Pentagon: Gay Soldier Survey Won't Lead to Segregation

[USArmyParatrooper]

The Pentagon today strongly pushed back against an allegation from a prominent political blogger that the military could segregate gay and straight servicemembers if and when lawmakers repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The suggestion the Defense Department or the Obama administration could allow for segregation of any kind is "absurd," a Pentagon spokesperson said.

Questions about the Defense Department's intentions stem from a controversy that started last week regarding a survey the DOD sent to 400,000 servicemembers. The survey is part of a Defense Department analysis of the impact of repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) law, which prohibits openly gay men or women from serving in the military.

After questions from the survey were leaked, some gay veterans organizations criticized the Defense Department, saying the questions -- which related to issues like how servicemebers would handle sharing housing or bathing facilities with gay colleagues -- were biased against a repeal of DADT.

At a press briefing on Friday organized to address the concerns about the survey, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell explained why those questions were included in the survey. Today, John Aravosis of Americablog, a progressive political blog with a special focus on gay rights, zeroed in on Morrell's remarks to accuse the Pentagon and the Obama administration of preparing to segregate gay servicemen and women.

Aravosis highlights this comment from Morrell: "We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that didn't try to address these types of things. Because when DADT is repealed, we will have to determine if there are any challenges in those particular areas, any adjustments that need to be made in terms of how we educate the force to handle those situations, or perhaps even facility adjustments that need to be made to deal with those scenarios."

Conjuring up some of the most evocative images of the Civil Rights Movement, Aravosis writes, "The Pentagon confirmed on Friday that it is considering segregating gay troops, specifically with regards to creating separate showers and/or barracks for straight and gay troops...Why is it okay to even talk about segregating gays and lesbians? What would have happened to an Obama administration spokesman who talked about segregating blacks?"

Morrell told Hotsheet that the suggestion the survey could lead to segregation is "absurd."

"No one is talking about segregating gay servicemembers from straight servicemembers," Morrell said. "We don't know that any adjustment will have to be made, but in the event that's a recommendation from the review group, it would not result in any 'separate but equal' facilities."

Hypothetically speaking, Morell said, it is possible the military could consider facility modifications like adding shower curtains to shower stalls that are currently open.

"We don't know if any adjustments will be required, but we need to survey the force to get an idea of what their privacy concerns are," he said.

Morell said the suggestion the survey could lead to segregation is "inflammatory nonsense" from groups trying to discredit the survey, which is "not helpful" for the Defense Department.

"If the consequence is that servicemembers are reluctant, hesitant to participate in the survey, that would be very unfortunate," he said. "We need empirical data to advise the working group on what the potential challenges and what the potential opportunities are that come from a repeal."

[USArmyParatrooper]

1. Here's the Link

As an active duty serviceman I never believed the segregation of gays was going to happen and I still don't.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010332-503544.html

[Bluebear]

2. Yeah, they spend almost 5 mill to see if they need SHOWER CURTAINS

:rofl:

[USArmyParatrooper]

3. I gotta love your hyperbole

Because really, that's all your response was.

Geoff Morrell: One hypothetical example could be possibly implementing X, if any changes are made at all.

You: The entire thing is about X!

[EFerrari]

6. Geoffy Morrell: Bushco holdover.

Me: He's still an ass.

[USArmyParatrooper]

9. If no segregation is planned

I don't care if he's an ass, a rabbit or a kangaroo.

[EFerrari]

19. Whatever he is, he has no credibility whatsoever.

He was a Pentagon hack then and he's a Pentagon hack now.

[USArmyParatrooper]

22. He's speaking on behalf of the Pentagon clearnly announcing

NO SEGREGATION.

So are you claiming to believe the Pentagon is publicly announcing no segregation, is going to light a political firestorm by segregating anyway and the Obama administration is going to let that happen?

