Conference quark::human_relations-v1

.0>  An Army Colonel here in Colorado Springs was recently convicted of
.0> "conduct unbecoming an officer" for homosexual acts, specifically
.0> participating a drag show at a local gay bar.

    I'm not all that sure that one has to be homosexual to participate in a
    drag show at a gay bar ... but ... that's neither here nor there - fact
    of the matter is, his conduct as a Colonel, is most assuredly "conduct
    unbecoming of an officer".

.0> He got 9 months in jail, $27,000 fine, and was kicked out of the Army.  
.0> I realize that when you're in the service you play by certain rules,
.0> but wouldn't being kicked out suffice?

    I would probably have opted for the same sentence.  If he was a full
    bird, $27K isn't going to hurt him all that much and he'll probably
    never serve the time.

.0> The military has its double standards as well.

    I doubt that anyone would deny that.  Believe me, this guy probably
    wasn't your run of the mill gay, and being a full bird you can bet that
    it was probably not the best kept secret in the unit.

.0> Does anyone besides me wonder if the recent rise of homophobia in this
.0> country (AIDS aside) is one of the fallouts of developments in Eastern
.0> Europe?

    Interesting perspective, but, for the most part there may be a
    cause/effect relationship in this case.  The situation in Saudi may
    have some "delaying" effect here, but, it's a straightforward case of
    "when we need you we don't care about your sexuality but when we don't
    need you we do care".

    Been that way for years ... would you really expect any "overnight
    change"?

    Captain Beeler
    USMC, 2nd Battalion

    
    I find it outrageous that the services attempt to regulate
    activities that are protected by the first amendment for the rest
    of us.
    
    Of what concern is it of the service if an officer wants to 
    behave oddly? So long as they do their jobs, its none of the
    services' buisness... 

    To the sentencing...
    
    UCMJ set guidelines for the monetary punishment of all grades in the
    service.  Had the guy been of lesser rank, the dollar amount would
    have been lower.
    
    

    Any military service branch have always had pretty steady codes of
    ethics, some, stronger than others and that goes not just for the U.S.
    military but for the few foreign countries in which I've lived.  When a
    person is in the Service he/she better stick to its rules! the U.S. is
    not as strong as other countries and the person can get away with a
    fine and demotion... there are countries that would give a swift court
    martial with much more to follow! A military person represents his or
    her country in an official way and... it is sad that a full rank
    Coronel gets caught in such an improper action of an officer... that is
    disgusting, in my own opinion... He does not deserve to belong to the
    service.  He deserved everything he GOT in the sentence.

    re: .6
    
    I don't know all of the facts in the case, but if he was NOT on-duty,
    NOT in uniform, NOT in any way representing the United States military,
    I don't believe it's anybody's busines WHAT he does (as long as it's
    legal).  Obviously, if there are military rules that govern behavior
    inside and outside of the military, then he was wrong to do what he
    did.  When he signed up, he had accepted those rules, period.
    
    On the other hand, organizations have always tried to punish behavior
    that was considered "embarassing".  The case of the policewoman who
    posed for an adult magazine comes to mind.  I believe she won after
    taking the department to court.
    
       - Larry

I have never been in the military, but the charge of "conduct unbecoming
an officer" can be applied quite broadly and has often been so in the past.
I don't see anything in this case so far that calls out the Colonel's being
gay as significant - from what I've read elsewhere, if he had been straight
but found out to have been in a "drag show", they would have been just
as annoyed.

From what I can see, I disagree with .4 and would say that them military is 
one of the most socially regressive organizations around.  Any perceived
progressiveness regarding minorities and women needs to be measured against
the various lawsuits and "equal opportunity" laws which have been passed.
Especially in the case of women, the military is stuck in the 50's in their
thinking.

Should we hold military officers to any higher (or lower) standards of
conduct as we do our politicians?

					Steve

    
    I originally was going to stay out of this one.  Maybe I should,
    but....I'm going to bite the bullet.
    
    I grew up in the military...Marines to be exact.  My father is a 20
    year veteran and I lived on or near military bases for a good part of
    my growing up years.  I'd like to add an insight to this that hasn't
    been mentioned.
    
    In the military, the premise is that the unit you are in is family. 
    This is stressed and worked.  And there are very valid reasons for
    this, not so obvious in peacetime as in war.  In the event that a unit
    has to work together, they HAVE to totally trust each and every member
    of the unit.  They HAVE to be comfortable with each and every member of
    the unit and that every member of the unit will hold up their end. 
    This is the only means of survival, especially in the event of war.
    
