Discrimination in the Military is MANDATED…the policy is antiquated and needs reform! | We the...

A friend of mine started this petition...I think it is worth signing!

In the light of recent discussions regarding equality for all and the importance that “love has no labels” I am writing this petition requesting a formal explanation of the fraternization policy for all military members. From personal perspective – I have never understood it. In the military, discrimination is not tolerated – Not racism, not sexism, no discrimination of gender identification, single parents, no direct or indirect discrimination is tolerated, however, the military MANDATES classism discrimination (the segregation of military members by rank; also known as fraternization).

Many military members have received varied degrees of punishment for violating both the not tolerated and mandated forms of discrimination

Little discussion needs to be made to validate that service members and their supervisors should not be allowed to have certain types of relationships. However, in light of the world that we are in today a huge discussion should be had to validate the importance of mandating classism discrimination within the ranks.

Many have sat through fraternization classes and many have asked…why? Why is there clear cut separation of military members based on rank alone…there is no clear answer. Any combination of relationships between commissioned officers, warrants, and enlisted Soldiers can be described as unauthorized “for the good of the organization” but what does that mean? How does a military that refuses to get involved in civil matters have the good conscious to implement mandated discriminatory rules on relationships that essentially have no impact on professional growth and development of any military member in question.

The uniformed code of military justice states: (1) That the accused was a commissioned or warrant officer; (2) That the accused fraternized on terms of military equality with one or more certain enlisted member(s) in a certain manner; (3) That the accused then knew the person(s) to be (an) enlisted member(s); (4) That such fraternization violated the custom of the accused’s service that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted members on terms of military equality; and (5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. In general. The gist of this offense is a violation of the custom of the armed forces against fraternization. Not all contact or association between officers and enlisted persons is an offense. Whether the contact or association in question is an offense depends on the surrounding circumstances.
Each military branch has their own interpretation of this article.
In 2014, a more stringent Army regulation 600-20 Army Command Policy was released. This AR “clarifies the fraternization policy between noncommissioned officers and junior enlisted Soldiers.” By regulation, it is acceptable for a more junior noncommissioned officer and a sergeant major to fraternize as well as a W1 and a General of any star count; however, two likeminded individuals of approximately the same age, same moral compass, but different rank class could not be in a relationship of any kind based solely on the class of connection to the military of these individuals. This Army regulation specifically calls out ongoing business relationships, dating, and gambling.

In 2016, an Air Force Instruction publication AFI36-2909 was released. This AFI explains “The custom
recognizes that officers will not form personal relationships with enlisted members on terms
of military equality, whether on or off-duty.” The AFI uses the term “military equality” to explain the discrimination. The AFI offers an explanation of “Military experience has shown that certain kinds of personal relationships present a high risk of becoming unprofessional.” What if this situation never presents?

The Navy further limits relationships that cross over service boundaries. What none of these instructional guidelines do is explain why. Guidelines are made in many organizations which limit the ability for supervisory:employee relationships. Unlike the military, few if any, of these same organizations impede relationships that do not fit in the supervisory:employee situation.

The history of this article dates back to World War II believing “The custom again undue familiarity was based on class distinctions as well as discipline since officers in theory came mostly from the “upper class” World War II had a profound impact on the officer corps of the Army”…”the custom changed slightly during the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam. The following two major aspects remained: (1) The major focus on officer-enlisted relationships. (2) the concept that officers and enlisted Soldiers should NOT associate on a basis of military equality, thereby affecting good order and military discipline. The latter aspect is the very definition of Classism: Prejudice against or in favor of people belonging to a particular social class.

From a government that begins and ends each formal event with prayer and from a government that has finally seen that love has no labels and embraced that traditional families are not definable by only a man and woman; rather families come in many combinations – it would seem that this same government would abolish this imposed discrimination or offer a reasonable valid explanation for its existence.

Parts of the military are molding and conforming to the world around us; women are now authorized to hold combat positions, the don’t ask don’t tell policy was not re-imposed, transgender military members are not only being accepted within the ranks but their transitions are being embraced; lastly earbuds are authorized…Yet, many parts of the military regulations remain antiquated and for no good reason other than they are not currently a focus of a vast group of people. It is for these and other reasons that the military should revalidate its current policy on discrimination as it pertains to fraternization.