NY-20: GOP’s Gibson faced “don’t ask-don’t tell” first hand
Republican Chris Gibson says he wants to wait for a Defense Department report before announcing how he would vote on the controversial “don’t ask-don’t tell” policy, which bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the US military.
His opponent, Democratic incumbent Scott Murphy, says he wants to repeal the ban, describing it as discriminatory and comparing it to the racial segregation that was once standard military policy in the US.
The interesting thing about Gibson’s position is that the former Army colonel, who served as an active duty officer until earlier this year, appears to have actually administered the policy first-hand.
Asked about the issue by Albany Times-Union reporter Jimmy Vielkind during a debate hosted by WMHT, Gibson said this:
“Well, the first thing is, I’ve had very little personal experiences with [dont ask-don’t tell] over 24 years,” he said. “There were only two cases that I had in 24 years.”
It’s unclear exactly what actions Gibson took regarding these cases, or what the outcomes were for the soldiers involved.
It’s also unclear whether they occurred while Gibson was in command of the 2nd Brigade combat team of the 82nd Airborne Division, where he led more than 3,000 soldiers.
Asked by NCPR for clarification, the Gibson campaign declined to offer any further details.
Here’s the message sent to me by campaign spokesman Daniel Odescalchi:
“[Chris Gibson] has been a soldier his entire professional life and understands the complexity of this issue far more than those who have not served to the extent he has.”
During the debate, Vielkind asked Gibson to clarify whether he feels that the policy is discriminatory. The candidate answered this way:
“It’s actually a fundamental tension between two American values, equality — the equality for law abiding citizens to enjoy a complete American life — and privacy. Those that volunteer to have their privacy respected in close quarters, including in situations overseas when they’re in combat. And how those two fundamental values are reconciled I think is going to have everything to do with readiness.”
Murphy and Gibson agree that this issue should be settled by Congress, not by the courts.
If he wins on Tuesday, it appears that Gibson will be one of very few representatives from either party to have actually administered don’t-ask-don’t tell as a military officer.
Tags: election10, glbt
Eliminating DADT would constitute no clash at all between privacy and equality. I am certain gay soldiers would respect the privacy of their straight colleagues… just as they’ve been doing since the US military was founded. They just want that the favor be returned.
I wish the “courageous” Col. Gibson would have the guts to take a public position on this. For all his reverence to that loudmouth Jerry Solomon, at least Solomon, for better or (usually) worse, never ducked an issue.
It is very clear that Gibson doesn’t understand what privacy means.
I can tell you for a fact that I took showers in high school gym class with people who were gay. And so, probably have you. Deal with it.
By the way, none of them ever attacked me although I’m sure they found me incredibly sexy.
By the way, chances are that your children who are in gym classes or team sports are taking showers with gay students, if they themselves are not in fact gay themselves.
If your kids can deal with it without a national policy then a Marine or Army Ranger or Navy Seal can deal with it.
Oh, and if you’re kids are gay it is okay. I’m sure you will love them anyway because they are good kids.
While I have great respect for Col. Gibson and thank him for his service to our country, I take issue with his claim that this is such a complicated issue. Certainly prejudice against any groups of people can be very complex with many shades of gray, but dealing with it and combating bigotry is actually quite simple. You make it clear that there is no tolerance for it and it is absolutely unacceptable. PERIOD!! We really didn’t need this Pentagon “study” anymore than we needed to survey the White Bus Passengers in Birmingham, Alabama in 1955 to see if they could deal with sitting next to Rosa Parks.
Amen to knucklehead’s comment.
I guess the military has changed. I thought soldiers did what they were ordered to do based on the well-being of the group and the best interest of the mission at hand.
But apparently now, those things are now subservient to the discomfort and “feelings” of those (we’re told) single handedly responsible for our freedom.
We will defer to soldiers’ personal preference on this issue. What’s next? Can soldiers now refusing to serve in Iraq because their personal preference is that hot climates make them sweat too much?
…..I’m so sorry, Rosa Parks, but you must return to the back of the bus whilst we conduct a survey……
Yes to all of the above.
When I was in the Navy back in the 60’s, you knew, in most cases, those who were gay and it was no big deal. I think the policy then was to not out anyone even if they wanted to be outed so they could get out of the service.
Remember Clingon from Mash who wasn’t gay but tried so hard to get kicked out?
This is not about gays. It is about those who want to appear to be of high moral quality and are just so, so shocked and offended by the thought of some people being gay.
Not to be a TV pedant, but…
Klinger from M*A*S*H.
Klingon from Start Trek.
That is all.
Thanks for being my editor, oa.
Live long and prosper!
In serving your country, you are doing your duty loyally without thought of recognition or gain. Becoming a soldier requires selfless service; putting the welfare of the Nation, and your subordinates before your own.
Some here are missing the point… Gibson said, “… And how those two fundamental values are reconciled I think is going to have everything to do with readiness.”
How soldiers deal with the equality and privacy that both straight and gay soldiers deserve in a theater of combat is paramount here. The effect on mission outcome is most certainly something that needs to be looked at. Gibson is right on, this is a readiness issue that should be resolved by Congress not the courts.
I think given what we know of the behavior of Commander Massa while he was a Congressman and earlier in the Navy, perhaps President Reagan was correct in essentially banning them from service. If the issue were left to those in uniform, there would be little debate and DODT would remain.