    Talk to any veteran of a war/battle.  They will tell you how much
    depended on how they felt about the others in their unit.  And they
    will tell you how they felt about their part in the unit.  They know,
    especially in battle, that their live can depend on the actions of the
    rest of their unit.
    
    Now, given the above, it is possible that a unit would not feel
    comfortable with having a gay member.  I don't know.  This wasn't
    overly prevelant (at least not talked at all about) when I was
    connected to the military.
    
    Units are very close knit.  With all the reading and research I do on
    WWII, I find it hard to imagine that units would follow a gay officer
    as readily as a straight officer.  Unfortunately, reference material on
    WWII doesn't go into such things.  They simply talk about the reliance
    and trust the units needed to survive.
    
    

    
    A point that might be of interest here is the term "off_duty". 
    I was in a few years ago and my commanding officer explained to
    me that off-duty time was a luxury, not a right.  
    
    Military personnel are paid by the hour--not for an 8 hour day but
    every hour in a 24 hour day.  This means that you are effectively
    a Marine 24 hours a day.  By military thinking, what you do in your
    off-duty time relflects on the Corps as a whole.
    
    
    
                                        L.J.

.2> So long as they do their jobs, its none of the services' business... 

Strongly disagree.  Read further replies in this string.  When you put that
uniform on, you agree to a 24 hour/day 7 day/week "job".  It is a 
fighting unit - not a social club.
    
.3> Guess so, according to military rules.  But it's not conduct unbecoming
.3> a human being..

OK.  Fine.  If you want to participate in drag shows at a gay bar, stay the
hell out of the military.

.3> Really?  If he was a lieutenant colonel, or a major, or a captain,
.3> the fine should have been lower?
    
    Yes.

	.1> Been that way for years ... would you really expect any "overnight
	.1> change"?
    
.3> No, you don't change ridiculous, idiotic double standards and
.3> traditions overnight.

Look, had this guy been a private, sergeant, captain, major, colonel,
or general .. he would have been given the same court-martial.
 
I know a brigadier general who is as gay as the day is long, and, you can
bet that he would have voted for the same penalty for this colonel.

.3> But you can be sure that if we get into a war, sexual preference
.3> won't matter as much as it does in peacetime.

In a way, there are some very good reasons for that, not the least of which
is that keeping hot lead from penetrating your body ... well ... that takes
precedence.

.7> I don't know all of the facts in the case, but if he was NOT on-duty,
.7> NOT in uniform, NOT in any way representing the United States military,
.7> I don't believe it's anybody's business WHAT he does (as long as it's
.7> legal).  Obviously, if there are military rules that govern behavior
.7> inside and outside of the military, then he was wrong to do what he
.7> did.  When he signed up, he had accepted those rules, period.

There is no such thing as "off duty" ... even more so when you get to the
rank of colonel.  You're right - when he signed up  - he knew exactly what
he was getting into.  He was wrong.  Period.

.7> On the other hand, organizations have always tried to punish behavior
.7> that was considered "embarrassing".

Is it not "embarrassing" to have a colonel dressed like a flaming queen in
a gay bar?  Is this a "leadership" quality?

.8> I have never been in the military, but the charge of "conduct unbecoming
.8> an officer" can be applied quite broadly and has often been so in the past.
.8> I don't see anything in this case so far that calls out the Colonel's being
.8> gay as significant - from what I've read elsewhere, if he had been straight
.8> but found out to have been in a "drag show", they would have been just
.8> as annoyed.

You are 100% correct.  Any person in my unit, straight or gay, NCO or 
commissioned, who is participating in a drag show in a gay bar is going
to, AT A MINIMUM, be told exactly what the future holds for him.  It will
not be a "pretty picture".  There will be no misunderstandings.

.8> From what I can see, I disagree with .4 and would say that them military is 
.8> one of the most socially regressive organizations around.

If you're looking for the Cheyenne Social Club, may I respectfully suggest
that you not join a branch of the United States Military.  I don't mean this
in a flippant manner, but, you get my point.

.9> In the military, the premise is that the unit you are in is family. 
.9> ....This is the only means of survival, especially in the event of war.
                    ^^^^
			P R E C I S E L Y

.9> Now, given the above, it is possible that a unit would not feel
.9> comfortable with having a gay member.  I don't know.

I do know.  Difficult question.  Lots of mitigating circumstances.

