Repeal of DADT

[Southy82]

Greetings. I am a supervisor in the U.S. Military. As you may know, the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy that has protected homosexuals from being sought out and drummed out of the Service has been repealed. However, it has not yet been implemented. So, that means anyone who reveals that they are homosexual can still be discharged at this time. Sometime in the near future the repeal will be implemented and people will be able to reveal their sexual orientation, whatever it may be.

When the repeal is fully implemented, I will be placed in a situation of having to possibly grade the performance of individuals of any and all sexual orientations. That means that I will have to fully accept those orientations because they are protected by law and Service policy. So far there is no problem as we should love and work with everyone to the fullest extent possible.

Now, the problem. As part of the grading system, supervisors are asked to assess the Professional Qualities wherein we are to measure those qualities that the Service values in its people. One of these Professional Qualities is Integrity: The degree to which members demonstrated the qualities of honesty and fair mindedness in personal relationships. The minimum acceptable standard the Service sets for Integrity is that the member be honest and truthful, that they demonstrate strong moral character, and that they were fair-minded and trustworthy.

The service never defines strong moral character, so I am left to the dictionary which defines moral as:

1mor·al adj \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\

Definition of MORAL

1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical

b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior

c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment

e : capable of right and wrong action

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that when one determines what is moral and what is not, that it is based off of one’s opinion. My opinion is that homosexuality is wrong, so I could not say that someone who partook of homosexual activities practiced “strong moral character”.

In trying to be proactive, I brought this problem to my Commanding Officer who insinuated that maybe I should leave the service if I felt this way and that I should leave my personal religious beliefs out of work. I love the Service and I do not want to leave. But if someone asks my opinion on morality and I am compelled to give it by the nature of my work, I cannot lie.

All I can do is pray that God does not put me in this situation, but somehow I’m not sure that He will spare me. You see, in my discourse with my Commanding Officer this question was posed to me: “What if a woman had an abortion, how would you mark her? It’s her legal right.” I had not thought about this hypothetical before. I told my Commanding Officer that I suppose I would have to say that she did not show strong moral character.

I would appreciate any thoughts on this. I have asked so many people and no one has been able to give me an answer on this topic.

 

[Edward_H]

Greetings. I am a supervisor in the U.S. Military. As you may know, the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy that has protected homosexuals from being sought out and drummed out of the Service has been repealed. However, it has not yet been implemented. So, that means anyone who reveals that they are homosexual can still be discharged at this time. Sometime in the near future the repeal will be implemented and people will be able to reveal their sexual orientation, whatever it may be.

When the repeal is fully implemented, I will be placed in a situation of having to possibly grade the performance of individuals of any and all sexual orientations. That means that I will have to fully accept those orientations because they are protected by law and Service policy. So far there is no problem as we should love and work with everyone to the fullest extent possible.

Now, the problem. As part of the grading system, supervisors are asked to assess the Professional Qualities wherein we are to measure those qualities that the Service values in its people. One of these Professional Qualities is Integrity: The degree to which members demonstrated the qualities of honesty and fair mindedness in personal relationships. The minimum acceptable standard the Service sets for Integrity is that the member be honest and truthful, that they demonstrate strong moral character, and that they were fair-minded and trustworthy.

The service never defines strong moral character, so I am left to the dictionary which defines moral as:

1mor·al adj \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\

Definition of MORAL

1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical

b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior

c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment

e : capable of right and wrong action

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that when one determines what is moral and what is not, that it is based off of one’s opinion. My opinion is that homosexuality is wrong, so I could not say that someone who partook of homosexual activities practiced “strong moral character”.

In trying to be proactive, I brought this problem to my Commanding Officer who insinuated that maybe I should leave the service if I felt this way and that I should leave my personal religious beliefs out of work. I love the Service and I do not want to leave. But if someone asks my opinion on morality and I am compelled to give it by the nature of my work, I cannot lie.

All I can do is pray that God does not put me in this situation, but somehow I’m not sure that He will spare me. You see, in my discourse with my Commanding Officer this question was posed to me: “What if a woman had an abortion, how would you mark her? It’s her legal right.” I had not thought about this hypothetical before. I told my Commanding Officer that I suppose I would have to say that she did not show strong moral character.

