Retired Military Chaplains Announce Support For Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Retired Military Chaplains Announce Support For Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Last week, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) revealed the legislative timeline for a repeal of the military’s discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy. “Military issues are always done as part of the overall authorization bill,” Frank told the Advocate. “’Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was always going to be part of the military authorization.”
Now, the movement to repeal the ban on gay men and women from serving openly in the military has gained even more momentum. Three former military chaplains are announcing today that they support a full repeal of the DADT. In a Q&A released by VoteVets, the three men, Charles D. Camp, Chaplain (Colonel), USA (Ret.), John F. Gundlach, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret.), and Jerry Rhyne, Chaplain (Colonel), USAF (Ret.), also addressed implementation concerns regarding a repeal:
What would be the impact of changing the current law on unit cohesion and morale?
The 2009 Joint Forces Quarterly article states clearly, “After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.” A 1993 RAND Corp. report concludes the same, as do several other military-commissioned reports. In addition, 68 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan troops said, according to a 2006 Zogby poll, they either knew for certain (23%) or suspected (45%) there were gays in their own unit. That means there are tens of thousands of known gay service members currently working and fighting alongside their straight peers, and there is no demonstrable negative impact on unit morale, cohesion or combat readiness. In fact, 73% of troops in the poll said they were “comfortable” in the presence of gay peers. [...]
Polling data from current U.S. troops combined with the experience of our foreign military allies demonstrate that known gays in a unit do not degrade morale, cohesion or operational readiness.
Disputing the claims often made by supporters of DADT, Camp, Gundlach, and Rhyne argue that repealing the policy would actually help the military’s recruitment and retention:
What would be the impact of changing the current law on recruiting and retention?
Repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would help recruiting and retention. The recent issue of Joint Forces Quarterly, an article—reportedly signed off on by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen–convincingly makes the case that current law has been “costly both in personnel and treasure,’’ referring to the cost of discharging service members and recruiting replacements, including those with language or other specialized skills. Approximately two service members are discharged each day under DADT. This number includes linguists, physicians, pilots and others highly trained personnel in mission critical specialties. Costs for the training of replacements are in the hundreds of millions. According to the UCLA’s Williams Institute, an estimated 2500-3000 service members either leave the service, or choose not to re-enlist, because of the law. When the number of involuntary discharges under “don’t ask, don’t tell” is combined with the voluntary attrition because of this law, the result is an annual loss of 4000 trained, experienced and often combat tested troops. Replacing these veterans with recent graduates of recruit training or newly commissioned officers would naturally reduce unit readiness.
VoteVets is “gathering names of veterans to give to the White House and Congress to let them know now is the time to overturn this discriminatory policy.” Veterans can sign the petition here and civilians can sign a petition of support here.
Access the full release and Q & A here (pdf).
35 Responses to “Retired Military Chaplains Announce Support For Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I just signed the petition.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:30 amAs A Veteran, it’s the least I can do.
DADT reflects negatively on the so-called he-man heroes of the Armed Forces, who apparently are frightened to death of gay boys.
Many hetero guys think that every gay guy in the world is after them, and these same guys, most of them fat slobs with major hygiene issues, think that they are sexually irresistible to any gay guy out there.
The amount of fantasizing about gay encounters on the part of these “straight” dudes is astounding.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:31 amIt’s about time. The hosility towards gays has got to stop.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:31 amIn a word, good.
It is the duty of the chaplain to provide spiritual comfort and raise morale amongst the troops. They cannot adequately do their job if members of the military are forced to live in the shadows.
There is a massive dichotomy between the support for ending DADT among the troops fighting…and support for the status quo, among the PR-hungry generals.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:34 amIt seems to me that repuglycans are just flat out terrified that some gay dude might come on to them.
They flatter themselves.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:35 amPetition signed.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:35 amJust before 9/11, virtually all the Arabic and Farsi speaking translators were thrown out of the Armed Forces because of this stupid, inane policy.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:36 amThis veteran just signed the petition, too.
I think people unsure of repealing this dumb policy get hung up on the term “serving openly”, as to what that means.