.11> A point that might be of interest here is the term "off_duty". 
.11> I was in a few years ago and my commanding officer explained to
.11> me that off-duty time was a luxury, not a right.  

You had a good CO.

.11> This means that you are effectively a Marine 24 hours a day.  By
.11> military thinking, what you do in your off-duty time reflects on
.11> the Corps as a whole.

There is NO question about that!  To this day, when I see some ROTC
cadets, in uniform, making a fool of themselves ... well ... the rules
of this conference prohibit me from repeating what I tell them, but,
for the most part the message comes across - loud and clear - there are
no misunderstandings when I get through explaining a few things to
them.

Jerry

re Note 1094.10                   Gay Colonel Jailed                       10 of 11
>    
>    Again I ask:  What is the military's problem with homosexuality?

      The military problem with homosexuality is the same as societies problem
      with monosexuality (just to cover both genders).. Sexual behavior is one
      of the fundamental communication systems. In this communication system
      male chases and female is chased. (Many would say that it is not so cut
      and dried, but lets use a simple approach). The monosexual causes
      confusion when they reverse the roles. Confused people usually frighten
      and respond with increased agression.
      Most hetrosexuals feel that sex should not be an issue when they are
      with their own sex. The monosexual breaks this �democratically� decided
      rule.
      These two comments explain the problem with monosexuals, it does not
      seek to justify 'mans inhumanity to man'.
      I have a question.. sexuality has beed studied for years now and
      opinions change with the researcher. Does the current professional
      thinking indicate that monosexuality is complete free choice. Is the
      mono born or built?
      Rgds,

    Jerry, you did a great job in explaining some of the military code of
    ethics... YES, a military person is not on-duty and off-duty just like
    any comercial job, a military person represents HIS COUNTRY 24-HOURS A
    DAY 365 DAYS A YEAR.
    I worked for the military for couple of years and we did have a very
    CLEAR and very STRAIGHT codes and nobody ever failed to follow. I am
    talking of the U.S. Air Force in Europe.
    
    As Jerry said, if a person wants to join and participate in "fancy social 
    clubs" (I am using very benign words) then, he or she had better get
    the h*ll out of the Military... they don't deserve to represent it or
    be linked in any way to it.                                          
    

    Thank you, DUGGAN::MAHONEY.

    It's not only representation of your country, but, the ability to do
    your "job" as an officer.  At that rank you are supposed to be a LEADER
    and in order to lead, you MUST have the respect of each and every person
    in your command.  If you do not have the respect of your subordinates,
    I doubt seriously that your "job" will be effectively executed.

    Best illustrated by a story.  During World War I, while inspecting a
    certain area, General John J. Pershing found a project that was not
    going well, even though the second lieutenant in charge seemed to have
    a pretty good plan.  General Pershing asked the lieutenant how much pay
    he received.  On hearing the lieutenant's reply of "$141.67 per month,
    Sir," General Pershing said: "Just remember that you get $1.67 per
    month for making your plan and issuing the order, and, $140 for seeing
    that it is carried out."

    It is imperative to have the respect of your subordinates in order to
    do your job and earn that $140 per month - how many flaming queens are
    going to garnish any level of respect?

    Jerry

    
    I read some interesting stuff by Stephen King about how a country seems
    to need
    a "common enemy" to unite against. If the usual enemy disappears then
    another "Great Beast" needs to be found to bond the social groups of
    the society - united in adversity, as it were.
    
    The need for a scapegoat of some kind, or a "Boogie Man", in the form
    of some minority group or an oppositing force seems to have given rise
    to persecution of minority groups regularly through history -
    religious and gender persecutions often seem to trace back to this kind
    of social climate.
    
    I wouldn't be surprised if homosexuality is rising as the new "Enemy" -
    with Aids as an added spur it is all too obvious a choice....:-(
    
    'gail

    I grew up in the military and it is a rule based subculture.  The rules
    are THE RULES; you don't question why; blind obedience is rewarded, the
    rules are enforced with punishment.
    
    That this officer was punished for breaking the rules should be no
    surprise to anyone, including the officer himself.  When you join the
    military you agree to abide by the rules which are much more
    restrictive than civilian law.  My father, a career military man,
    used to say "when you join the military, you sign away your rights
    under the constitution".
    
    Gay men have been court martialed for years.  My father almost served
    on a jury for one such court martial 30 years ago.  He was disqualified
    because he was asked by the prosecuting officer, "If I gave you an
    order to vote Guilty, would you vote Guilty?"  My father answered "No"
    so they took him off the jury.  That's the way the military works.
    