I'm sorry, I know it's disappointingly boring. I know it's one less thing to try to smear Obama over, but you and I both know segregation is not going to happen.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

29. Maybe you don't remember who Geoff Morrell is.

He's the @sshole the Pentagon hired away from ABC to lie to us while they tanked the Taguba report and hid their torture program. Remember the Taguba Report?

Geoff Morrell on the Abu Graib inquiries, 2007:

Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell dismissed the idea that the military justice system failed to hold any officers accountable in the scandal.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/08/ap_abughraib_070829/

LOL. I don't believe a word the Pentagon says. I'm not an idiot.

[foxfeet]

4. No more absurd than DADT itself.

And THAT actually happened.

[USArmyParatrooper]

7. Yeah, it's amazing how the military is subordinate to Congress

Isn't it? Yep, that legislation imposed on the military actually happened.

[foxfeet]

17. There's plenty of absurdity to go around.

Surely (and I'm not calling you Shirley) you can understand how GLBT folks might harbor the teensiest bit of mistrust towards all the players in this shameful drama.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Excuses for slanderous and insulting framing of a process

founded on bigoted presumptions and fears. This Morell is a disgrace, part of an institution that currently practices open discrimination and thinks of that as honorable.

[USArmyParatrooper]

8. So, saying directly that the military will NOT segregate =

"Excuses for slanderous and insulting framing of a process founded on bigoted presumptions and fears."

Let me ask you this. When DADT is repealed and there's no segregation (as I predicted), what will you paste onto your soapbox?

[Bluenorthwest]

10. What did I say about segregation? Nothing.

I said the process itself is insulting, unnecessary, and poorly framed. I said this man is making excuses for that. How about addressing what I actually said instead of this placing of arguments into my mouth and asking that I defend them?
Where did I say a thing about the results of this survey? I addressed the nature of and need for the survey.

[USArmyParatrooper]

11. The subject of the OP is Segregation

More specifically the fact that it's NOT going to happen. If you're insulted by the survey itself despite this fact, that's a different (and smaller) issue.

Frankly the survey doesn't surprise me at all. You would be absolutely amazed how many ridiculous studies and surveys we have to participate in on a wide range of issues. It's the way the army (and I presume the military) is. To say they overanalyze everything would be a gross understatement.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Well, the subject of the OP is Morell talking about segegation

which is a trumped up straw man he is using to distract from what people are actually unhappy about, which are the issues I brought up. So, you see, I am talking about the actual story, not the replacement puppet story Morell is hoisting.
Do they ask you questions about other minority groups you serve with? No, they do not. And no, I'd not be surprised that they split a million hairs prior to making a decision, that is a symptom of cowardice and also of having far too much money to spend and a desire to waste time and delay the feared decision moment. This is not unique to the military, it is common to all fields with too much money and craven leadership.

[USArmyParatrooper]

14. Trumped up Strawman?

He was responding to specific accusations that segregation is being considered, many of which have been made right here on DU. How on earth is that strawman?

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Yes, because that is one minor aspect, a thing I have not heard

until this very thread, because those speaking out have been talking about the skewed content and slanderous nature of the survey itself, not focusing on what might be the outcome of the survey. The bulk of the world is laughing at the US military for doing a survey about showers and what people think of who might be gay among them.
Morell is refusing to address the actual issues by posing this bit of straw up as if it were the entire issue. It will not work.

[USArmyParatrooper]

16. You must not get out much

Accusations that Segregation is possibly in the works have run rampant in the news and (on this very website).

But yeah, I agree. Segregation is just "one minor aspect" that isn't even worth addressing. :sarcasm:

[Bluenorthwest]

18. I don't see the need for the personal snark, pal.

Here is what I am reading, the issue as presented by the voices leading the fight. Here is an example. Drip sarcasm all over it if you like.
From getEQUAL: "“On Wednesday, two courageous gay servicemembers will stand trial for their protest against the 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' policy. If the Pentagon’s working group is truly interested in the effects of this discriminatory and outdated law on the men and women in uniform, perhaps they’ll take a few hours and come hear testimony from just two of the 14,000 patriotic veterans whose lives have been shattered serving under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ Maybe then, they will gain a little more understanding about why gay and lesbian servicemembers are so outraged at their focus on shower curtains, instead of looking at our allied military counterparts' integration of gay, lesbian and bisexual servicemembers in other countries.”

