GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-11-2012, 16:31   #1
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36,096
Army general is military's first openly gay flag officer

This is not really a political issue, or an Army issue - more of a social issue thing I guess, so I'm going to try GNG as a forum for it.

Army general is military's first openly gay flag officer

The interesting thing isn't that they made her a general and let her "wife" pin on her stars - that would be in keeping with Army policy . . . if you could make general in your first year.

The interesting part is, she has been in the Army for 26 years. More than 19 years ago, she had to state in writing that she was not a homosexual in order to join and I believe she may have had to lie about it again on her security clearance documents throughout the years. Even during Don't Ask Don't Tell, she was in violation for actually having a girlfriend/wife/whatever she calls her. DADT only stopped them from asking, it remained a UCMJ violation to have sex with a person of the same sex.

So that decided to ignore violations o fthe past - but does that wipe out an entire career of lying to the Army and violating regulations, to make her a general?

If she was straight and had a DUI as a captain, she probably wouldn't even be in the Army right now.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet, where you could pretend to be anything you want; so how come so many people on this forum pretend to be limpwristed sissies?
- Me, 2014.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 16:36   #2
Kilrain
Señor Member
 
Kilrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: On the road to Shambala
Posts: 2,190
Being that she's a gay flag officer, does her car have little rainbow flags on the front fenders when she's driven around?

__________________
The hog of the forsaken,

He is the pork of crime

- Michael Hurley
Kilrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 16:36   #3
Ummagumma
Senior Member
 
Ummagumma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
This is not really a political issue, or an Army issue - more of a social issue thing I guess, so I'm going to try GNG as a forum for it.

Army general is military's first openly gay flag officer

The interesting thing isn't that they made her a general and let her "wife" pin on her stars - that would be in keeping with Army policy . . . if you could make general in your first year.

The interesting part is, she has been in the Army for 26 years. More than 19 years ago, she had to state in writing that she was not a homosexual in order to join and I believe she may have had to lie about it again on her security clearance documents throughout the years. Even during Don't Ask Don't Tell, she was in violation for actually having a girlfriend/wife/whatever she calls her. DADT only stopped them from asking, it remained a UCMJ violation to have sex with a person of the same sex.

So that decided to ignore violations o fthe past - but does that wipe out an entire career of lying to the Army and violating regulations, to make her a general?

If she was straight and had a DUI as a captain, she probably wouldn't even be in the Army right now.
It's not like she's lied about her qualifications or having a prior criminal record. She lied under a policy of discrimination that 40 years from now would appear no different than "No colored people" policies do now. She shouldn't have been put in this situation in the first place.
Ummagumma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 17:33   #4
Caver 60
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Midwest
Posts: 3,828
I know of at least three full bull Colonels who received UCMJ punishment for adultery. One case happened within the last year or so. I don't see any reason she should be given an exemption for her violations. I'm on Bren's side on this one.
Caver 60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 18:25   #5
Restless28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Solsbury Hill
Posts: 16,259
What would McArthur, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz, Sgt. York and Audie Murphy think of this crap?
Restless28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 18:26   #6
bunk22
Senior Member
 
bunk22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,478
Yet she looks so hetero! Whew...
__________________
-Glock Gen 4 G17/G19/G30/G42; Gen 3 G17/G34
-Sig P220ED/226 Navy/226 TacOps/227 SAS/229R/M11-A1D/1911 TACOPS/M400/556xi/HK VP9/XDM 45/XDs 4.0 45/Walther PPX/C39 AK47/RPK47

bunk22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 18:29   #7
kiole
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,295
How would you feel if she was Jewish and there was a policy against Jews serving? Then years later the discriminative policy was eliminated. Would you think her hiding her religion was justified?
kiole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 18:30   #8
faawrenchbndr
CLM Number 281
The Dude Abides
 
faawrenchbndr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: east of East St. Louis
Posts: 33,823
Well,.....she looks like a dude, guess she is on top?
faawrenchbndr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 18:49   #9
Ummagumma
Senior Member
 
Ummagumma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caver 60 View Post
I know of at least three full bull Colonels who received UCMJ punishment for adultery. One case happened within the last year or so. I don't see any reason she should be given an exemption for her violations. I'm on Bren's side on this one.
What's the UCMJ definition of adultery ? Seriously, I've got no idea. Were they married and fooling around ? Or were they unmarried and had a girlfriend ?

Are all UCMJ personnel prohibited by having a relationship with other UCMJ personnel, even if neither is married ?
Ummagumma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 18:53   #10
fireguy129
NRA Member 2008
 
fireguy129's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Northeast Pa, usa
Posts: 2,694


Anyone surprised? Really??
fireguy129 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 18:59   #11
davew83
hhhhhhhhmmmmmmm
 
davew83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SC
Posts: 1,835
Send a message via AIM to davew83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless28 View Post
What would McArthur, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz, Sgt. York and Audie Murphy think of this crap?
Probably would worry more about the work they do than who they sleep with.
__________________
God and soldiers we adore, in time of danger, not before, let the danger
be safely righted, and God is forgotten and soldiers slighted.
- John Churchill
Duke of Marlborough
davew83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 19:01   #12
SPIN2010
Searching ...
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: On the move ... again!
Posts: 1,840
Right on the money, Bren.

Just more proof we are in the time of what is right is wrong and what is wrong is right.

Fact: A lying CIC or a lying general, whats the difference? No agency is enforcing the law on criminals and the american people have no power over their leaders to do so anymore.
SPIN2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 19:08   #13
Big Bird
NRA Life Member
 
Big Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,636
The real question is was she promoted because of her sexuality or in spite of it?

