Gibson acknowledges expelling gay soldiers
During the political campaign, Rep.-elect Chris Gibson (R-Kinderhook) acknowledged having had personal experience with the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy while serving as an Army officer.
In an interview today with the public radio program Capital Pressroom hosted by Susan Arbetter, Gibson acknowledged dismissing two soldiers under his command.
“These were soldiers that revealed their sexual orientation, and we went through the process to eliminate them under the chapter proceedings,” he said, noting that the incidents were few and far between in relation to his own experience and the size of the active-duty military.
“… This was not a case where there was some third party or something making an allegation; in both cases the service member came forward and made a declaration.”
“Were they good soldiers?” Arbetter asked.
“Well, you know what — I don’t want to get into that description, because you know what, for these service members they served with honor, so why would I want to describe some of the specific details about that, you know, whether or not one may have had some discipline issues in the past — why would that be relevant at this point?”
NCPR will have complete coverage of the North Country reaction to the DADT repeal tomorrow morning during the 8 O’clock Hour.
I don’t have a problem with what Gibson did when in the service. He was only following the law.
But I do question the courage of those in the military and some elected officials who seem to be afraid of gays. What are they so afraid of? Are they afraid of being overpowered and raped? And here I thought our elected officials and those in the military are supposed to be the bravest of the brave.
What is appalling here is Chris Gibson’s answer to the question “Were they good soldiers?
What a hogwash answer?
I agree with Joseph. I thought Gibson was supposed to be a straight shooter.
I think his personal experience makes his refusal to take a position even more weasley. He has more insight into the issue than most. He should be able to take a position good/bad on DADT.
But I think one of his comments was most telling.
“these service members they served with honor”
That’s all that should matter.
I took his comment more as not wanting to describe them as good or bad in relation to their sexual preference. IOW, he may have had a few of them in mind that had other issues that had resulted in other discipline matters. It’s something like not bringing prior convictions into a new case, it taints the view of the defendant by those judging him.
Beyond that, I take issue with your comment Pete. It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with courage and I find your implication of cowardice of our military absolutely appalling! You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting that.
I am not comfortable around gay men in many situations. If that bothers anyone, too bad, but it’s no more “wrong” for me to feel that way than for a woman to feel uncomfortable around a man. Do we lodge male and female soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines together? Do they share shower and locker room facilities? Do we have men and women using the same johns in public places? No, we don’t. It’s a matter of privacy between the sexes. I realize not everyone here has served, but it’s quite common in the military to be in situations where you have precious little, if any, privacy. Believe me, there’s just nothing like sitting down to do your daily business in front of 30 other guys. No walls, no little cubicle, not even a door. Are we going to add having known homosexuals to the mix? I don’t mean to be crude, but having a gay man next to you in the shower would be no different than having a heterosexual man in the shower with your wife, mother or daughter. There needs to be some allowance made for this or there will be “problems” the first time a gay soldier checks out a hetero soldiers…stuff.
Some people seem to have this unrealistic expectation that we’re all the same, that we can all get along just fine. News flash- people don’t get along even when you don’t force them into artificially mandated positions. No amount of sensitivity training is going to alter the fact that a heterosexual young person in an already stressful situation isn’t going to want to deal with unwanted sexual issues. Doesn’t matter if it’s male of female, for that matter it doesn’t matter if they’re gay or straight. The difference is we don’t lodge our males and females together. It’s not going to be serving with openly gay people that’s the problem, it’s going to be the barracks. That’s where most of the issues between people always come to a head anyway.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If a division is made between gay and straight servicemen and women will there be charges of bigotry and segregation? And if there isn’t will there be charges of those in charge failing to provide for reasonable protections for everyone? Actually, I’m not sure if this all won’t devolve for a time back to the old system where openly gay service members were discharged outright. I don’t believe that’s been addressed yet.
I am not ashamed, Brian, and I think you are clueless when it comes to the military.
There have always been gays in the military. They were there when I served (did you?) and I don’t recall anyone having a problem.
My charge of cowardice was not a blanket charge against those who now serve or have served. It is directed against those who have an unfounded worry over being in the presence of gays.
‘
Pete – It’s a little unclear who or what you are responding to. Could you clarify a bit? And maybe take it down one notch while you’re at it?
Thanks,
Brian, NCPR
Brian M.,
Okay. I’ll try.
I am responding to the fear some people have when it comes to gays. When I was in the Navy, I was a Corpsman. When I was in Corps school, I know for a fact some of the future corpsmen were gay and some of those gay Corpsmen were killed in Viet Nam. They did their job.
Back before DADT, the policy was the same. Back then, people didn’t ask and no one was going to tell unless they had it in for you. So the whole DADT thing was, to me, a bit of phony liberalism on the part of Clinton and all who passed DADT.