[USArmyParatrooper]

23. As Secretary Gates *clearly* said already...

The survey is NOT about "whether" but how the new policy will be implemented.

Let me ask you this so I can see where you're actually coming from.

If DADT gets repealed and there's no segregation, are you going to say "thank you" to the Obama administration and to Congressional Democrats?

[ruggerson]

26. I'll say a big thank you to the gay activists who worked tirelessly for repeal

specifically the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

http://www.sldn.org/

[USArmyParatrooper]

27. Yeah, because...

Legislators writing a bill that the President proposed and signed isn't particularly noteworthy.

[ruggerson]

32. Obama never proposed a bill

He didn't even endorse the bill that Murphy had inherited. He did push the military and for that I give him props, even those this "compromise" is troublesome beccause explicit anti discrimination language was removed.

Gay servicemembers and activists got this done by pressuring congress and gay people nationwide got this done by closing their wallets and making it clear that it had to be done before November.

That is, if it gets done. It ain't slam dunk yet.

[USArmyParatrooper]

33. Uh... yes he did ensorse the Murphy ammendment

http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/05/obama-endorses-don%E2%80%99t-ask-don%E2%80%99t-tell-compromise-but-will-dadt-repeal-include-non-discrimination-clause/

The White House announced late Monday that President Obama has endorsed a compromise on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

[ruggerson]

34. As I said

He never proposed his own bill nor endorsed the bill that Murphy inherited.

What he did do is back the compromise legislation that CONGRESS pushed for after Gates had sent them a letter asking them NOT to do it this year. Congress pushed back, luckily, and thus, if it passes the Senate, it will be done this year.

And the compromise legislation has, to date, stripped out the anti discrimination language. Language which the bill's sponsors wanted to keep intact.

[Renew Deal]

12. Of course it's absurd.

It would NEVER happen, at least with Obama in the White House.

[EFerrari]

20. It already has happened under Obama for 18 months.

That's what DADT is, essentially, segregation.

I don't mean to be mean but saying it would never happen overlooks all the people that have been and are today dealing with DADT to their detriment and the detriment of their families.

[Renew Deal]

21. Oh bullshit.

It's not what's happening. It's the old policy and Obama is the first to try to get rid of it. It will never happen because it will never happen.

[EFerrari]

30. What exactly do you think DADT is?

Good grief.

[USArmyParatrooper]

31. Something Bill Clinton, a President who

received a huge percentage of the gay vote (twice) implemented and Obama is the first to work toward repealing.

Segregation means to *separate*

Gays are NOT segregated. The fact that they're forced to hide their identity is certainly wrong, but being wrong doesn't de facto define it as "segregation"

[EFerrari]

36. It always amazes me that people are able to say things like

"gays are not segregated" as if the only thing DADT does is force people to lie night and day, which is bad enough. DADT creates a whole class of people who are denied fundamental rights, privileges and benefits.

You betchur @ss that's segregation. Segregation is not only separate showers or water fountains. Segregation is separating a group of people from their rights. The shower curtain is simply the physical evidence of that much more despicable separation.

[USArmyParatrooper]

38. You're really reaching

"Segregation is separating a group of people from their rights. "

By that logic if you're denied the right to own a gun or to a speedy trial it's "segregation" Obviously segregation refers to having *seperate* facilities and institutions like with blacks in the 60's.

[EFerrari]

39. No, I'm not really reaching. Your understanding of segregation

is too literal.

[USArmyParatrooper]

40. So to you correct = too literal.

[VMI Dem]

25. Well there you go. The Pentagon never lies.

[USArmyParatrooper]

28. $100 Paypal bet says segregation never happens

I'm guessing you won't be a taker because deep down you know it, too.

