Posted on May 11, 2015
1SG Special Forces Senior Sergeant
6.62K
24
10
1
1
0
This came up as a topic of conversation with my CPT the other day. We were talking about something and I made the comment "how is it in 2015 women are going to Ranger school with plans on forced SOF integration and same sex couples can marry but an NCO still can't date an officer?" Am I the only one who sees this a bit draconian? Especially since PFC Manning is sticking the Army with the bill for their treatment, thoughts?

http://www.defense.gov/specials/fraternization/#ARMY
Posted in these groups: Policy Policy2e48419c FraternizationRings Marriage
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 9
SSgt Administration
2
2
0
Edited >1 y ago
IMO, I think that the Fraternization Policy should be updated alongside the updates of DADT, Transgender, and any other 'lifestyle' conflictions that are currently being looked at. The history of Fraternization evolved from a caste system that was later updated to the policy of keeping good order and discipline. The reason why there is a similarity to why Fraternization should be reviewed along side DADT and other lifestyle policies is the same reason why there was a separation of genders, and why same sex sexual interests had policies against them, to the core they all have to do with good order and behavior. I know its not as simple to combine these areas, however to make my point quick, I will use just that standard of 'keeping good order and discipline'. The military is currently undergoing an extreme update when it comes to lifestyles and military traditions be it women in ranger school, DADT repealed, Same-sex benefits, and now the question if transgender will be accepted. All of these in a sense can cause a disruption to a good order and result into negative discipline. However we are the U.S Military, and when we are face with a brick in the wall, we find a policy to go around that brick and accomplish the mission! The Same Sex laws were passed due to Marriage equality, why should there be a prejudice of rank, when we have long moved passed race, and now gender? Some say because of unfavorable preference between the Chain of Command. To offer an advisement to that notion, if we are able to over come same sex sexual interests in same sex dormitories for training, and deployed locations, that would easily effect the good order and discipline, then why cant we come together to put the correct verbiage on an up to date policy on unprofessional relationships. How about, it is ill-advised for relationships within the members Chain of Command, however the Members Unit will handle at the lowest level on disciplinary actions if misconduct arises. Or something similar within rank, mil-to-mil marriages. As for personnel with joint spouse for an 'O' and 'E' marriage, maintain the highest ranking individual drives the assignment. There are currently 'O' and 'E' marriages in the military due to the grandfather policy, AFPC still makes it work with assignments to those individuals. Also speaking on the fact there is already mixed rank marriages, you do not see that causing a disruption to the good order and discipline of the military. Perseverance and being adaptable is what we need to be our cornerstone with all of these lifestyle changes.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
COL Jean (John) F. B.
2
2
0
I fail to see the connection you are trying to make. Fraternization is a senior-subordinate relationship that has the potential to impact the mission, show favoritism, impact morale, etc.

I am not a fan of the social experimentation the liberals force on the military, without regard to impact. I just don't see that as having anything to do with the fraternization issue, unless you are saying that we might as well go ahead and let anything go.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SGT Anthony Bussing
SGT Anthony Bussing
>1 y
sir,

you DO realize there have been gays in the military for decades, if not longer....I hardly call letting them finally serve in the open as a "liberal experiment"...and whats wrong with letting women try out combat arms? if they make it...great...if they dont...they dont...
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
2
2
0
What's there to change? Everything is covered as is regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close