    Its not new, its not surprising, but IMO it is sick.
    
    Mary

    Re: .17
    
    > The man did nothing illegal.  He violated an "honor code"
    
    Actually he violated military law.  Sad, but true.
    

.19> I'd follow a competent Colonel who does drag shows in his
.19> off-time before I'd follow them.

    You are the exception , not the rule.

    There's too much sentiment that the guy was "punished" because he was
    gay.  I do not subscribe to this theory.  I have little or no respect
    for the civilian "flaming queens" much less one in uniform.  I'm sorry,
    but, there's a time and a place for everything - when you're in the
    military, it is neither the time nor the place.

    Jerry

    in re .13
    
    Since no one has adressed your question about the origins of
    homosexuality...
    
    Current publications by the leading researchers into human sexuality
    indicate that homosexuality is a combination of genetics, prenatal
    hormones, and early psyhcological/sociological factors. A person's
    sexual oreintation is set very early in childhood and can not be
    changed by psychological counceling. i.e. a person's sexuality can
    no more be chosen than one's height.
    
    Bonnie

    I guess its time to get shot at here. But, if such acts go on. The
    liberal faction wins, gays men are treated like REAL people, for which
    I aprove, for whom will serve in the services? There are many folks out
    there who grow up in a less liberal enviorment. Whose personal opions
    would effect the out come of the volantery services. The bottom line,
    if the majority of the service force is from the rural country area,
    who don't like "the gay community" who is going to serve? Who is going
    to lay down their lives when duty calls? Yes, I know that you can say
    if there is no one to go to war then there is no war. But if like we
    need someone to do our world wide peace keeping, who is going in? Yes,
    you cannot change peoples opions over night.

re: .23:
    
>    Current publications by the leading researchers into human sexuality
>    indicate that homosexuality is a combination of genetics, prenatal
>    hormones, and early psyhcological/sociological factors.

    Do you remember which publications, or what the prenatal hormones
    and early psychlogical/social factors are?  How did they arrive at
    these conclusions?  Does this mean that identical twins would share
    the same sexual orientations?  Do the same prenatal hormones have 
    equivalent effects on male and female fetuses, or are different 
    hormones responsible for determining sexual orientation in each?
    Do say more, this is interesting...

	Sharon

    Sharon
    
    There has been a lot of this information printed in soapbox lately
    which is where I'm getting my information from. You have to
    wade through a lot of other stuff, but one noter has entered a
    number of experpts from the literature.
    
    If you are further interested, send me mail and I'll point you
    in the rough direction of where the notes are to  be found.
    
    Bonnie

.24>    reason he got nine months is for the act, as opposed to being
.24>    gay, is naive and living in a fantasy world.  In *my* opinion,

    As an officer in the USMC: I can guarantee you that if I go out and get
    drunk out my mind, make a fool out of myself in public, embarrass the
    Corps...etc...I *WILL* be brought up on charges.  I accept that .. it
    "comes with the territory" ... I know the consequences ... I will
    probably be fined, reduced in rank, may serve time, etc.... I may (with
    the exception of the $ amount of the fine) suffer the same consequences
    which includes serving some same jail term.

    I'll be *damned* if I'll see someone do less time just because he/she
    is gay!  Believe me, they wouldn't ask me about my sexual preference
    before sentencing - it wouldn't make any difference - so - why take his
    sexual preference into account?

    Recognize that a COLONEL is one step below a Brigadier General! 
    Conduct such as his is DESPICABLE !  Had I been on the JAG staff I'd
    probably have busted him down to a Lieutenant !

    Don't tell me I'm naive and living in a fantasy world - that fool
    Colonel was blind and living in a fantasy world.

    Jerry

    Remember what just happened in the Persian Gulf lately.  Some overly
    enthusiastic *General* of the Air Force was rambling on about how the
    USAF would attack Iraq by air.  He *lost* his job...a whole career
    spent in the military and it's totally washed down the drain.  Hardly
    anyone actually gets "fired" from the armed services, but he also
    broke the rules and he paid for it.
    
    The Armed Services mean alot to the people in it.  Honor and pride
    is very real to them; it's been beaten into them.  They're not going
    to let one person get away with making them look bad, especially if
    they already knew the rules ahead of time.  It may have been "fun" to
    that person, but then he shouldn't have been in that job if he wanted 
    to have that kind of fun.
    
    B.

.30> You miss the point.  He's doing MORE time because of the gay
.30> *nature* of the offense.