[noamnety]

35. Good god he is full of shit.

"Hypothetically speaking, Morell said, it is possible the military could consider facility modifications like adding shower curtains to shower stalls that are currently open."

So they aren't just segregating the gays, they are just considering segregating everyone equally as a direct result of scary known gays being in the showers. See, that way, it's not homophobic at all. Got it.

[EFerrari]

37. He's the guy they brought in to lie about torture.

That Geoff Morrell.

[QC]

41. We didn't like him back then, when he worked for a Republican, but now that he works for a Democrat,

he's the cat's pajamas.

[USArmyParatrooper]

42. Who said he's the cat's pajamas?

The point is the pentagon has announced they will NOT go down the path of segregation, and I never believed they would.

[Whisp]

43. Thanks for posting this, USAP. k&r.

there are so many lies that are repeated here taken right off Fox and the like, its nice to have some reason and calm - and those little incidental things called facts.

ty again

[kelly1mm]

44. Should the military continue to segregate by gender? Meaning,

should there continue to be separate barracks and bathroom/shower facilities for male and female soldiers?

As a former service member I have no problem with gays/lesbians serving openly in the military at all. In fact, one of my roommates was kicked out back in 1989 for being homosexual and I thought then it was bogus. But logically, I cannot understand keeping the genders separated, assuming the main reason is to diminish/discourage sexual activity and/or make the soldier more comfortable not being ogled (probably in that persons head anyway) while in the shower, while allowing soldiers with same gender attraction to bunk with others of the same sex. While I do not think that there is a serious risk of sexual assault, I would likewise think there would not be a serious risk of sexual assault if the genders were mixed.

Am I missing something in my confusion as to why we should continue to allow gender segregation as we rightfully argue against segregation by sexual orientation once DADT is repealed?

[noamnety]

45. This doesn't appear to be born out in reality:

"I would likewise think there would not be a serious risk of sexual assault if the genders were mixed."

rape statistics in the military are appalling.

[kelly1mm]

46. So are you saying that we should segregate soldiers from other

soldiers they have a sexual attraction to in order to reduce the appalling rape statistics in the military? I think that there is no need to segregate soldiers from other soldiers they may have a sexual attraction to - be they gay or straight. I think that the soldiers can control their "urges". If you disagree and would like to continue segregation based on gender, but not by sexual orientation, could you explain why?

[noamnety]

47. That's a great twisting of my words.

All I said was that the presumption that men wouldn't rape women wasn't born out in the real world. We live in a patriarchy where violence by men against women is epidemic.

If you want to attribute rape to "sexual attraction" that's your deal. I would attribute it to a culture of misogyny, privilege and power.

[kelly1mm]

48. i was not trying to put words in your mouth - that is why it was phrased

as a question. However, my question was about the logical and rational basis for allowing continued segregation in the military by gender. I thought you were replying to my query so maybe I read too much into your words. So, I will ask again and directly, what are your thoughts about gender segregation in the military?

[noamnety]

49. gender segregation is necessary because of the rape culture

which is specifically stemming from male violence against women, male supremacy and a sense of entitlement of the privileged majority to abuse an oppressed minority. That's a long standing tradition in our society, most societies, and throughout history rape has been a part of warfare culture in particular.

I don't see any relationship whatsoever between violence against women, and a fear that gay men are going to suddenly start raping straight men in the showers if the straight men know they are gay. Equating the two appears to be homophobic to me, and I'm not sure why that's being discussed as if it's a valid analogy.

[kelly1mm]

51. Couldn't the argument that one group oppresses and victimizes another

have been used to keep the military segregated by race? I don't believe there is/was any question that in the middle of the last century there was a culture of oppression and violence against blacks by whites in the US. Would the logic of your argument mean that the military should not have ended segregation by race in order to protect one group from the other?

My argument is that the military should not segregate at all, by race, gender, or sexual orientation. Just like the military was able to successfully (for the most part) de-segregate the military by race by forcefully and systematically changing the culture of the military (and I think that in so doing aided in changing the culture at large), it can again be used as a change agent for gender desegregation.

