by The Associated Press

Posted: January 9, 2008 - 8:30 am ET

(Washington) Even if no one is asking, Army Sgt. Darren Manzella has been telling anyone who'll listen that he's gay - without serious retribution so far from the military.

Manzella, a medic who served in Iraq and Kuwait, has admitted his sexual orientation in national media interviews and again on Tuesday in a Washington news conference.

"This is who I am. This is my life," said Manzella, who received a combat medical badge for his service in Iraq. "It has never affected my job performance before. I don't think it will make a difference now. And to be honest since then, I don't see a difference because of my homosexuality."

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said Manzella's case demonstrates the military is arbitrarily enforcing its "don't ask, don't tell" policy now that the country is at war.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibits active-duty service members from openly acknowledging whether they are gay or lesbian.

======================

This is good news. The military will come around... someday..

It has always seems so ridiculous to me to disallow gays in the military. People can give as many lame excuses as they want, there's no need for the discrimination. They're willing to put their lives on the line for the country.

__________________

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group, says it knows of about 500 gay troops who are serving openly without consequences. "That's the highest number we've ever been aware of," says SLDN spokesman Steve Ralls. "Their experiences point to an undeniable shift in the armed forces."

....

Nearly 12,000 troops have been dismissed under the policy approved by President Clinton in 1993. Discharges peaked at 1,273 in 2001 and have fallen sharply since the war began.

"A lot of servicemembers are getting 'wink-wink' treatment from their commanders," says Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, which studies the policy.

If the policy is so damn important, why do they ignore it during the times when they would need military cohesion the most?

Elaine Donnelly, whose Center for Military Readiness favors a ban on gays, says "skepticism is in order" about reports that they are serving openly without sanctions. She says she has been "bothering" commanders at Manzella's base, Fort Hood, Texas, to take action since the 60 Minutes piece aired. "We have yet to get an answer," she says. "His commanders should be disciplined appropriately for failing to do their duty."

The 60 Minutes thing was three weeks ago.
He openly outted himself to his superiors, and they responded claiming there was "no evidence" of his homosexuality.
Elaine is just plain delusional in her claim.

Manzella, who earned a Combat Medical Badge for service in Baghdad, says he's been open about his sexuality for 18 months. He says he told his commander he was gay because he was getting anonymous e-mails threatening to expose him. The Army investigated in August 2006 and viewed the video that showed his boyfriend.
After all that, "They found 'no evidence of homosexuality,' " Manzella says. "They recommended that I just go back and keep doing my job." He soon headed to Kuwait for his second Iraq war deployment.

They were given a video.
He openly outted himself.
And they found "no evidence".

Who do these people think they are kidding?

Army spokesman Paul Boyce says the "policy is public law, and it is being enforced." It's not illegal to be gay in the military, he points out, as long as a servicemember keeps quiet.

That's just plain a lie. Or just plain false if the "spokesman" doesn't know the difference...

Center for Military Readiness | Homosexuals in the Military


Congress passed a law.
All Clinton could do was define the IMPORTANCE of the law. Previously, the military fixated on it while the military member had NO FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT to not answer the question. The investigations took on a "witch hunt" type atmosphere, akin to McCarthyism where they dragged people in and told them that they already "knew" they were gay, and demanded that they out others.
All Clinton basically did was establish a "pseudo" fifth amendment right for the military member. He stopped the witch hunts.

But regardless of whether one is "in the closet" or not, it's still illegal to be gay in the military.
And the reason for preventing them from military service is based on prejudice.
And the practice needs to be abandoned, not just in war-time...

I figure they probably will as top brass changes hands to the next generation. When I served in the Navy, I never had any issue with anyone knowing I was gay. They didn't care. In Alaska, I knew well over a dozen gay Air Force members who did nothing to hide the fact that they were gay. No one cared.

In all honesty, gays in the military had more protections than workers in the civilian sector. Before someone can be discharged for being gay, it has to be proven through intensive investigation that they committed a homosexual act. They aren't discharged for being gay, they are discharged for breaking the military code of conduct in commiting the act. It's really hard to prove the act occurred.

But yes, it is a good thing that the DADT policy is on its way out. It served its purpose for the time, but that time is passing.

do you think they are more lenient on the DADT because of the top brass being "voted off the island", or because soldier recruitment is so low.......

Probably a combination of the two. It's really hard to pinpoint an precise answer to that question because the two issues are mutable at any point in time. Brass is changing and soldier recruitment is low. Plus, the trend toward gays has been moving toward acceptance in the civilian population and it naturally follows that every other facet of American culture will do the same eventually.

I am just content to say its a good thing and not look a gift horse in the mouth.