I would appreciate any thoughts on this. I have asked so many people and no one has been able to give me an answer on this topic.

Interesting problem. I too am in the military and I write fitness reports also. I don’t think the DADT policy change should change or challenge your stance or grading scheme.
In the Marines we view integrity as applied honesty, truth telling, seeking the difficult truth and having the moral courage to pursue the truth despite effects. I’ve always felt that the original DADT policy itself utterly lacked integrity, suggesting we suppress, not tell the truth, look the other way. Wink, wink. It was perfect Clintonian thinking.

Now, we’re actually in a more morally “clear” environment - I didn’t say more moral, but more clear. We call things as they are a bit more than before. We’re closer to the truth than were were before the repeal of DADT.

This doesn’t make it any easier to be in a leadership position, amid moral decay. But I encourage you to stick it out - live your faith cheerfully and confidently.

Follow the leadership scheme you’re given…pray a lot more…and over time sanctify the military from within the military. Living morally, fairly, justly, with charity, with a seriousness, etc. We can change the military from within by struggling even more toward holiness. We’re not going to have the military made morally clean from the top. It comes from our own loving struggle.

 

[rossum]

I cannot give you a comprehensive answer, but here are a few points that strike me.

When the repeal is fully implemented, I will be placed in a situation of having to possibly grade the performance of individuals of any and all sexual orientations.

You are already in that situation. It is just that currently you do not know their sexual orientation.

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that when one determines what is moral and what is not, that it is based off of one’s opinion. My opinion is that homosexuality is wrong, so I could not say that someone who partook of homosexual activities practiced “strong moral character”.

As a Catholic do you grade people who are divorced? Do you grade people who are remarried after divorce, and hence committing adultery? Do you grade people who are using contraception? Do you grade people who fail to attend Mass on Sunday?

There are many parts of Catholic morality that are not accepted by the world at large. By and large the agreement is “I won’t force my morality on you if you won’t force yours on me”; especially in those areas where there is a lot of disagreement, such as contraception. Would you expect a Jewish officer to mark down others who ate pork or prawns? In those circumstances the Jewish officer has to ignore that part of his or her morality and put it to one side.

In trying to be proactive, I brought this problem to my Commanding Officer who insinuated that maybe I should leave the service if I felt this way and that I should leave my personal religious beliefs out of work. I love the Service and I do not want to leave. But if someone asks my opinion on morality and I am compelled to give it by the nature of my work, I cannot lie.

You were right to escalate the problem, though I don’t like the solution proposed. The solution seems to me to lie more in separating specifically Catholic parts of morality, that you should not expect non-Catholics to conform to, from more general parts of morality that it is reasonable to expect all serving soldiers to adhere to.

I suspect that the dividing line is whether or not the action affects that soldier’s performance of their duties. Lying, stealing and so forth obviously directly affect the duties of a soldier. Using contraception or eating pork do not, despite being immoral in certain cases. You are going to have to decide for yourself where the boundary lies. Would you mark down a non-Catholic soldier for failing to attend a Catholic church on Sunday? Would you mark down a Catholic soldier for the same?

In summary treat non-celibate homosexuals as you would a divorced and remarried soldier since to me the level of sin/immorality seems to be roughly the same. Celibate homosexuals are not committing any sin merely be being homosexual.

I would appreciate any thoughts on this. I have asked so many people and no one has been able to give me an answer on this topic.

Thank you for an interesting question. You owe me $0.02

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Greetings. I am a supervisor in the U.S. Military. As you may know, the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy that has protected homosexuals from being sought out and drummed out of the Service has been repealed. However, it has not yet been implemented. So, that means anyone who reveals that they are homosexual can still be discharged at this time. Sometime in the near future the repeal will be implemented and people will be able to reveal their sexual orientation, whatever it may be.

When the repeal is fully implemented, I will be placed in a situation of having to possibly grade the performance of individuals of any and all sexual orientations. That means that I will have to fully accept those orientations because they are protected by law and Service policy. So far there is no problem as we should love and work with everyone to the fullest extent possible.