Just as you objected to me putting words in your mouth, I don't think I said anything about gay people sexually assaulting anybody. In fact, I have said I fully support repealing DADT an not having any segregation by sexual orientation. If anything, your comments about male violence against women seem to be painting with the broad brush against all males and further seem to suggest that women cannot empower themselves but need "protection" from males that cannot control their urges. I do not agree. I think women can and should be (and in my mind are) on equal footing with men in all ways. "Protecting" women via segregation from direct combat units or in segregation of facilities seems to only perpetuate their second class status in the military and in society as a whole.

[noamnety]

52. This is not correct:

"I don't think I said anything about gay people sexually assaulting anybody."

You were the one who brought up sexual assault, as if the risk of men assaulting women in a hypothetical mixed shower is an appropriate analogy in some way to there being a risk of gay men assaulting straight men in the showers.

Your posts do not seem to have a grasp on the fact that there IS an epidemic of male violence against women in the military. I don't see where you've addressed that anywhere except to deny it or to be insulted by that statement.

[kelly1mm]

53. Self delete - whoops!

Whoops - self delete.

[kelly1mm]

54. While I did use the term "sexual assault", to be fair, the whole

comment was:
"While I do not think that there is a serious risk of sexual assault, I would likewise think there would not be a serious risk of sexual assault if the genders were mixed."

Again - I DO NOT THINK THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK OF SEXUAL ASSAULT! I used the term serious as I do think that with over a million military members there may be some very small number - basically never say never.

Do I think there is a culture of violence against women in the military? Yes, similar to the same culture in society at large, controlled for demographics. If it is substantially more than in society at large then it is even MORE necessary to end the segregation by gender. I think is may be similar to the situation when desegregating the military by race. I believe the military may have been even worse for racism then society at large. However, the military was able to (largely) successfully de-segregate the military and in so doing shape change in the general culture as well. What I am taking away from your thoughts (my words not yours)is that if racism and oppression of blacks was epidemic in mid 20th century US military culture then we should not have ended segregation by race. I do not think you believe this - just that it it the logical and rational conclusion of your argument.

I actually do take offense to what I consider a patronizing attitude toward women and that they need some type of "special protection". I believe women are and should be full citizens and I conduct myself accordingly. Those types of attitudes is what kept women out of traditional male employment and other roles.

As for not answering questions - you have not said what your position is and why. You seem to want to make the point that there is an epidemic of violence against women and want me to admit it. OK - I do admit it. I DO NOT think one of the solutions is to perpetuate 2nd class status on them as a response. Now, can you answer the question - do you support ending segregation by gender in the military? Why or why not?

EDIT - actually you did answer the question above when you said segregation was necessary because of the rape culture of the military. Sorry. However, as stated above, I think that means desegregation would be even more important in the struggle for womens rights.

[noamnety]

55. Three points.

1. I do not know a single person besides you who believes that men would be less likely to rape women if the women were forced to shower with men. That solution does not appear to be reality-based.

2. I do not believe there is ANY connection between violence by men against women, and a homophobic-based fear that gay men will begin raping men in the showers if they aren't segregated.

3. Because I do not see any logical connection in your arguments, despite you trying to goad me into it, I am not interested in an in-depth discussion of letting men into the women's showers (supposedly in the name of "women's rights") in the context of a thread about letting gay men serve openly in the military. The connection itself is based on the faulty premise that there is a connection between the the epidemic rapes of women in the military, and letting gays out of the closet in the military. I don't know any instances of gay men becoming rapists because they came out of the closet.

[kelly1mm]

56. Again, couldn't the same logic you are proposing have been used

to keep the military segregated by race? Not trying to goad you ito anything. Like I said before I find it usefull to be logical and rational in my arguments/theories. I cannot see why we cannot try to change societies attitudes about women being second class citizens and start with something the government controls - the military - just like we did with segregation by race.

[Scurrilous]

50. Kick

:kick: