In the Senate, Senator Saxby Chambliss said," The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that excludes persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces high standards, the morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion."
On Chris Matthews, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said, "Because the presence of homosexuals in the military is incompatible with good order, morale, discipline and unit cohesion. That’s exactly what Congress found in 1993 and that’s what the law states!"
They are quoting from this:
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
Public Law No. 103-160, § 546, 107 Stat. 1670 (1993) (codified at 10 U.S.C. A. § 654)
I guess "body art" is Chambliss original ["Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life, and military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs and traditions – including restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian society. Examples include alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art."]…
What the regs are about is to restrict tatoos that distract from the wearing of the uniform…its the same thing that drives sanctions for disporting of headgear out of doors, general appearance – i.e., the “gig” line, proper display of insignia, hairstyle and the like. Saxby Chambliss doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground – doesn’t have sense enough to recognize it. It is a good thing that the American military has civilian bosses and that they take seriously their microcosm-of-society role. I’m not sure that the all volunteer force is such a good thing – it makes the job of the military manager easier (there’s always the trump card to play – “you volunteered”) but it also has led to REALLY BIG problems. Pause briefly on the “exclude persons” language…and then the inglorious relaxation of standards that have occurred in recruitment since the dawn of the last decade….convicted felons, high school dropouts, gang bangers – all have been welcomed to the fields of Baghdad and Kabul with little attention paid to their rehabilitation outside of immersion into military life. Back in the 50s and 60s, a Judge would give a delinquent on the verge of incarceration a choice of enlisting or doing time. Even then, the delinquent had to pass more of a muster than in the past 10 years – I’m sure of this, though I don’t have the data to back the claim. But if Sen. Saxby is free to stand up and talk nonsense, I, an actual veteran should be able to do the same.
Compare our selection and ongoing psychological training standards to almost any other standing Army in the developed world and weep.
Opinion from my foxhole: my soldiers seem to be, in the main, ‘agin the notion of openly gay service…they, like the gentleman from Georgia, are unimpressed with Adm. Mullen’s assessment (Gen. Powell, Sen. Nunn) or even the fact that the sponsor of the repeal effort in the House is himself a heterosexual, former Army Captain and combat veteran. They tend not to believe the data that NATO armies who have taken this step of fundamental moral fairness, have not gone all to hell in a handcart which everybody predicted would happen but did not.
They have fear of something they do not understand and they have uninformed opinions because of their fear.
They believe that gays in the military will become a protected class and thus gain unfair advantages…they will be excused from performance standards that straight soldiers would not be excused from and so forth.
They may be experiencing a kind of nostalgia for the freedom they have enjoyed to be mirthful at the expense of “gay-ness”. This has been modeled for them by their leadership.
I say let the legions go who are supposedly going to abandon their Army careers because they can’t stand the idea of serving with fags. It is unlikely but even if the attrition is noticeable, the force will be better off for shedding them back to their civilian communities. I can almost hear the job interviews where they admit to leaving their careers for this reason.