    I don't know the details of the case, and, if you do, please elaborate.

    As I said, if this guy was a full bird, and, participating in a drag
    show at a gay bar, the probability that a lot of people knew he was gay
    is very high.  I don't know if he was admonished and continued, but,
    doubt seriously that it was a "one time" offense.

.30> This is a clear cut case of "We know he's gay but can't prove it,
.30> so let's nail him HARD on the conduct unbecoming and teach him
.30> a lesson."

    I don't know how "clear" it is, not knowing all the facts.
    
.30> That human being was living out a fantasy, a perfectly normal part
.30> of human life.  "Fool" is in the eye of the beholder.

    Wrong fantasy, wrong place, wrong time.

.31> The Armed Services mean a lot to the people in it.  Honor and pride
.31> is very real to them; it's been beaten into them.  They're not going
.31> to let one person get away with making them look bad, especially if
.31> they already knew the rules ahead of time.

    The term is "Esprit de' Corps".  I'm proud of it.  It does mean a lot
    to me.  I do not apologize.  It has helped to keep me alive, more than
    once.

.31> It may have been "fun" to that person, but then he shouldn't have been 
.31> in that job if he wanted to have that kind of fun.
    
    Amen!  Again, it's the United States Army.  Not the Cheyenne Social
    Club.

    Guilty as charged.

    Jerry

    Re: .31
    
    No, WE'RE paying for it.  Said general got promoted as he was retired
    and is entitled to a rather hefty pension for the rest of his life.
    
    
    
    Re: others
    
    Someone (I forget whom, sorry) said that the colonel was punished more
    because he was gay.  I am not disputing this, but neither have I seen
    evidence for it.  On what basis do you make that claim?
    
    				Steve

    The elite Theban infantry, "The Sacred Band", was composed
    exclusively of male couples sworn to each other for life.
    
    The Thebans were the first city to defeat the Spartans, who
    up to that time had been on a multi-generation winning streak.
    
    			-John Bishop

.36> -< Get rid of anyone that's different >-

    In a platoon, company, battalion ... you can't have a bunch of
    "differents".  In war, this individuality stuff is a bunch of crap.

.36> There ya go.  A general who divulged military secrets gets "moved"
.36> out of the way, a Colonel who does a drag show goes to jail.

    Let's wait and see if he actually does his time.  I seriously doubt
    that he will.
    
    This general came very close to discussing tactical rules of
    engagement.  I don't know the details, but, had he crossed that line he
    would probably have been in DEEP snickers ... TRE are classified as Top
    Secret (well, they used to be).

.36> Obviously these codes of discipline are necessary...

    Yes, they are.

.36> ...so that if we need to do some killing to defend ourselves from being
.36> killed, we will do it without question.

    Yes, that is the bottom line.  Don't forget, you don't win a war by
    dieing for your country ... you win by making the other guy die for his
    country.

    GSP, Jr.

    When I was in the Navy, several women I worked with were discharged 
    when they were discovered to be lesbians. 
    Though one of those women was my best friend, I agreed with the Navys
    actions.
    
    We WERE in a Top Secret job. There was alot at risk. Blackmail could
    have cost the country Millions of dollars, as well as put us at risk. 
    These women KNEW the rules when they joined. They NEW the risks. 
    
    I *DO* get tired of hearing the word *homophobia*.  Not everything in
    the world is so cut and dried.  If you don't want a drag queen for your
    commanding officer then you MUST be afraid of homosexuals (or maybe
    your OWN sexuality...that's another one of my favorites). If you don't
    want a woman reporter in the locker room with naked men, then you MUST
    be a chauvanist. If you don't like hiring with quotas then you MUST be
    a bigot.........but all of this is another topic...sorry for airing
    a LONG standing gripe of mine......
    
    I saw a picture of this guy in the local paper....I think that they
    kicked him out cause he must have been the UGLIEST drag queen in
    town:-):-)
    
    I have to agree with Jerry. He knew the rules. He assumed he was above
    them. One thing about the military, NO ONE is above the UCMJ.
    If you don't like the rules, find a differant game. 
     
    
    

    Re .38: Excuse me? So someone is automatically vulnerable to blackmail
    by being gay? Seems to me the main vulnerability there is that they
    knew the Navy would kick them out if their sexual orientation became
    known... Sounds like a vicious circle to me. If they didn't have to
    worry about being discharged solely for their gayness, I can't see that
    they'd be any more vulnerable to blackmail than anyone else.
    
