why they wanted it, right? So they could enlist, fight and die on the battlefield fighting for our freedoms?

    I’ll be interested to see if they join now.

  • William Bailey

    Or maybe we’ll just keep the approximately 12,000 or so military members who were trained and educated by the military before being discharged once they were outed…

  • http://tidewaterliberty.com Britt Howard

    I was happy to see that DADT will be repealed and the Dream Act defeated.

  • Dry Viking

    It isn’t about having homosexuals in the military. We probably always have, just as we have had thieves, adulterers and the occasional psychopath. It is about having to lie and say that it is acceptable, normal and a valuable lifestyle. It is not. It is sexual perversion. This was never about tolerance. We tolerate BAD things. They didn’t want that they want acceptance. They want to force us to lie.

    We have adultery but don’t have to say that adultery is good, we have had people who commit homosexual acts before but now if we say that it is wrong, we will be considered “trouble makers” and forced into “education”. It you don’t lie and say that homosexuality is ok, you will be persecuted. You won’t get the good assignments or be competitive for promotion. And that is for line officers. Imagine the chaplain who is known to “preach the Bible”, he won’t get good assignments or be promoted. Only apostate chaplains will be able to thrive in this new environment. This is all about persecuting Christians.

    Watch, the good people will leave and we will have a military composed of those without American values, but of those with Hollywood values. Hitler did the same thing to the German Army before WW II. He got rid of the moral officers and promoted his nazi thugs.

    Consider Isaiah 5:20. It applies to this Congress.

  • Peter Sperry

    DADT — Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t care, just don’t do it in the streets and scare the horses. Really, why should anyone care about intimate relationships other than their own?

    Dream Act — I’ve read a great deal of pro/con commentary on this version and think sending it back to the drawing board is the best idea for now. However, we do need to recognize that many illegal immigrants came here as infants and 18 years later they realistically have no other home. I do not want to reward illegal immigration and fully support rule of law initiatives such the one in PWC but we need to establish a judicial forum to sort out the legitimate claims of these now young adults. Personally, I would allow legal residence for individuals who arrived before the age of 10 (arbitrary I know but…) and have continuous residency through 18 and who have a clean criminal record. But illegal adults need to go home, and if that means taking a child home who was born here, so be it. We’ll issue them a birth certificate and like Bruce Lee, they can return legally when they become adults.

  • Tim J

    Brian S… who’s talking about the Geneva convention? Those ancient Geneva accords have been updated and replaced by Constitutional protections for enemy combatants where our soldiers are policemen and our enemies are criminals. It seems as though you are like most people who haven’t experienced combat where you diminish the argument to an inane scene out of a fictional movie which you can relate to.

    Our enemies don’t need any more reasons to kill our soldiers and we have just given them another one.

  • http://www.novacommonsense.com Brian Schoeneman

    Tim, last time I checked, our constitutional protections don’t protect our soldiers when they’re in the hands of the enemy. That’s where Geneva comes in. But as I noted before, the Taliban and Al Qaeda don’t recognize Geneva, so it’s not like there are rules for POWs that they abide by.

    My having been in combat or not does not matter here. We’re not talking about combat policy. We’re talking about personnel policy. Our enemies don’t need ANY reasons to kill our soldiers – they’ll do it regardless. Like I said before, acting like this is somehow going to provoke them even more is absurd.

  • Jerry Z

    I am still missing something out of the DADT repeal. There are reasons that men and women berth and shower separately in military commands. Don’t those same reasons apply with homosexuals? I just don’t see how you treat everyone equally and also avoid/minimize any fraternization and sexual harassment problems unless you give everyone their own room and head (bathroom). I just don’t see our society going unisex on everything.

  • No you can’t

    Shaun,

    First,you left out an inconvenient fact about the Dream Act and that is it doesn’t refer to “legal immigrants” but illegal immigrants and their limited amnesty.

    Shaun- You will not like another inconvenient truth about illegal immigrants from someone on the frontline.

    Letter: Yes, I have experience with illegals
    By MILTON J. BRECH | Manassas
    Published: December 18, 2010
    » 8 Comments | Post a Comment
    vote
    nowBuzz up!