It varies from command to command. Some commands really don't care, that is true.
Other commands are notorious for kicking gays out. I can't remember the name of it, but there is one military base in the eastern portion of the country which is responsible for about 1/3 of all army firings of gay personnel.


That's a rather bizarre and obviously inaccurate statement.
Gays in the military are forbidden. Prohibited.
Workers in the civilian sector have a variety of companies with explicit non-discrimination policies. A variety of states that enforce prohibition against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

Can you possibly elaborate on how your statement is true in any sense?


Do you know of anybody who was actually fired for being gay?
Have you ever done any actual RESEARCH on the subject?
You repeat the vague "theoretical" explanation of the system, but the truth is nowhere near what you describe.

There were 1,273 discharges in 2001.
Do you think those discharges all came about cause the CO found a couple of his privates having sex on his front lawn?

And quibblign over "aren't discharged for being gay, they are discharged for breaking the military code of conduct in committing the act" is amusing.
Talk about splitting hairs! What the heck is the distinction?
If a man does not state he is gay, does not commit any "homosexual" act, then he's supposedly safe???
That's like saying "A drug dealer is safe as long as he doesn't deal drugs and he doesn't admit he's a drug dealer."
That's like saying "A bear can take a crap in the woods, but as long as there is no turd that can be discovered, no evidence of him having to crap, and no smell to be discovered, it's safe".

And furthermore, looking at the ACTUAL LAW I posted it's obvious that if a supposed "heterosexual" were to be busted, he could easily get an out as he is not expected to do it again. But the gay man??? Obviously targetted.

But going on further with the enforcement, the military's actions include firing gays for having online ads.
U.S. military fires gays for online profiles -- Queer Lesbian Gay News -- Gay.com
A single "anonymous" phone call from a disgruntled former partner (whoops! having a gay partner is illegal to the military) can result in an "investigation" which will end a person's career.

How is this in ANY sense "more protected" than the civilian sector???


It's on its way out because people are FIGHTING AGAINST the policy.
Clinton tried, and he was basically shot down.

Only by exposing the policy for what it is, exposing the fact that the military starts ignoring the policy in times of war, and exposing the lack of a basis for the policy is it ever going to change.

Some reality about the military treatment of gay military personnel...
From the 2001 report...

Among the group's other findings:

· Pentagon Fails to Protect Those Reporting Harassment From Being Discharged. The Pentagon's proposed anti-harassment training fails once again to make clear that service members should be able to report harassment to Inspectors General, law-enforcement officers, equal opportunity representatives, healthcare providers and others without fear of reprisal.

· Doctors and Psychologists Told to Out Gay Service Members. Psychologists report they continue to be instructed to turn in gay, lesbian and bisexual military members who seek their help, despite promises by the Pentagon since 1998 to correct that practice. Officials have knowingly permitted erroneous instructions to circulate in the field that tell psychologists and doctors to out gay service members, including in new Army training on the policy.

· Pentagon and Services Hold Few Leaders Accountable. In the first six years, military leaders did not officially hold anyone accountable for asking, pursuing or harassing. This past year, SLDN documented increased accountability, including actions taken against General Clark, who was denied his third star for his conduct in addressing the anti-gay harassment scandal at Fort Campbell, Kentucky; Captain Brady at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, who was disciplined by the new commanding general at the base for calling a gay soldier a "pole smoker" in front of his subordinate leaders; and Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Melton at Twenty-Nine Palms who had disseminated an anti-gay email to his subordinates.

· Women Disproportionately Affected by Gay Ban. Women continue to be accused of being lesbians for retaliatory reasons, regardless of their actual sexual orientation. Women represent 24% of SLDN's cases, through they comprise only 14% of the active forces. Women have historically been discharged at twice the rate of their numbers in the military.

· Services Implement Inconsistent Training. The Army, better than any other service, trained soldiers on preventing anti-gay harassment and on upholding the policy's investigative limits. Navy and Marine Corps training, however, was not as effective in reducing some violations. Air Force training, the report found, is limited to online, self-directed training which service members report has not been successful.
SLDN

Can you possibly take a more polite and civil tone? I'm not indulging your nastiness anymore. Change your tone or don't bother initiating any discussion with me from here on.

Compared to the statements you have levelled at me in the past, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

If you want to respond to the substance of my post, then you are more than welcome to do so.
If instead you want to side-track this topic by repeated complaints about alleged demeanor, it's pointless.

But as for your ultimatum, there are obviously other options available.
Whether or not I post also includes factors like giving an accurate description for other posters and readers to see.
Whether or not you respond is completely irrelevant to that purpose.