    Besides, I suspect a good many more secrets have been passed via hetero
    seductions and drunk-in-a-bar talk than via the blackmail of gays;
    maybe all heteros should automatically be discharged, too, just in
    case!
    
    -b

    .39 excuse me back at ya..
    
    I don't remember saying that someone is automatically vulnerable to
    blackmail by being gay? Did I say that?
    Please don't take everything people say in whatever context best suits
    your cause.
    Don't forget, these women were my friends. One of them was my room mate
    and my BEST friend. I helped defend her during the hearings and in
    fact, got her charges dropped (I told them that I thought she was a
    slXt cause she had so many guys over in her room all the time!!!!
    confused the crap out of the investigation team!!!). Unfortunatly after
    2 months, she couldn't face it anymore. She opted for confessing and
    getting discharged after the fact. 
    THE REASON that these folks were vulnerable to blackmail, was because
    they chose to keep this 'secret' from their FAMILIES. Not the military.
    Not society (it sure wasn't a secret in the barracks). They didn't
    want their FAMILIES to know. Perhaps not all homosexuals choose to keep
    their lifestyle a secret, in which case they would be no more of a
    security risk then the Captain who is sleeping with his yoeman......... 
    
    AND, aren't you passing judgement over something in which I DOUBT you
    have any evidence to back you when you suggest that more secrets are
    lost via hetero- relationships? 
    
    A risk is a risk. I you CHOOSE to comprimise the Military secrets with
    which you have been entrusted, no matter who or what you are, you
    deserve to take the punishment....
    
    As for the drag queen colonel, he was a dentist, so I don't know how
    many secrets he had, except how many cavaties the general has I
    guess...
    
    :-)

    Gambling, hanging around with the wrong croud ( radical types), drunk
    and disorderly, gay, drugs.... What other things can get one into deep 
    sh*t in the serivce? 

    Re .40: No, you didn't say that, but that's how I read it, so I asked
    you exactly what you *were* saying. Thanks for providing a little more
    info - your original note stated nothing more than that several women
    who were discovered to be lesbian (thus implying that they were keeping
    it secret from the Navy, not necessarily from anyone else) were
    discharged. Nothing about how they felt about families, etc. I quite
    realize that some people have secrets they don't want families to know,
    and that sexual orientation is one of the hotter topics there, but you
    didn't indicate that as a cause in your note.
    
    If, indeed, they were discharged, not because they were gay, but
    because they had personal secrets which they were very much afraid of
    having revealed to their families, thus making them extremely
    susceptible blackmail targets, I have no issue with the discharge - I'd
    just like to think that the actions would be the same for someone who
    was terrified that his mother would find out he had converted to, oh,
    Druidism, for example... 
    
    As for the "how did the most secrets get out," well, unless the
    military has a much higher percentage of gay personnel than straight,
    I have to guess the odds lie with the straight folks' pillow talk. (Of
    course, the seduction theory is a  staple of fiction - but it's also a
    staple of the news at regular intervals.) I'll cheerfully bow to
    greater knowledge, however.
    
    Besides, you can hardly argue that if *everybody* were discharged from
    the military, there wouldn't be any risk of giving away military
    secrets. Now would there? ;-)
    
    -b

    Re .40 again: by the by, considering your friend was supposed to be
    such a security risk, may I ask why you defended her?
    
    -b

    .43
    
    <if my friend was such a security risk why did I defend her?
    
    Because she was my friend.
    Because I was 18. 
    
    

    .41
    what else can get you into trouble withthe Military??
    
    Stealing....especially from fellow sailors/soldiers etc. They frown on
    that BIG time.......
    
    wife beating will get you too....
    
    
    
    

    Reason I am asking is there are probably a number of unfair things that
    happen to someone while they are in the armed services. I know of a man
    who got a dis-honerable discharge for rec-drugs in the early 70's. He
    served time in Nam, risked life and limb. Came back state side to a
    nice comfortable job. But because he was in Nam, developed some bad
    habbits, that were the norm of the game sometimes, he was ask to leave.
    No tank to dry up in or reform with. Just out you go fella for your a
    doper and the new volinteer service doesn't want dopers in its ranks.
    What the point is, that this conversation can be concidered a mood
    point with the way the rules and regulations go. Even in Dec sometimes
    what is fair is not always just. I personally don't care if this guy
    was a drag queen or not. What is the issue is that the service does not
    discriminat agianst one person or another, it discriminates agianst
    allot of folks. People who are too tall cannot get behind the flight
    stick of a fighter. People too small cannot do this or that. If you do
    a job and your over weight, and weight doesn't have a thing to do with
    you job. I have been around allot of ex military folks and they seem to
    say the same thing. This guy is not a special case. He got cought doing
    something that he knew that would get him into trouble. IF you want to
    keep those folks with the boy/girl next door attitudes in the service
    going in you have to understand that some of them are not going to take
    a gay general too seriously. He might get his butt fragged at a very
    convient time. I think if it were a regular grunt, in a shower room
    with the guys, he isn't going to last very long either. I am surprised
    that he made it as far as he did without getting cought. As I said I
    don't care if he is gay or not. I am trying to bring up the view of
    those who would go into the service TODAY!

