Unlike people like Pat Robertson, I don’t automatically say straight white people (even in the military) are bad or the enemy. But people ARE loathe to recognize, much less try to diminish, their privileges, which is why we can hardly expect straight white male military leaders to all want to welcome, say, lesbians of color in the military. Do you see what I’m saying?

I noticed you didn’t call me out and say that women can be homophobic as well.

I also didn’t call you out on the “old” part, though in fact I thought that every adjective in your litany apart from “homophobic” was gratuitous in the context.

When you string together terms like that, it’s apt to sound like a rote formula to people not immersed in your progressive worldview, and who don’t necessarily share your assumptions that being white or being male or being heterosexual brings automatic “privilege.”

And you also sound not totally dissimilar to someone like Pat Robertson ranting against the Usual Suspects like “atheists, feminists, and homosexuals”.

First, Throbert McGee, my wording of “homophobic old white men” was very deliberate. While you said that homophobia is also prevalent among old military men of color (which is very true), I noticed you didn’t call me out and say that women can be homophobic as well. Each of those words implies a specific prejudice. Homophobic is obvious, old is generally connoted with being more conservative, whiteness connotes privilege and sometimes prejudice against people of color (which is relevant considering all the equations of repeal of DADT with the integration of people of color into the military), and being male connotes privilege and sometimes prejudice against women (also relevant with equations of repeal of DADT with integration of women).
I wasn’t saying only white men in the military can be homophobic, but I was saying that some military leaders are not only homophobic but also racist and sexist. I didn’t “misspeak”; you misread me.

As for mikenola, following the DADT repeal process as I have been, I’ve seen the Pentagon’s report on repeal, which specifically said that LGB servicemembers will not be included as a “protected class” under Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) policy. That’s not me being disingenuous, that’s a fact. Not codifying non-discriminatory language into law will make it harder for LGB servicemembers to get official recourse when they experience harassment or discriminatory treatment at any level for their sexual orientation.
This isn’t just my opinion, either; this is the opinion of Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine Captain and the executive director of Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN). Here’s the link to her statement about the MEO policy issue:
http://gay.americablog.com/2011/01/swans-anu-bhagwati-on-dods-civil-rights.html

“All the little angels rise up high.”

TRiG.

you said “Considering the whole “LGB people will be left out of MEO regulations” thing and how that’s going to make life hell for gay service members even after implementation of repeal, that was kind of a failure on his part.”

What makes you think that Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) will be denied to gay service members?

The fact of the matter is that DADT generated a class of military member, repeal removes that class.

if you had any clue about Military Life from the inside, instead of just spouting garbage that you think sounds smart, you would know that the Military has a core commitment to EEO for all Service Members.

By law and regulation all military members of the same paygrade are entitled to the exact same opportunities except as specifically banded by law. The remaining discriminatory legal block is full integration of women into combat roles. That block, like dadt, is caused by a social view in Congress that women should not be in direct combat. As a side note the JCS just received a recommendation from their own staffs to ask congress to remove that block.

Once the Repeal is in force it sets up a dynamic for the national stage on LGBT rights that only benefits LGBT people.

the military, under federal regulation and law, MUST treat all service members equally. All rights and responsibilities must be applied equally. LGBT military members who legally wed MUST be given the exact same things as heteros get.

This generates a legal conundrum for the Government and DOMA. Military Benefits transcend state regulations, rules, laws and constitutions. Taxes and tax breaks MUST be applied equally. The same with housing, loans, education, insurance etc.

The power and weight of the Military Legal system will by regulation have to join in fighting for the repeal of DOMA. Assuming that repeal is done by summer, the timing could not be more perfect for SCOTUS to hear the DOMA cases in the pipeline and the newest one out of CA will be a great backstop if the first set are rejected by SCOTUS.

the military has learned the hard way that creating separate benefits, or applying the unequally at the same pay grade, entangles them in lawsuits that they will ALWAYS lose because doing so violates their own regulations.

So Meredith, this garbage about MEO is just clap trap. There will be bumps and problems for the first few years, that does not mean we are left out in the cold

USN ATC/E7(ret) Mikenola

That’s the way it works in the military.

thanks for catching that. fixed