Now, the problem. As part of the grading system, supervisors are asked to assess the Professional Qualities wherein we are to measure those qualities that the Service values in its people. One of these Professional Qualities is Integrity: The degree to which members demonstrated the qualities of honesty and fair mindedness in personal relationships. The minimum acceptable standard the Service sets for Integrity is that the member be honest and truthful, that they demonstrate strong moral character, and that they were fair-minded and trustworthy.

The service never defines strong moral character, so I am left to the dictionary which defines moral as:

1mor·al adj \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\

Definition of MORAL

1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical

b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior

c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment

e : capable of right and wrong action

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that when one determines what is moral and what is not, that it is based off of one’s opinion. My opinion is that homosexuality is wrong, so I could not say that someone who partook of homosexual activities practiced “strong moral character”.

In trying to be proactive, I brought this problem to my Commanding Officer who insinuated that maybe I should leave the service if I felt this way and that I should leave my personal religious beliefs out of work. I love the Service and I do not want to leave. But if someone asks my opinion on morality and I am compelled to give it by the nature of my work, I cannot lie.

All I can do is pray that God does not put me in this situation, but somehow I’m not sure that He will spare me. You see, in my discourse with my Commanding Officer this question was posed to me: “What if a woman had an abortion, how would you mark her? It’s her legal right.” I had not thought about this hypothetical before. I told my Commanding Officer that I suppose I would have to say that she did not show strong moral character.

I would appreciate any thoughts on this. I have asked so many people and no one has been able to give me an answer on this topic.

I suggest you speak with a chaplain or a priest. I’m certain you’re not the only one in this about to occur situation.

I think all of us need to look at the basis of right and wrong in every context. Lately, the trend has been to ignore feelings of guilt or shame or sinfulness. Do you know what will change once homosexuals service members decide to reveal their orientation? Recently, Entertainment Weekly did a cover story about out gay teens on TV. Being a gay teen is not the issue. The issue is that according to statements made on LGBT web sites, gay marriage is the ultimate goal to achieve full equality. They say the repeal of DADT will help move the process along.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

We are called to obey the Divine law first. Abortion is murder and violates the human dignity afforded all individuals as well as Divine law and natural law… The homosexual act violates the Divine and natural law. too. A chaste homosexual has no need to tell anyone of the struggle.

 

[ERose]

I agree with Rossum’s post. I do not think you can judge a person’s performance based upon what they do behind closed doors. What i think you are going to have most of your problems, especially in combat arms, is the high level of homophobic accusations you are to have to deal with, the requirement of scheduling different times for straights and gays to use community showers, and other living arrangements. Anyway may God’s grace be with you for you are going to need it.

 

[Southy82]

…I do not think you can judge a person’s performance based upon what they do behind closed doors…

I agree with you that we should not be asked to judge what a person does behind closed doors. However, we are asked to do just that. The metric used in my Service’s grading scheme particularly asks about a person’s personal relationships off duty. Now, just to clarify something, I would never make a performance judgement based off of rumor or likely perceptions. If I believe it likely that someone is homosexual or even says that they are, I pray for them and hope that they do not commit any sins just as I pray that I do not commit sins myself. What I mean to say is, that without hard eveidence, I assume the best even if I suspect the worst.

Also, someone advised that I should ask a Priest or Chaplain. I have asked three! Their answers range from that I should be less black and white in my views (the Catholic Chaplain) to “I don’t know what to tell you.” (pastor at my church), to “Pray more about it.” (my friend that’s a Priest). I guess I will continue to pray about it!

 

[djwright4341]

Now, the problem. As part of the grading system, supervisors are asked to assess the Professional Qualities wherein we are to measure those qualities that the Service values in its people. One of these Professional Qualities is Integrity: The degree to which members demonstrated the qualities of honesty and fair mindedness in personal relationships. The minimum acceptable standard the Service sets for Integrity is that the member be honest and truthful, that they demonstrate strong moral character, and that they were fair-minded and trustworthy.

I can see where you’re coming from with sexual orientation being part of their moral character, but I tend to try my best to cut my guys a break. To me, the only real difference between a 4 and 6 in Integrity is “Required same of others.” If they demonstrate strong moral character given their state in life, they deserve the highest mark I can give them under the standards. Remember, it’s OK for homosexuals to BE homosexual, they just can’t ACT on their impulses. If I as a supervisor find out that they’re cross dressing and/or doing something else that doesn’t relfect well on the service, they’re marks will reflect it.

All I can do is pray that God does not put me in this situation, but somehow I’m not sure that He will spare me. You see, in my discourse with my Commanding Officer this question was posed to me: “What if a woman had an abortion, how would you mark her? It’s her legal right.” I had not thought about this hypothetical before. I told my Commanding Officer that I suppose I would have to say that she did not show strong moral character.

Take a look at 9.A.1.b in the Personnel Manual. If she had an abortion (which is an elective procedure according to policy) without prior approval from the command, you could take care of that situation in other ways and mark her accordingly anyway (look at the standards for Loyalty (she’d have to miss work for some time), Adaptability, and Judgement.)

 

[Southy82]

Follow the leadership scheme you’re given…pray a lot more…and over time sanctify the military from within the military. Living morally, fairly, justly, with charity, with a seriousness, etc. We can change the military from within by struggling even more toward holiness. We’re not going to have the military made morally clean from the top. It comes from our own loving struggle.

Thank you. Honestly, I think this is some of the best advice I have been given since I first started seeking answers.

 

[ERose]

I can see where you’re coming from with sexual orientation being part of their moral character, but I tend to try my best to cut my guys a break. To me, the only real difference between a 4 and 6 in Integrity is “Required same of others.” If they demonstrate strong moral character given their state in life, they deserve the highest mark I can give them under the standards. Remember, it’s OK for homosexuals to BE homosexual, they just can’t ACT on their impulses. If I as a supervisor find out that they’re cross dressing and/or doing something else that doesn’t relfect well on the service, they’re marks will reflect it.

Here is where I think you guys are going to have problems. I was in the Marines during the Clinton administration when sexual discrimation was the big issue at the time. I know how many high brass officers and ECOs got in alot of trouble and many were forced into either early retirement or resignation due to some enlisted women making accusations of sexual discrimation against them. I don’t know if it is the same today as then but when it came to sexual discrimination you were guilty until proven innocent and since in a sexual discrimination case that is essentially an impossible act, the deck was stacked against these senior marines. I think that you are going to see the same stuff when it comes to homophobia accusations.

I am just warning you to be careful because I can see in this environment that you accuse a gay soldier of being a cross dresser or hitting on another soldier, you may end up being accused of being a homophobe and be in worse trouble than they should be in. I am not saying that you should compromise your principles, God forbid! I am saying that be ready to endure some potential trials and tribulations for your principles, because I think you are going to be dealt from a stacked deck. God bless.

 

[Southy82]

If they demonstrate strong moral character given their state in life, they deserve the highest mark I can give them under the standards.

That’s true. Any given person may not be as culpable as a Catholic or other Christian who knows the full truth.

 

[Southy82]

I think you are going to be dealt from a stacked deck.

It definitely feels that way sometimes!

 

[djwright4341]

Remember it’s all about documentation too. The standards for our service say that written documentation is only required for marks of 1,2,and 7, but I write something up for every mark other than a 4 (which is pretty much neutral; not bad but not outstanding) to justify to my supervisor why I’m giving my guy that mark. It makes me really justify to myself why I’m giving him that mark, and it makes it harder for my supervisor to override my evaluation of my guy and give him a lower mark. (Not to mention it looks good on MY marks… ) A trick I learned from a department head is to keep one of those little green notepad and have a page in it for each day and I write down anything significant I or any of my guys did.

The repeal of DADT will present some challenges at first, but I really agree that all we can do is live the core values of our service and our faith as best we can. Others will, hopefully, be inspired to follow.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Personally, I agree with the person who said to treat an actively homosexual person as you would a remarried divorced person or a person having sexual relations outside of marriage. None of these people would be living chastely according to their station in life. When you encounter these people, how do you rate them?

Also, I personally think there is a difference between someone (anyone) who is unmarried and has multiple sexual partners and someone who is in a loving monogamous relationship, straight or gay.