R.I.P. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[Altair]

Since nobody seems to have started a thread on this yet (or did I miss it?), let me be the first to say:

Good riddance.

Today's the day that that misbegotten 1993 "compromise," which forced American service members to keep their identities under wraps if they're gay, lebian, or bisexual if they wanted to keep their jobs, falls into the dustheap of history, alongside Jim Crow. It drags down with it the sullied reputations of those who orchestrated it, such as then U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. The latter deserves special ignominy as a black man who knowingly inflicted the same kind of harm on others that our own African American people had been subjected to in the U.S. military's past.

As for the heroes in this, these two links put it nicely. Heroes of the past...

http://dadtarchive.org/?page_id=61

...and heroes of the present.

http://outservemag.com/2011/09/101-faces/

[RandallS]

Today's the day that that misbegotten 1993 "compromise," which forced American service members to keep their identities under wraps if they're gay, lebian, or bisexual if they wanted to keep their jobs, falls into the dustheap of history, alongside Jim Crow.

I wasn't aware that today was the day, but yes: Good riddance.

[sailor]

Since nobody seems to have started a thread on this yet (or did I miss it?), let me be the first to say:

 
There was one 60 days ago to mark the start of the 60 day count down.

Now the fun starts.  Apparently there are a ton of unknowns still to be worked out.  For example can a same-sex set of lovers live together?

[Nyktelios]

Since nobody seems to have started a thread on this yet (or did I miss it?), let me be the first to say:

Good riddance.

Today's the day that that misbegotten 1993 "compromise," which forced American service members to keep their identities under wraps if they're gay, lebian, or bisexual if they wanted to keep their jobs, falls into the dustheap of history, alongside Jim Crow. It drags down with it the sullied reputations of those who orchestrated it, such as then U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. The latter deserves special ignominy as a black man who knowingly inflicted the same kind of harm on others that our own African American people had been subjected to in the U.S. military's past.

As for the heroes in this, these two links put it nicely. Heroes of the past...

http://dadtarchive.org/?page_id=61

...and heroes of the present.

http://outservemag.com/2011/09/101-faces/

It's nice to see the US is taking baby steps into the 21st century.

[mandrina]

There was one 60 days ago to mark the start of the 60 day count down.

Now the fun starts.  Apparently there are a ton of unknowns still to be worked out.  For example can a same-sex set of lovers live together?

 
can heterosexual nonmarried couples cohabit?

[Asch]

There was one 60 days ago to mark the start of the 60 day count down.

Now the fun starts.  Apparently there are a ton of unknowns still to be worked out.  For example can a same-sex set of lovers live together?

 
Yes. On base in housing? Nope.

[mandrina]

Yes. On base in housing? Nope.

 
actually, then, they should be able to off base.  If they want to do it onbase, the military should recognize civil unions and all the people have to do is go to a state that allows them and go get one.

[Asch]

actually, then, they should be able to off base.  If they want to do it onbase, the military should recognize civil unions and all the people have to do is go to a state that allows them and go get one.

They can off base, that's the point. On base  housing is for single servicemembers (usually dorms/baracks) or married couples. Until gay marriage is FEDERALLY recognized same-sex couples cohabiting on base won't be allowed.

Some things will be permitted, for instance a gay servicemember can designate their spouse/partner as the caregiver for their child should they deploy, they can be designated the beneficiary in life insurance etc. But other spousal benefits like ID cards, medical etc, will be denied.

[sailor]

They can off base, that's the point. On base  housing is for single servicemembers (usually dorms/baracks) or married couples. Until gay marriage is FEDERALLY recognized same-sex couples cohabiting on base won't be allowed.

Some things will be permitted, for instance a gay servicemember can designate their spouse/partner as the caregiver for their child should they deploy, they can be designated the beneficiary in life insurance etc. But other spousal benefits like ID cards, medical etc, will be denied.

 
I was thinking of same-sex pair that are Not married, let alone to each other.  Ship board berthing is always single sex, and AFAIK unit deployment housing is also.  Would the unmarried same-sex couples be allowed to stay in the same berthing space?

As for married couples, DOMA is the big issue.

[sailor]

Yes. On base in housing? Nope.

 
I thought there were restrictions on junior single people with no dependents living off base, at least regards to them getting housing allowance?

[Asch]

I thought there were restrictions on junior single people with no dependents living off base, at least regards to them getting housing allowance?

 
Not especially, depends on the area. If housing off base is massively expensive or insecure then possibly but in general if you aren't a junior enlisted person you can choose to live off base.

[Asch]

I was thinking of same-sex pair that are Not married, let alone to each other.  Ship board berthing is always single sex, and AFAIK unit deployment housing is also.  Would the unmarried same-sex couples be allowed to stay in the same berthing space?

As for married couples, DOMA is the big issue.

Why would them not being married be an issue??? It's not as though single servicepeople aren't allowed to shack up with an S/O as it is if they choose to (off base of course). Now that DADT is irrelevant it doesn't matter.

Unit deployment will certainly continue to have gender separated billeting. Why would that change?

[sailor]

Why would them not being married be an issue??? It's not as though single servicepeople aren't allowed to shack up with an S/O as it is if they choose to (off base of course). Now that DADT is irrelevant it doesn't matter.

Unit deployment will certainly continue to have gender separated billeting. Why would that change?

 
I must not have been clear. I'm talking on-base barracks or on ship. Not off base.

[mandrina]

They can off base, that's the point. On base  housing is for single servicemembers (usually dorms/baracks) or married couples. Until gay marriage is FEDERALLY recognized same-sex couples cohabiting on base won't be allowed.

Some things will be permitted, for instance a gay servicemember can designate their spouse/partner as the caregiver for their child should they deploy, they can be designated the beneficiary in life insurance etc. But other spousal benefits like ID cards, medical etc, will be denied.

 
Civil unions aren't marriage. So actually, the military can recognise them if they so choose, since they are not actually dealt with in any federal way.

[Asch]

I must not have been clear. I'm talking on-base barracks or on ship. Not off base.

 
Ah well, either way when I was in the service and two persons were in a relationship if they weren't married they didn't legitimately cohabitate with the blessings of the service until they were married on base, barracks/dorms didn't matter. Just didn't happen unless you had an understanding room mate etc. But there was no official sanction.

Now, if you're wondering if housing will be segregated based on orientation, I doubt it.