Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MILITARY: Time’s come for gays to openly serve

Letter by Diana Parkison, Olympia on May 25, 2010 at 11:34 am with 22 Comments »
May 26, 2010 9:36 am

I spent more than 30 years in the U.S. Navy, both active and reserves, working with Joint Special Operations commands. The military indoctrinated me into believing that gays could not and should not serve in the U.S. military. Today, after looking at who is now being allowed to serve in the military, I believe that it is now time to drop the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

We have Army officers who refuse to fulfill their oath and go to a combat zone with their units. We have Army Rangers doing “takeover” bank robberies. We have convicted criminals given waivers to enlist. So what is wrong with gays serving in the military?

I know that I served with gays while in the Navy. At one time, I had a roommate that was gay. She didn’t bother me; she did her job, and I did mine.

We have people who want to serve, and they should be allowed to serve, whether they are gay or not.

Get over it; it is the 21st century.

Leave a comment Comments → 22
  1. So Diana are you equating a couple of rogue soldiers to the entire Ranger organization? Are you saying that the military is made up of criminals? Sure sounds like it to me. Here’s yet another example of a retired female service member who has found it necessary to bad mouth the system that she was a part of for many years. It leads me to wonder what they are feeding these people. I’m against having gays serve in the military for many reasons, not the least of which is morale and good military order. I know that eventually the political correctness crowd in the military will give in as some of the top leaders already have, so I’m swimming up -stream. Try your social experiment somewhere else, but leave the military alone.

  2. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    Please explain how having openly gay servicemembers effects good military order. I understand that morale could conceivably suffer, but that would strictly be a result of the personal opinions of those who oppose gays serving in the military. And in that case, why should the military accommodate those people? There are people in the military that don’t think women should serve. I’m sure there are also people who don’t think certain racial minorities should be able to serve. But we don’t accommodate those people’s bigotry, do we? So why not let the gays serve? Women and racial minorities didn’t serve prior to being “allowed in”, yet we know for a fact that there are now and likely always have been gays serving in the US military. That fact has not kept it from being one of, if not the, best militaries in the world.

    Please, explain how gays serving openly will result a measurable detriment to the service that is not caused by the heterosexual servicemembers that oppose the gays being there.

  3. monmornQB says:

    No frosty obviously that’s not what she is saying. But that was a nice propaganda spin to deflect from the real issue at hand. Land of the free for some legal adult US citizens but not others. Some of our allies have gays serving openly and it doesn’t seem to be a problem. The problem is people can’t get over their big government love for laws that repress some of our fellow US citizens although they love to fly their false banners of small government.
    It amazes me that gays would want to put their lives on the line for our great country even though there are bigoted laws on the books to hold them down. I respect that kind of love for our country.

  4. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Diana – you were derelict in your responsibilities if you allowed a Gay to exist on active duty and knew that she was gay!! Gay members in the military do not add to cohesion of a unit, cannot serve in positions of authority with any respect, and contribute to the demoralization of our great military!!! Limp-wristed military leaders and an anti-American marxist/socialist like “OH-Bummer” in the White House does not change the aforementioned!!

  5. I wrote a long explanation on my previous comments and tried to post them. It didn’t work. I don’t know about the rest of you but my computer runs into a brick wall on this new format. I’m about to quit using it before it crashes my computer.

  6. What the heck I’ll try one more time. APimpNamed Slickback, I spent 20 years in the army. The times have changed since I was in I’ll give you that, I can only speak from my own experiences. Since practically all of my assignments were in combat units, I can tell you that gays were not welcome. Had there been any, they would have been subjected to more hassle than you can imagine. Try to visualize two gays living together in the barracks. Try to imagine them serving in combat together, how reliable would they be? Should any soldier be allowed to bring their “significant other” with them into the barracks or to combat? Should they bring them to the Officer’s Club for an organizational party? How about some of the customary functions in the military such as dinner at the Commander’s quarters for married members and single couples? How about Happy Hour at the NCO club? How about the New Year’s Ball at the Officers club? What about the rules against “fraternization”,? That goes back as long as we’ve had a military, officers don’t hang out with NCO’s or E.M., and NCO’S don’t hang out with E.M. Allowing this social experiment will totally destroy that long standing and very effective policy. Unless you want to say that it’s o.k. for an enlisted man to cohabit with an officer, there goes any pretense of fair and impartial treatment If that officer happens to be the company commander of the soldier he is living with. Once that door is opened, how do you control it? As for what other countries do, we should not be in the business of following militaries from other countries that come to us whenever they get into a bind. There’s a reason we have the “best” military in the world, let’s keep it like that. Social experiments do not belong in the military.