    My dad served in the army for over 30 years, including wartime (World
    War II, European Theatre, and a tour in Viet Nam).  My husband served
    in the army for 20 years.  As Dep Dau, then Dep Wif, I lived in
    government quarters, on army bases, and attended DOD schools most of my
    life.
    
    IMO, the Colonel was guilty of conduct unbecoming to an officer, not 
    for being gay but for participating in the exhibition.  However, I
    can't see that my opinion counts, or should count, for much; I was
    never in the armed service, just lived in the atmosphere.
    
    However, as this string has lengthened, my primary feeling is a wish
    that participants would refrain from usage of the term flaming
    queen(s).
    
    aq
    

    .48
    
    Please explain what you mean by >even if there is a man/woman in the
    uniform that you cannot bring yourself to respect.
    
    Lack of respect for an officer will not necessarily get you kicked out.
    SHOWING that lack of respect will get you into trouble. If you disobey
    that officer, or maybe haul off and hit em, you won't get kicked out,
    you'll just spend alot of time in the brig.
     
    You CAN'T expect to tell an average group of soldiers that they have to
    go and respect some officer who the night before was dancing around in
    womens clothes at a gay bar.  As liberal as some folks would like
    everyone else to be, we are NOT there. Maybe we will NEVER get there. 
    But in time of crisis, you can't take that chance. Too many lives are
    at stake, even perhaps that ex-colonels. 
    Even in the military you can't MAKE people believe in something/someone
    that they cannot. You can only punish them after the fact. 
    It's too late to punish them if they're dead. 
    
    

    How would this Officer/Dentist get you killed? Also, you salute the
    uniform not the person wearing that uniform (Officers), of course
    I have been out for almost 9 years and the memory is going. 8*)
    
    Charlie
    

    Although I tend to agree with you Charlie, I think that a stiuation
    like this manifest disrespect and the inability to follow said officer. 
    In the case of "war time" I dont know if I could follow a leader that
    has acted this way.  In all honesty that is.  I was in the Navy, and I
    knew of two guys that were gay, they were the best but I dont know if I
    could follow them to hell.....It is such a difficult thing to call, ya
    know?
    
    Al

    .52
    
    If you were asking me >(BTW, were you {in the military}), yes, as I
    stated in a previous note, I was in the Navy. I too met my share of
    *ssholes, but to be honest....there are just as many of them here in
    civilian life!!
    
    Maybe, because this man chooses to dress as a woman, people would feel
    that he has some VERY feminine characteristics. For the same reason that
    some men might be hesitant to follow a woman into battle, they might
    question this mans ability to 'shoot to kill'. (no, I'm NOT saying that
    women cannot be leaders in battle----no this is not a cut at women---
    please sit back down). ..just a thought I guess..
    
    -1 you also mentioned that someday people won't think twice about men
    dressed in womens clothing ... it will be accepted ... to be honest,
    not a cut to anyone.... that's a scary thought. WHY you ask?? Cause
    I guess I would be worried about what's next. But this too is a subject
    for yet another topic....no rat holes here.....:-)
    
    

    In (thoughtful, not full) review of the contents of this string it
    APPEARS as though no one is "objecting" to the dismissal of the
    Colonel, yet, the only disagreement appears to be on the severity of
    the punishment...quite frankly, this (pleasantly) surprises me.

    Jerry

    I haven't read through all of these but one of the issues I see
    comming up over and over is the "justice" in the punishment the Officer 
    received.  And that it may have been a little "overboard".  (9 months
    in jail... $27,000. fine... etc.) for his offense.  
    
    Hmmmm a little overboard?  Lets see... as a legal yeoman in the Navy I 
    saw an enlisted man get confined to quarters for three months and a 
    $600.00 fine for saying a sh*t to an officer...
    