Regardless...promotion party following the ceremony to be held at the "Don't ask don't tell club."
__________________
Big Bird,

“Est Nulla Via Invia Virute”
Big Bird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 19:16   #14
KalashniKEV
Senior Member
 
KalashniKEV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NoVA
Posts: 5,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
The interesting part is, she has been in the Army for 26 years. More than 19 years ago, she had to state in writing that she was not a homosexual in order to join and I believe she may have had to lie about it again on her security clearance documents throughout the years.
WOW... just wow...

Did you equate concealing her sexuality prior to DADT to getting tanked and taking the party on the road?

INTERESTING indeed... (your comment)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Even during Don't Ask Don't Tell, she was in violation for actually having a girlfriend/wife/whatever she calls her. DADT only stopped them from asking, it remained a UCMJ violation to have sex with a person of the same sex.
Have you not violated Article 125? Because I did routinely...

I guess it's a good thing I'll never be a General.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post

So that decided to ignore violations o fthe past - but does that wipe out an entire career of lying to the Army and violating regulations, to make her a general?
If you were a runaway slave, your record was clean after the Emancipation.

If you were a top performer in service to Nation, serving under a backward policy that was later reversed, your record is similarly clean whether you're a General officer or an E-4 for life.

I'm really surprised by your shameful comment. You should slap the **** out of yourself and edit the OP, IMO.

Last edited by KalashniKEV; 08-11-2012 at 19:18..
KalashniKEV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 19:26   #15
ChuteTheMall
HildabeastHater
 
ChuteTheMall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Anti-Obamaville
Posts: 60,397


Quote:
Army general is military's first openly gay flag officer
I see you spelled flag correctly.



And yeah, if she lied to get her security clearance, she needs to be prosecuted. It's a matter of national security, not a sex club.

ChuteTheMall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 19:27   #16
zoyter2
Yeah, so what?
 
zoyter2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Anniston, Alabama
Posts: 11,669


I think people are avoiding the REAL issue and dodging what NEEDS TO BE SAID........................



















Congratulations on your promotion and thank you for your service General Smith.
__________________
Sorry, Okie. I tried, I really did. There are just too many idiots for whom I have little patience. You were a better man than I.
zoyter2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 19:40   #17
KalashniKEV
Senior Member
 
KalashniKEV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NoVA
Posts: 5,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoyter2 View Post
Congratulations on your promotion and thank you for your service General Smith.
x1000

This is a historic moment in the history of the United States Army and should be celebrated, but really, congratulations to BG Smith!!

The age of Radical Christian Moralism is over in this country. Our culture has progressed.

No longer do we have THE FIRST AMERICAN FEMALE ASTRONAUT living in shame of her sexuality, and in secret. No longer do we have General Officers living lives of service- contrary to the policies of their organizations.

We can celebrate the WHOLE HERO now... and that's a very good thing!

:salute:
KalashniKEV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 19:41   #18
bigleaf
Senior Member
 
bigleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Nashville - Music City
Posts: 817
It seems that her work over her career was exceptional to the point that she was promoted again, and again, and again until she was among the highest leaders in our Army.

You've got to remember... In response to a set of discriminatory, unjust and un-American regulations against a large number of their fellow soldiers, the Armed Forces has ignored sexual orientation for decades. They didn't much talk about it. Soldiers did their jobs. Soldiers got promoted according to how well they did their jobs. They even got Congress and Pres. Clinton to codify it with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", while those unjust regs were heading out the door for good.

Here's the test for government recognition of marriage or equal treatment under the law, or any right of any American: Is this a right of a citizen? Is she a citizen? If yes, and yes, then yes.

Congratulations to General Smith, and to our Army for truly reflecting our citizenry.
__________________
That's all that tyranny is: it's not in a personality; it's a set of circumstances. It's being trapped with your enemy in a limited space– a country or a family– where the balance of power between you is unequal and the weaker one has no recourse.
bigleaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 19:46   #19
Detectorist
Senior Member
 
Detectorist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Missouri
Posts: 8,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
This is not really a political issue, or an Army issue - more of a social issue thing I guess, so I'm going to try GNG as a forum for it.

Army general is military's first openly gay flag officer

The interesting thing isn't that they made her a general and let her "wife" pin on her stars - that would be in keeping with Army policy . . . if you could make general in your first year.

The interesting part is, she has been in the Army for 26 years. More than 19 years ago, she had to state in writing that she was not a homosexual in order to join and I believe she may have had to lie about it again on her security clearance documents throughout the years. Even during Don't Ask Don't Tell, she was in violation for actually having a girlfriend/wife/whatever she calls her. DADT only stopped them from asking, it remained a UCMJ violation to have sex with a person of the same sex.

So that decided to ignore violations o fthe past - but does that wipe out an entire career of lying to the Army and violating regulations, to make her a general?

If she was straight and had a DUI as a captain, she probably wouldn't even be in the Army right now.
I agree 100%

Having served on active duty in the Reserve Personnel Center, I've seen it time and time again.

For example: back then the Officer regulations stated that if you fail certain career courses you must be discharged. I've seen a female officer fail twice and nothing happened to her. On top of that, I was threatened with disciplinary action of I looked into it further.
__________________
NASM-Certified Personal Trainer

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place”. George Bernard Shaw
Detectorist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 19:52   #20
boby
Senior Member
 
boby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless28 View Post
What would McArthur, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz, Sgt. York and Audie Murphy think of this crap?
Who cares what a bunch of dead guys think?
boby is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:38.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,073
320 Members
753 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31