Since I was not an officer, I can’t say for certain about the following. But back before DADT, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if an officer didn’t try to get someone who was gay out of the service if they were doing a good job and not creating a problem. I doubt a Marine would turn a gay Corpsman in if that Corpsman was a good Corpsman who saved lives in the field.
How else can I put it other than to say, “It’s the job, stupid.” To allow fear of someone’s sexual orientation to trump their ability to do a job is either stupid or cowardly. The whole subject is nonsense.
I think we are talking emotion here, not logic. I threw out the lack of courage charge because it is an emotional charge and “real men” don’t like to be called cowards. But real men have no reason to fear gays.
I remember going to a party in NYC when I was in my early 20’s and recently out of the Navy. Although I had some friends in the Navy I knew were gay, I had never seen two guys kiss mouth to mouth until I was at that party. Tell the truth, I was a bit shocked to see it for real.
Later, when leaving the party, I happened to have left with one of the guys who had kissed. We were walking down the street and he turns to me and says with a smile, “Don’t worry. You’re not my type.”
I guess I was obviously uncomfortable walking down the street with him. It helped me realize we are talking emotion when we are talking about gays and the emotion is usually fear. I had to laugh when I thought about what he said because for a moment I wondered, “What type am I? What’s wrong with me?”
Merry Christmas, Brian.
Bret,
Gay and straight men showering near each other is nothing new- remember high school gym class? And there are prohibitions on sex between members of the military. There are some people uncomfortable around people of different races. Should we accomodate them?
The truth is that it’s none of the government’s business whether or not someone is gay or not.
Bret: Ultimately, my response is too bad. Before you join the military, you know what you’re getting into. You know you will be serving with all kinds of people from diverse backgrounds, with diverse interests and personalities and political views. It’s your JOB to work with all of them. Not to like them or agree with them or think they’re swell guys and gals but work with them. If you are not mature enough to do this, you are not mature enough to defend our country and shouldn’t join the military in the first place. It’s part of the deal when you sign up.
The military doesn’t pander to racists by having uniracial units. It doesn’t pander to sexists by being a unisex operation. As Adm. McMullen so rightly pointed out, the military wouldn’t pander to soldiers “discomfort” of heat by not sending them to Iraq or of cold by not sending them to Afghanistan. In these cases, service men and women have a job to do and they have people to collaborate with. They are told to get over themselves and their various “discomforts” to make it work. And they do so pretty admirably in those cases and they will do so again in this case.
Their “discomforts” are secondary to the success of the mission, success which depends on utilizing ALL available talent.
Another newsflash: even straight soldiers often don’t get along with each other. They have to get over it.
At the end of the day, being uncomfortable around a gay person (or black or whatever) doesn’t necessarily make you a bigot. Refusing to work with them does.
Pete, I was the one who told you you should be ashamed for charging cowardice, not Brian. And yes, I did serve in the USMC ’79-’83, and I never even heard RUMORS of a gay Marine or Sailor when I was in. NEVER ONCE. I’m sure there were gays in then, but it was out of sight and out of mind. Same in high school Scratchy, I never knew of a single gay kid in my school. In fact I never even saw two obviously gay men till I was in my late 30’s.
As for the rest, this isn’t a question of race, skin color, etc. This is no different than putting men and women in the same showers or rooms together. That would create problems. There are no prohibitions on sex between members of the same rank that I’m aware of. The prohibitions come in between those in supervisory and subordinate ranks last I knew. This is a question that goes deeper than skin color or rank. How it will end up being handled I don’t know. I’m just trying to point out that this isn’t as simple as everyone makes it out to be.
Brian 11:01- to comment on your post specifically, it’s not that people are going to refuse to work with gays or straights, I don’t believe that will be a big issue. I think the issue will be in the barracks or dorms. I’m not saying pander to anyone, I’m saying deal with realities. Anyone who thinks that the anti white/black/hispanic/whatever crowd doesn’t have their own little niches in certain barracks or parts of ships is nuts. Self segregation exists already folks. I imagine something along the same “unofficial/unrecognized” system will be in place in this case too.
Just one more comment about time in the Navy at corps school. At least three in the company were known to be gay. One was from Texas. Yes, Texas, and he put on a pretty good strip tease for the whole barracks, right on down to his black, bikini briefs. Guards were posted to make sure no officers came through to bust the show.
Bret4207, maybe by the time you were in, things were more conservative than they were in the early 60’s.
But since you were a Marine, may I as former Corpsman say, “You’re nothing but a sea going bellhop” which should prove I was a Corpsman.
Hope that got a smile from you.
I knew there was something inherently wrong with the Navy, but I guess someone has to get the men to the fight.
There, proof I was a Marine.
If we don’t get the chance to agree with or pick on each other again, Merry Christmas.
Ditto- to everyone here!