    I myself received a $200.00 fine for bing 15 minutes late (Unauthorized 
    Absense) for work. (I understand the Marines are even harder on this 
    offense).
    
    And it is still one the books that a man can be shot for being asleep
    while on watch... even aboard a ship under full steam in the middle of 
    the ocean.  Think about it.
    
    When was the last time a civilian outfit charged you more then what you 
    make during the time your gone for being absent?
    
    As the Senior Chief that enlisted me said... You're going into the Navy
    to protect the rights of the citizens of the United States... in order
    to do that you have to gie up all your formal rights as a civilian and 
    follow the UCMJ (he explained what it was).  As time went on I realized 
    that what was all right for a civilian couldn't work for the
    military... the major reason was simply that if you asked too many
    questions when told to do something... you could end up with your hands
    in your lap and your head in them.  Or in pieces about the size of a 
    dime.  
    
    I agreed to it when I went in... I swore an oath as part of my
    enlistment, and stuck by it.  A part of that oath included behaving 
    according to the definitions of the UCMJ and I did so... when I failed 
    to do so... I was punished, as was anyone else who failed to do so...
    In most (make that all) cases that I encountered the punishements were
    far more harsh then anything the civilian world would have given for
    the same offense.
    
    The difference is that your own and everyone who works with you depend 
    on you with there very life.  
    
    Was he over fined?
    
    I remember an enlisted man who worked at a local bar near the base...
    he was brought up on charges of disrespect to the uniform.  Given 6
    months in the brigg (not "jail") and a $10,000 fine for his offense...
    What did he do?... 
    
    He was a male stripper... he stripped down to a pair of red jockey
    shorts with a good conduct medal pinned to the front of them.
    
    He was a 1st Class Petty Officer (E6) and personnally although the 
    Good Conduct Medal is considered a 4 year "gedunk" medal awarded for 4
    years of not violating the UCMJ... he got what he deserved.  He was
    aware of the risks and took them anyhow.  Once he finished his time in 
    the brigg he was discharged from the Navy with a BCD discharge.
    
    Skip

.57> So he gets a 10K fine and six months for stripping in a hetero
.57> environment.  The colonel gets 9 months and 27K for doing something
.57> similar in a homosexual environment.
.57> Sounds like justice to me...

    There's a BIG difference between a full bird colonel and an "enlisted
    man".  The colonel got 50% more jail time and 300% in fines ... the
    punishments are functionally equivalent.

    Jerry

    I said it before, once again...
    
    FINES LEVIED BY THE MILITARY ARE PRO-RATED BY RANK.
    
    THe 10K for an E6 is quite equivalent to 27K levied to a Light Bird.
    
    The LTC. earns more just about double base pay to the E6.  Probably
    alot more, as a LTC has probably got over 14 years in, and the raised
    come every two years.  
    
    It is a punishment that is equally handed out.  Folks often get fined
    in terms of "N months pay".  So, for the E6 making 1250/month, a "6
    Month" fine would be $7500.00.  The LTC (at about 2500/month) would be 
    fined $15,000.00.  
    
    

.60> Why must there be a gay discrimination angle to this story?

    Those who do not understand the finely tuned workings of the American
    military machine simply did not comprehend that the punishment dealt the
    colonel was in keeping with his rank and pay and the offense - he was
    gay so it made for good press and about 60+ notes in this conference.

								Jerry

Just a little red herring,,
      In some parts of Europe the punishments are according to the income.
      This has nothing to do with the army.
      e.g. The judge will fine a number of days pay and not a fixed sum. This
      seems to me a far more just way to punish.
      Rgds,

    Gene,
    
    As a man climbs the military ladder of rank and responsiblity (which is 
    stated in many various volumns of military protocal) he is expected to 
    fine tune himself and his "off duty" behavior to act accordingly.  
    Supposedly as a man climbs in experience and rank he is also
    maturing...
    
    Often a fine levied is on a monthly bases... a basic amount needed to 
    take care of basic needs is left and the rest is removed to pay the 
    fine.  When the fine is levied... all aspects are considered... does
    the member have dependents, etc.  
    
    The military provides housing allowance, food allowance and a clothing 
    allowance which are not taken from the man when he is fined... He is 
    also given additional money for his dependents.  
    
    In short what the man (enlisted or officer) is fined is the money he 
    earns to have a good time with, and buy himslef luxury items.
    
    Just some additional info for you to smile about.
    
    Skip