Think of it this way: heterosexuals currently serve openly, and that affects….well, no one that I can think of.
Just like gays “serving openly” in the military would affect no one. Big frigging deal.
Let’s get on with it, people, and move into the 21st Century for f***s sake.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:42 amVietnam Vet here – petition signed.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:54 amThis issue of “troop morale and cohesion” is just fancy talk for blaming the victims of bigotry. Military personnel are supposed to follow orders and contribute to the group mission. If any military person, gay or straight, causes problems, they can and should be so charged and through established disciplinary procedures dealt with – on an individual basis, not on the basis of their group status.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:55 amIf I could expound on #8:
When I took my son to the Navy recruiter. the recruiter and I got into a conversation. He said, “Kevin, this isn’t your Navy anymore”. I asked what he meant, and he said because of women now serving on naval vessels, he spends most of his time (when he was on sea duty) breaking up fights between men fighting over women and women fighting over men. When I asked him about “teh gays”, he said he had no problems with those he knew were gay, and wished the heteros acted more like them – i.e., professionally.
I guess that means if we want a more disciplined, profesional military we better start kicking out the heteros.
Maybe we need a “no he said/she said” policy or something.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:55 amThere, finally got enough time away from work to sign that petition. Having seen what I’ve seen, the whole policy is pretty damn stupid. I mean, 9 times out of 10 you can tell if one of your co-workers is gay. Well, lol, in the navy anyways. [And no Village People jokes! lol]
November 16th, 2009 at 11:57 amnam vet signed.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:01 pmMaybe we need a “no he said/she said” policy or something.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:04 pmThat right there is a great idea loki. Seriously, people get ruined by that whole “he said, she-said” line of sh!t.
Petition signed…
Those so hung up on another person’s sexuality should seek help themselves…
November 16th, 2009 at 12:05 pmThis VietNam vet just signed as signee 6,201.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:06 pmIn this corner, Three Sky Pilots, speaking words of wisdom…
And in this corner, a Convention of South Ron Talibabtists and unsorted homophobes, whining, whimpering, and swooning, I tell ya, swooning, at the very thought that Adam and Steve might be permitted to volunteer…
Now shake hands boys, return to your corners and when the bell rings, come out fighting…
(well, maybe not “come out”, that might be considered a bit suggestive to that Talibabtist that just fainted over there)
November 16th, 2009 at 12:11 pmI’m so happy that chaplains are voicing their support for repealing DADT. While there are a growing number of “open and affirming” churches out there, they rarely get the spotlight. It would be great for some of their clergymen/women push aside the fundies, even if only long enough to end the nonsense that is DADT.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:23 pm@ 11. lokidog says: If I could expound on #8: When I took my son to the Navy recruiter. the recruiter and I got into a conversation. He said, “Kevin, this isn’t your Navy anymore”. I asked what he meant, and he said because of women now serving on naval vessels, he spends most of his time (when he was on sea duty) breaking up fights between men fighting over women and women fighting over men. When I asked him about “teh gays”, he said he had no problems with those he knew were gay, and wished the heteros acted more like them – i.e., professionally. I guess that means if we want a more disciplined, profesional military we better start kicking out the heteros. Maybe we need a “no he said/she said” policy or something. November 16th, 2009 at 11:55 am
It would probably help if the recruiters would focus on adults, rather than adolescents; it’s difficult to establish whether the person standing in front of you had reached the point of emotional stability where they can behave professionally around people they’d like to boink, but it still needs to be done.
It isn’t my Navy anymore, either, lokidog, but in my Navy, we always had someone or ones who were trying to sneak a girl, woman, ho, or other female person aboard. OTOH, the guys in my particular division and I preferred to keep our mama-sans and shipboard life separate.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:23 pmThe argument that the presence of gay people in the military because it would negatively affect the forces is akin to the argument that integration of blacks would negatively affect the forces. It is a bogus argument designed to permit covert discrimination. When people enlist they understand that their are policies that must be followed regardless of any personal feelings. If a hetero has a problem with a gay person, then it is the hetero’s personal issue and not the armed services. In reality, the argument is merely a justification of prejudice.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:29 pmSigned.
