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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.