    I thank you for putting my comments in the Voices section; however, I would like to address a few comments made by my detractors [“Immigration savings?” Dec. 10]:

    (1) My knowledge of illegal aliens: With 31 years as a U.S. immigration officer, which included the Border Patrol Academy, and being an inspection officer and then criminal investigator in both senior status and supervisory status, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the problem. In my experience, the illegals never paid taxes or, if they were forced to, they then claimed 15 dependents to avoid any payment. They used phony Social Security numbers so again they did not pay. And most empty houses are the problem of the banks giving the mortgage. Hence, no tax money lost.

    (2) I never stated that we should boot the Latinos or the Hispanics. I said boot them all: man, woman and child. They can be Russian, Chinese, German, I don’t care. If they are illegal, boot them out, and we will save money.

    (3) As for my life being in jeopardy due to an illegal, I have had guns shoved in my face by illegals and been threatened with death if I did not back down. I am still here, and the illegal is either six feet under in South Texas, or safely back in his or her country, and I am still here. So guess who backed down.

    In closing, I must say I did expect some backlash when you printed my comments, and I knew that the Illegal Lovers would want my scalp. All I can say is: Get in line.

  • Tim J

    Brian S., I am making a point but you are only processing it with the “left” side of your brain. My point was that in our current political establishment “Geneva” isn’t relevant to our Muslim enemies, but our constitution is relevant to our enemies as they now have equal protection under our laws. Kill a US soldier, and if you get caught, a trial in a US court and the chances are better than even that you will be free to kill again in several years.

    Relegating this to a “personnel policy” simplifies it to the point that it’s just a new form that has to be filled out or a box that has to be checked. Will the military be forced to recognize “gay marriage” and accord all the benefits to gay spouses? Will openly gay partners be allowed to serve in the same units? Will gay fraternization be tolerated between a superior officer and people under their command? Will the UCMJ have to be changed or expanded to take into account all of the permutations that will now be in play with same sex partners? What about the unique medical issues that will come with an openly gay military? I guess we can look at the other openly gay militaries in other countries and use them as a template for our new policies and changes.

    As far as “acting like this is somehow going to provoke them even more is absurd” is an absurd comment in itself based on a white castle perspective with no knowledge of our enemy’s Political, Military, Economic, Social, Intelligence, Infrastructure or religious motivations for engaging us on the battlefield. Do you have a clue as to how Muslims in the CENTCOM AFPAK AOR feel about a homosexuality and how this will be used in their propaganda to inflame their new recruits in their calls for Jihad? It’s bad enough being an American Soldier in the field but to now allowing our enemy to cast a wide net over our soldiers as being guilty of crimes that are punishable by death in Islam only adds to the problem.

  • http://www.novacommonsense.com Brian Schoeneman

    Tim, I think we can both agree that the current administration’s policy of treating terrorists as criminals is a bad one. I was strongly against trying KSM in New York and I’ve been outspoken on keeping Gitmo open.

    If Congress decides to grant same sex military couples spousal benefits, that’s within their authority. I don’t see there being any need to change the current regs on fraternization – what goes for heterosexuals should go for homosexuals. They don’t deserve any more rights than their straight colleagues. They all are subject to the UCMJ.

    Yes, I have plenty of clues as to how they feel on the subject. I’m also aware of how they feel about “crusaders” invading their lands, how they feel about women in uniform, how they feel about Christians and Jews, etc. They aren’t having any problems recruiting as it is, and I won’t for moment let our enemies dictate how we run our armed forces. Why do you want to give them that kind of power?

  • Tim J

    We are not “giving them that kind of power”, we are handing them another cause.

  • HisRoc

    I find it interesting that those here who most oppose repealing DADT don’t seem to be military veterans while those who don’t have a problem with it, such as myself and William Bailey, are military retirees. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that it would be useful for those who have never served to explain why they believe that they have expertise in this subject. You first, Tim J.

  • http://www.shaunkenney.com Shaun Kenney

    @NYC –

    I said up front that I simplified. As for the rest… well, no scalps necessary. I just happen to disagree with you on this one.

  • Steven Osborne

    Belated Thought:

    Wasn’t Sparta an oligarchy and also rather statist?

