Please enlighten me (I apologize for my ignorance). Is there a specific honest-to-God, passed by Congress, signed by the President law not permitting openly gay indivduals from serving in the United States Armed Forces? Or is this a product of deeply entrenched policy? Just wondering.

Homosexual sex is prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Early in President Clinton's first term there were some changes made to how that particular law is enforced, commonly known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (basically a way of allowing gays to remain in the service as long as they aren't open about their sexuality). So the current situation is a combination of laws enacted by Congress (the UCMJ) and the application of policy.

And to Jim, I certainly don't want the military to disobey the laws enacted by Congress. I just think it's time to take a serious look at changing those laws. Sgt Stout, unfortunately, has to go, but perhaps his case can trigger a re-thinking of how the military deals with gay servicemembers.

However, I do think that rule is overdue for a review. This isn't the same military I joined 19 years ago. Back then, society in general was not as tolerant of homosexuality, and especially so the military, with its necessarily exaggerated notions of masculinity. Today, the pool of potential enlistees is generally quite tolerant of homosexuality, so the original rationale for prohibiting gays from serving seems, to me anyway, rather obsolete.

I personally would have no problem whatsoever with allowing gays to be open about their sexuality and remain on active duty or in the reserve components, subject to the same restrictions against fraternization and inappropriate sexual conduct that heterosexuals must follow. It seems pretty stupid to be dismissing people in critical specialties just for being gay.

"He could certainly have kept his homosexuality private had remaining a soldier been his top priority."

Only the monumental arrogance of the abysmally ignorant could produce such a piece of shit as that.

Just try to think for a minute, James: put yourself into the same situation and reverse the roles. Could you hide your heterosexuality from a bunch of your homosexual buddies? Would you want to? How would you feel about being forced to? How would you react to some dumb-ass, two-bit blogger pontificating that it's your responsibility to hide?

Or, how about this: Do you really want an army full of lying soldiers who are living every day in an agony of conflict?

Do you imagine that we queers come equipped differently than you do? That we have some alien ability to switch off at will one of the most important parts of our selves?

Try thinking before you write, James. I know there's something good in you but, Jesus! you need to be spanked!

John Hall
Seattle Washington
jfhseattle@cablespeed.com

And those people have that belief based on error and bigotry. If the powerful Israeli, British, and Canadian military has had no problems integrating open gays and bisexuals into the military, it is irrational to think there is any logical reason to keep the current, antiquated policy. People who think the current policy is "right" are wrong.

[Goes back to post to make sure answer not prominently displayed ... check. Proceeds with comment.]

Somehow, male and female soldiers are able to serve even though there's a theoretical possibility that some will be sexually attracted to others. So I'm missing something here.

Most of the very same people - especially James - would have a fit if instead of declaring his sexual preference he were trying to bring water to Schiavo two weeks ago because he thought what was being done with her was "wrong".

For the record, a lot of people think the rule about gays in the military is "right". The military is not a microcosm of everyday life and has to have different rules and procedures.

I don't think I'm being condescending, just noting that his own actions brought on the fight. The Army is doing what Congress has mandated they do under the law.