  7. It seems pretty obvious that gay people are certainly as capable and patriotic as other people, but I don’t see why people can’t see the potential sexual tension issues that will arise if people are free to reveal their sexual orientation in the barracks.

    How is it different that housing men and women together and why don’t they do that? For a very good reason.

    Will they now assign gay men to women’s barracks and vice versa?

  8. monmornQB says:

    I’m sure glad that some of our NATO allies don’t deny equality to legal Adult citizens in their nations over an archaic ideology based in ignorance and the immature need to feel superior to others. They serve just fine in Afghanistan and may have helped a few of us get back home.
    We stifle equality in the “land of the free” even if it means discharging people that can speak Arabic or perform other vital task to our nations security.
    Hypocrites that hate freedom should move to Iran or other tyrannical nations were religion is the law of the land. All you bigots could hang out together and feel superior to other human beings while wiping yourselves w/ The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution since you don’t feel that the greatest documents on earth mean much.

  9. JungleBoy says:

    I agree with sozo. If you’ve ever been in the military, you will recall that the showers are frequently located in one big room. Will the military now be forced to build 30 separate shower stalls? And what about the barracks? Is there now going to be a barracks for gays, and a barracks for straights?

  10. mommornQB again here’s a liberal who tosses around the word “bigot” to try to minimize anyone he disagrees with. I doubt that monmornQB ever served in anything even close to a military organization , so his comments are suspect and uninformed as are most tliberals who comment on something that they don’t know anything about. If “equality” means allowing some to live a deviant and repulsive lifestyle, you can keep your version of it in your own house. If anyone should move to Iran, it’s those such as momornQB who want to destroy our military by undermining the long lasting traditions that has made it the best military in the world. Since monmornQB and others of his ilk are so fond of the more progressive countries that allow deviants to be in their military, I suggest they go to that country and join up in their military, leave ours alone.

  11. JungleBoy great questions. Let’s suppose that a colonel is in the closet now. Then let’s say that they repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and allow gays to serve “openly”. Now let’s assume that the same Colonel is “dating” a junior officer in his command. Do you see a potential problem here? Obviously people like monmornQB doesn’t. A little bit of common sense would tell most people that you cannot have situations where such a relationship can be allowed. What if the military say’s “senior officers and NCO’s will not get involved with junior personnel. Isn’t that yet another form of discrimination that the liberals would attempt to change, what’s the difference between one form of discrimination versus another form? There are certain situations where it becomes necessary to discriminate, whether it be about rank, position, or gender.

  12. monmornQB says:

    What does dating a subordinate have to do w/ this argument? If it’s not ok for ALL personnel then it’s not ok, plain and simple. That’s some more great propagandist spin to deflect the issue at hand. You could run for a political office w/ rebuttals like that.
    My issue is w/ double standards that have no business in a free society. Rules that apply equally to ALL legal adult citizens of this nation I have no problem w/ as long as they stay with in the frame work of the Constitution.

  13. Murigen says:

    Shower stalls…yes, they are one big room….but in basic that one big room had curtains around each shower head. If Lackland can do that the other bases can too.

    Military morale has been one of the excuses for not allowing gays/lesbians to serve openly, the other biggest reason was security. But by not allowing gays/lesbians to serve openly the military created the security problem. Morale problems with gays/lesbians serving are the same as the problems with blacks and women serving. That problem belongs to the people who can’t accept it.

    Getting rid of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” isn’t a social experiment (that’s the United States in general) it is a way of bringing the military back in line with society. What getting rid of it will do is allow a lot of good people to serve…and cut off an escape route for a few people who don’t want to fulfill their commitment. Yes, I knew straight people who claimed to be gay just to get out.

  14. aislander says:

    I fail to see the necessity of proclaiming one’s proclivities, be they hetero or homo. To do so seems a gratuitous provocation…

  15. “bringing the military back in line with society” …

    Interesting perpsective…

  16. the3rdpigshouse says:

    The anti-American leftists/socialists amongst us will only learn as a result of terrible national mistakes that negatively impact “their lives” – until then – we must continue in our efforts to educate the liberal dullards in our midst!

  17. monmornQB says:

    It’s not a matter of being fond of what others do in private. It’s matter of being consistent w/ laws that apply to ALL legal adult citizens of our nation. You can question my motives all you want. My motives are to be the nation we proclaim ourselves to be. My motives are the Constitution. my loyalty is to United States of America the land of the free, not the RNC or DNC parties and their financial donors. I fall in line w/ no political party and think for myself. I don’t let some stooge in charge of a political party that sells us all out to stay in power w/ BS partisan politics.
    So you bash on gays for being gay yet claim your not a bigot? If that isn’t bigotry than what is it? Yes you are the model for consistency. Do you not see the hypocritical nature of your comments? From one topic to the next w/o ever addressing the issues. You cry for small government on one topic only cause you don’t want to pay taxes yet relish big government when it puts you on a throne of superiority and tyranny. Laws like this are tyrannical examples of big government, yet you can’t seem to wrap your brain around the inconsistencies of you “logic”.
    Maybe you should just come out of the closet cause you seem to be afraid of being around homosexuals. I can’t think of any reason to fear them unless your repressing something.
    If your not attracted to other men than why do you have an issue w/ this. Unless your just another repressed homosexual and can’t handle the “temptation’?

  18. Volks253 says:

    Interesting that so many of you on the far far right hold the military is such contempt.
    I would think that since you all claim owner ship of the flag, apple pie, and seriously try to make people believe that you and you alone ‘support the troops’ I would think you would have the opinion that today military would and could handle anything that is asked of them.
    I guess you all think they are weak willed, weak minded and unable to ‘deal’ with the realitys of life in the 21st century.
    Or maybe it’s not them that can’t deal with it?

    personally havng been in the military and having many friends and family members currently serving, none of them even care.
    They know there are gays serving with them and they really don’t care. As long as everyone does their job, why should they care?
    It’s not like this is a huge revelation or anything, gays have been in the military since there was a military.
    I think those that are so against it, could and should change their name Larry Craig.

  19. beerBoy says:

    How is it that the Israel Defense Force and the UK’s military can function with open homosexuals but the US military would fall apart? Is the IDF or the UK better than the US forces?

  20. I’m with aislander on this one. What’s the compulsion behind “ask/tell?” I wish everyone –gay and straight–would keep his/her sex life where it belongs…at home in the bedroom.

    Imagine the absurdity of someone interviewing for a job as say …well you pick the position (no pun intended) — Imagine that person including their sexual preferences on their resume…” Um I prefer the opposite sex and I know it sounds old-fashioned, but the missionary position is our fave.”

    And monmorn, too bad you resorted to the old “repressed homosexual” nonsense.

  21. MonmornQB asked “what does dating a subordinate have to do with this argument”? The fact that he even asks this question is proof enough that he knows nothing about the military. I thought I did a pretty good job of explaining the reasons why. Apparently, Murigen and MonmornQB either cannot read or choose to ignore the obvious reasons why a colonel should not be dating a sergeant. Jeeez!

  22. beerBoy says:

    I will repeat slickback’s question as no one has attempted to respond directly to it:

    Please, explain how gays serving openly will result a measurable detriment to the service that is not caused by the heterosexual servicemembers that oppose the gays being there.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0