Gay, Lesbian, Bisexuals Soon To Be Granted Protected Class Status By DOD: Is this policy consistent with the UCMJ and Service Culture?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 May 2015 11:27:25 -0400

According to a report in the Washington Blade and then republished in the British media, the DOD is set to announce as early as next week a major revision to it's Equal Opportunity Policy that will include sexual orientation as a Protected Class. What do you think, RP? Is granting Protected Class status conducive to maintaining good order and discipline in a fair and equitable manner for all Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guard personnel or is it giving a certain class of personnel more protections than others?

Good news for gay people in the US Military

The Pentagon will update its Military Equal Opportunity policy to include sexual orientation as a protected class as soon as next month a defence official has confirmed.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made May 30 at 2015 11:32 AM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Sat, 30 May 2015 11:32:47 -0400

I didn't even know that was a thing.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 30 at 2015 11:35 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 30 May 2015 11:35:54 -0400

In the words of Bill & Ted, "Be Excellent to Each Other."

I understand the need for protected classes, though don't agree with it. I would hope that we can eventually evolve past the need for them.

That said, I answered "Other" because it may be a matter of necessity. I think it's something that should definitely "expire" however we still have episodes of Racism, and heaven help us Sexism hasn't been stomped out yet, so putting a date on it won't work.

If someone is discriminating based on something as frivolous as X/Y/Z, we need to get them out of the service where they do harm elsewhere.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made May 30 at 2015 11:39 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sat, 30 May 2015 11:39:17 -0400

I think there is valid reason to be concerned whenever one group is considered "protected" and another isn't. At the very least, there will be those who perceive that personnel in the protected class are receiving something that they are not. Obviously, a lot has to do with how commanders implement the policy and whether they are seen as biased one way or the other.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 11:44 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 May 2015 11:44:51 -0400

All Soldiers, should be treated fairly. EO covers the big 5, adding another shouldn't change anything if we, as leaders, do our job to give respect and fairness to all our troops.

Response by PO3 David Fries made May 30 at 2015 11:56 AM

PO3 David Fries — Sat, 30 May 2015 11:56:03 -0400

I have no issue with anyone's choice in who they love. That being said, in my opinion, if we have to make someone "protected" then it throws equality straight out the window.
Yes, I know that there is homophobia, racism, sexism, and everything else in the military. It is everywhere in our world. However, I believe overcoming those things, without having to "hide" behind protection makes people great. I was bullied as a child. I was nerdy, weak, a momma's boy, and wore clothes from the Salvation Army. I stopped the bullying by finally fighting back, not because someone listed "nerdy kids getting beat up" as a protected class.

Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made May 30 at 2015 12:05 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Sat, 30 May 2015 12:05:06 -0400

This is what redefining marriage is all about. I retired before Obama evolved . They knew he lied. I have on my read things in FB that you have to attend an orientation class about homosexuality. Being in the military is about serving your country . Not your life style or agenda. You saw what they did to the pizza owner who just said he would not carter a gay wedding. And this is not the fifties. To get back to the question . Blacks and Jews are a protected a class. In my opinion the military is going to loose a lot of good people. Please bear with me if I went to fare.

Response by SPC Daniel Bowen made May 30 at 2015 12:49 PM

SPC Daniel Bowen — Sat, 30 May 2015 12:49:15 -0400

I will never look down on someone nor ever judge them based on sexual orientation, but then again, all sexual orientations should fall under the same protection, not just a select number. No matter what your orientation, you're a soldier. As long as you do your job you fall in line right next to the rest of us who served honorably.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made May 30 at 2015 1:03 PM

SGT Lawrence Corser — Sat, 30 May 2015 13:03:35 -0400

if they can serve with pride and dont bring down the mission I personally dont care what anyone does in their private quarters. other than kiddy touching.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 1:09 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 May 2015 13:09:06 -0400

Not only no, but HELL NO!!!

Response by SSG James Arlington made May 30 at 2015 1:32 PM

SSG James Arlington — Sat, 30 May 2015 13:32:05 -0400

My new novel features a character based on a fellow comrade who, well, you get the gist. MY WAR WITH HEMINGWAY. They don't call it a "lifestyle." Do you call heterosexuality a lifestyle?

Response by SGT Nia Chiaraluce made May 30 at 2015 1:49 PM

SGT Nia Chiaraluce — Sat, 30 May 2015 13:49:58 -0400

I honestly think making a protected class for LBGT soldiers is getting away from where mission focus ought to be and needs to be. I am not saying bring back don't ask don't tell, but in my professional opinion my sexuality has nothing to do with my duties as a US soldier. Sexuality to me in this context a distraction taking away from our mission focus. Now if we want to focus on rights I strongly believe should be fought for regarding LGBT soldiers and families, I do think their children should have the same rights straight married couples do. With that injustice aside I think EO should be viewed as equal opportunities for both male and female soldiers. Regardless if they are gay, Muslim, transgendered or believe polyamory.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 3:31 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 May 2015 15:31:20 -0400

I am sad to see that, as of this posting, there are 11% of the respondents who think I shouldn't be allowed to serve.

I am pleased that the comments have more or less been saying that a person should be judged by their capabilities versus personal factors. I agree that we shouldn't need any protected classes, but I also have seen a reality that argued otherwise. I've seen a unit where black Airmen were given tougher penalties for minor infractions than their white counterparts. I've been fortunate that, aftwr coming out with the repeal of DADT, my unit hasn't had any problems. I can't say my unit is typical of the military, much less the Air National Guard.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made May 30 at 2015 3:37 PM

SA Harold Hansmann — Sat, 30 May 2015 15:37:56 -0400

I am not homophobic nor am I a homosexual, as long as people keep their religion, sexual orientation, and what ever else to themselves, welcome to my foxhole. As long as the enemy dies for his country and we help him achieve that goal. I really don't care what your preferences are.

Response by LCpl Rustin Poorboy made May 30 at 2015 3:52 PM

LCpl Rustin Poorboy — Sat, 30 May 2015 15:52:08 -0400

Who cares I would imagine less homosexuals are attracted to me than females and i would assume thats not many either so I don't flatter myself with this physique lol

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 4:17 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 May 2015 16:17:35 -0400

Technically, this change does not protect gays and lesbians specifically. It just renders it illegal to discriminate against a SM based on their sexual orientation-whether the SM in question is heterosexual or homosexual. This is really a no-brainer move. A good leader and/or battle buddy does not discriminate based on such trivial attributes as sexual orientation. One team, one fight!

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made May 30 at 2015 4:35 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sat, 30 May 2015 16:35:29 -0400

Seems legit. The Air Force was the first to fully integrate (1949) and there are still complaints based on race.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made May 30 at 2015 4:58 PM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Sat, 30 May 2015 16:58:16 -0400

No this will make them permanent victims and then if you breath in their general direction and the feel uncomfortable then a investigation will follow and then the end of your career.
Maybe a little extreme but I think you get the point

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 5:47 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 May 2015 17:47:49 -0400

Number 4. this was one of those consequences. Affirmative action codified.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made May 30 at 2015 7:21 PM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Sat, 30 May 2015 19:21:27 -0400

I am a happily married gay woman retiree. I guess my only thought is that hate crimes have been legislated because of the inherent bias on a particular group. I hear the lovely pejoratives "dyke", "fag", and "queer" and am constantly reminded I am no where near that idea American hegemonic (white, straight, married, Christian). I think I hear the stuff that I do because of what I am. As for the UCMJ. Good question. I'd like to think that the Military is EEO enough. But I retired before DADT repeal so I am undecided.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made May 30 at 2015 7:47 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Sat, 30 May 2015 19:47:04 -0400

I think limitedly its a good idea. I'm in favor of this life style, but I also see where women and minorities still have problems in sectors of life, which makes me more supportive of it but at the same time women and minorities do not have it but they suffer. I guess I'm not explaining my position too well... it all boils down to it'd be great if they didn't have to have it, but for a limited time because of the homophobia in our country it might be good for a bit.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 7:50 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 May 2015 19:50:37 -0400

Seeing as there are still problems with racial discrimination, gender discrimination & religious discrimination, it seems only logical to add the gay/lesbian community to list. Until people can accept people for who/what they are, it is necessary.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 30 at 2015 7:59 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 30 May 2015 19:59:35 -0400

Sounds Good to me. About Time!

Response by SGT Darryl Allen made May 30 at 2015 8:11 PM

SGT Darryl Allen — Sat, 30 May 2015 20:11:30 -0400

There are a lot of people saying that this is a victory for gay people in the military, but really, this is a victory for all members of the military. Essentially what this says is that, regardless of your sexual orientation, it cannot be used against you. While the is overtly aimed at homosexuals due to the conflict that it sometimes causes, it can be equally used to protect heterosexuals from being denied favorable actions based on their sexual orientation (which I'm sure would be a rare case, but I've actually seen homosexual favoritism in a platoon of mine). And I don't see this being an issue with most SMs anyway, I've found that while a lot of people in the military are quite outspoken about their dislike of the homosexual lifestyle; most of them do not cause any problems when working with gay people.

I see this as a welcome change, and rightfully so, all SMs deserve fair and impartial treatment by their seniors as well as their fellow SMs. I understand that this is a controversial topic, especially in the military where Christianity holds sway as the predominant religion among SMs, but your fellow SMs are more than their sexual orientation, the same way they are more than their skin color, or religion, or sex; they're brothers and sisters voluntarily serving in the greatest military in the world; and they're doing so right beside you. So you should have their back, because they've probably got yours.

Response by SGT Richard H. made May 30 at 2015 9:40 PM

SGT Richard H. — Sat, 30 May 2015 21:40:13 -0400

My humble opinion is that being granted "protected class" status accomplishes the exact opposite of what this particular demographic is trying to accomplish. True equality doesn't require separate protections.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made May 30 at 2015 10:35 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Sat, 30 May 2015 22:35:54 -0400

I personally don't care what an individual's orientation is. People have been serving in all militaries with all types of orientation for hundreds and thousands of years. You went through GYM class, if you did sports you probably have showered with various orientations FOR YEARS! Sorry. I think that as professionals, we have the capability to ACT that way (like a professional)...around everyone. I think that protected status only paints a bigger target on the issue. People will be arguing about over protection, under protection, double standards..... 1 standard, all people, period.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 12:25 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 May 2015 00:25:28 -0400

Looks like 55% know this policy is wrong. And 42% are confused here on RP. My retirement date of 1 Jan 2016 can't come fast enough.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 31 at 2015 11:22 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sun, 31 May 2015 11:22:44 -0400

Of course. Homosexuals have been serving proudly since the first gay caveman grabbed a club and joined the ranks, and have contributed in every single conflict we've ever participated in. It only makes sense to stop pretending otherwise

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 12:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 May 2015 12:49:58 -0400

This entire subject troubles me. Not because I don't think everyone should be treated fairly. As an African American I understand the need for regulations granting fair treatment and punishment for those that don't want to treat everyone fairly. I still think it's unfortunate that as a society we are still unable to look at a persons character and treat them accordingly. There are still people that have old ideologies which are passed on. Until the "climate" of America changes, we will continue to need legislation to police the actions of people!

To quote a music group for the late 80's "Spread love instead of spreading lies!" - Take 6

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 1:29 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:29:39 -0400

I understand where they are going with it. HOWEVER I feel it shouldn't be an issue at all. As we should all be tolerant and accepting of our brothers and sisters even if we do not agree. With that said we can all recognize there are many people who are not that way and there may be nothing that can be done. Inside the military we can foster that culture change easier than the general public but I just don't see why people get so hung up on who a person likes to engage in private matters with, instead of how they are as a person. Same can be said for other races and religions too.

I do NOT care what you do behind closed doors in the name of love, religion as long as it is not illegal or inhibits the mission, or others ability to love and worship. Treat others with respect and kindness, I think that will solve so many of our problems as a society.

Response by MCPO Brian Legg made Jun 2 at 2015 1:51 PM

MCPO Brian Legg — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:51:15 -0400

So glad that I retired when I did. All of this is a lot of noise which distracts from the job of completing the mission. If I were still active I would say that these policies distract me from leading my Sailors in the best way that I know how; promote the hard workers and train up the slackers. Nothing else much matters.

Response by Spc 1 J W. made Jun 3 at 2015 8:01 PM

Spc 1 J W. — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:01:34 -0400

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution should cover this subject. Equal protection under the law.

Response by SCPO Lee Pradia made Jun 12 at 2015 11:22 AM

SCPO Lee Pradia — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:22:48 -0400

You know, I'll never understand why we're in people's sex lives, I mean, we're not concerned about the sexual practices of hetero couples, why homo couples? Do they need protection? Yes, from predictors who wish them harm. Also puzzling to me is, the Federal Government has rules and laws against discrimination for a person's sex, age, race, religion, sexual preferences and so forth, is this something new for America's Armed Services? Why are we so behind the rest of the world?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 12:19 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 12:19:51 -0400

Shouldn't we all be protected? Isn't making a group a protected class considered discrimination in one way?