  • Tim J

    Ok, Roc.. I was drafted, served, reenlisted to get out of country and crossed from the Marine Corps into the Navy. Mustanged to LDO, then line. We lost one sailor over the fantail during changing the midwatch while we were transiting the Straights of Messina at midnight which turned out to be a result of his sexual orientation. Several years later, some other people ended up missing on other ships, under similar circumstances. These incidents were investigated and the final determination was “Accident – missing at sea”. This was before DADT or women on ships, but the fact is that these individuals defined themselves in terms of their sexual orientation first, and then everything they were as a sailor after. I have strong opinions on this based those experiences and also based on my work on the asymmetric threats and warfare which continues today.

  • Samuel Gilleran

    Timeout.

    Tim J:
    Someone died on your ship because of his sexual orientation; it was covered up, officially recorded as an accident; you allege that this happened on other ships; and you’re okay with that. Not only are you okay with that, you expect that to convince us of the correctness of your position.

    Either something is seriously wrong here, or I’m horribly misreading your post.

  • Tim J

    Samuel, yes you read my post, with the exception that you jumped the shark with your comment “you are Ok with that” which I never implied but which you construed. I am just stating from experience an opinion and don’t seek to influence anyone else, just engage in the debate.

    These incidents were recorded as accidents or suicides and officially accepted as such. There was no proof that these people were murdered, they just disappeared at sea. It is purely coincidence that these people who were living an alternative lifestyle and talking about it are those who disappeared.

  • Samuel Gilleran

    By engaging in debate, you seek to influence others. That’s how debate works.

    In any event, I’m curious about what you think the impetus was for all these gay sailors to start jumping off their ships. That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense; why not just wait it out and not re-enlist?

  • HisRoc

    Tim J,

    I don’t mean to pile on here, but really!?!

    We should prohibit gays from serving openly because some homophobic might harm them? Then by the same logic we should not allow minorities to serve because some bigot might harm them.

    You experiences don’t speak highly of the level of discipline and self-respect among the crews of the ship you served on. It makes me wonder how much of this was tacitly condoned by the chain of command.

  • Tim j

    Wow Roc.. You’ve solved the mystery… The officers and men on Navy ships are homophobes and bigots with no discipline or self respect with a corrupt chain of command. I’m glad you are “retired” whatever that means.

  • HisRoc

    Tim J,

    I just interpreted the circumstances the way you described them. How did you know that the sailor went off the fantail? How did you know that it was the result of his sexual orientation?

    It sounds to me like a lot of people on that ship knew exactly what happened and refused to come forward. I think that you characterized it quite accurately.

  • Tim J

    Roc, your use of pejorative terms to “interpret” and cast a judgment about the incident is characteristic of the left where branding and dispersion are used to make their points. Since you agree with my summary which was strung together from your previous comment: “The officers and men on Navy ships are homophobes and bigots with no discipline or self respect with a corrupt chain of command. “ you obviously have some deep personal issues with the Navy and the people who serve. But that’s ok, because we are free to have our opinions and to struggle with our personal demons.

  • HisRoc

    Sorry, Tim J, but putting words in someone else’s mouth is also an endearing trait of the left. You are the one who said that officers and men on Navy ships are homophobes and bigots, not me. I can assure you that I have nothing but the deepest respect for everyone and anyone who has served this nation honorably in uniform, as I did for 25 years.

    The problem is that you painted yourself into a corner. You asserted that gays could not safely serve in the Navy because you knew of at least one sailor who was thrown (or jumped) overboard simply because he was gay. Again, I challenge you: how did you know that was the case unless you or others had knowledge of why he went over the fantail. If a crime was committed and it was covered up, then exactly how would you characterize the behavior of the crew?

  • HisRoc

    Did someone just fart in here?

  • Tim J

    Hmmmm… painted in a corner…. and putting words where there were no “assertions” of a crime or otherwise. As I said, it was one coincidence which you have twisted as a crime and again, and the only disparaging words used here have been sourced from your posts. In case you forgot, just look above. By the way, in what service did you serve?

  • Tim J

    In these times of tolerance and understanding, we have legislated a practice which will bring us closer to the Afghan people:

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/2010/12/afghan-sex-practices-concern-us-british-forces