Since DADT (1993) the US military establishment could and did point to Allied militaries to help justify dishonorably discharging service members for their sexuality, regardless of their professional qualities, and the British Armed Forces were particularly cited in this regard.
High ranking officers of the British military reciprocated.
General Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley:
But although in 1999 65% of British servicemen expressed opposition or ‘discomfort’ to gays serving openly, the British government complied withe the European Court of Human Rights ruling, and ended discrimination in 2000.
Just 10 months after the ban was lifted, parts of an ongoing MOD investigation into the effect of the policy change were leaked and the findings at that point were that there had been NO CHANGE in either morale or efficiency.
What’s more the expressed fears of serving heterosexuals towards the ending of the ban has more than reversed—it became a non-issue.
An officer in the Parachute Regiment said: “I’ve known of one case since the lifting of the ban where the lads have assumed someone to be gay. He has been left alone and is doing well. Our key priority is recruiting tough, fit, team players. We need as many as possible. This sex thing has nothing whatsoever to do with their ability as soldiers. It appears to be an obsession of armchair warriors.”
As a matter of interest, the majority of SAS soldiers come from the Parachute regiments.
In a 2004 study by The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities (CSSMM) in the Military (University of California, Santa Barbara, USA) it was found that openly gay service personnel who served in multinational units with American forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom and other joint operations
did not undermine unit cohesion, were accepted by U.S. soldiers they served with on a daily basis, and promoted the successful accomplishment of their units’ missions.
http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/20040210001.htm
UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Germany, Austria, France, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Estonia, Lithuania, Czech Republic and Israel all accept the openly gay in their armed forces.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pmI worked with “the openly gay” in construction, and the work still got done.
I worked with “the openly gay” on IT projects , and the work got done.
Barney Frank is openly gay, and what effect has HE had on cohesion and morale in Congress?
November 16th, 2009 at 12:42 pmTed Haggard wasn’topenly gay, and did crystal meth.
virtual pebble says:
OTOH, the guys in my particular division and I preferred to keep our mama-sans and shipboard life separate.
The only way to go. Although I must admit I did like to bring aboard some of the – ahem – local “wares” (for future reference) whenever we visited Thailand.
And I ain’t talkin’ about women…cough, cough…..
Those Thai sure knew how to tend to their “gardens”. Thanks for taking me back to some good memories, vp!
November 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pmThank you to all the vets here for your service, and thank you for signing the petition. And bravo to these retired chaplains! DADT is a ludicrous policy. We need the talents of all people in the military.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pmI am really starting to worry about bit….
November 16th, 2009 at 3:43 pmdbadass, I thought I’d check back to see if bit showed up and am rather surprised he has not. I wonder if someone close to him came out of the closet and shook his secure little world.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:59 pmDon’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:59 pmFor crying out loud, Kenneth, if one doesn’t “practice” homosexuality, how can they ever hope to get good at it?
Seriously, you believe what you wish. Just don’t try to legislate it.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:04 pmHi Kenneth:
November 16th, 2009 at 6:04 pmCheck out a text called Evolution’s Rainbow. I think you will dig it….
drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:05 pm—
Shit there goes the the entire republican party….
Apparently, Kenneth’s God has no intention of willing his kingdom to anyone given that he made it clear that all men sin.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:07 pmWell I hope the ladies enjoy it…
November 16th, 2009 at 6:14 pmKenneth did mention only male prostitutes.
Ann Coulter has absolutely no chance, does she?
November 16th, 2009 at 6:16 pm#28 – PatrioticLiberalChristian says:
———————————————————
“Seriously, you (Kenneth) believe what you wish. Just don’t try to legislate it.”
November 16th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Why do these self-proclaimed “c”hristians always have to force their lifestyle in our faces, no matter what we think about God? Why can’t they keep it to themselves?
(Tongue firmly in cheek as I co-opt the favorite rallying whine of the right-whiners.)
November 16th, 2009 at 7:09 pmI’m not a vet (the service was less than thrilled by women enlistees in the early ’70’s, or I might have signed up) but I have signed several petitions from my yahoo inbox.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:37 am