Judge Orders Lesbian Nurse Back into Military

[mooeypoo]

The Israeli Defense Forces, for example, used to allow women in combat positions before the creation of Israel (during the "Palmach" and "Etzel" - the armed forces defending the jewish settlements before the official state was born) but then decreed them out of front-line positions when the actual IDF was formed.

 

The main reason for it seemed to be quoted as

Soon after the establishment of the IDF, the removal of all women from front-line positions was decreed. Decisive for this decision was the very real possibility of falling into enemy hands as prisoners of war. It was fair and equitable, it was argued, to demand from women equal sacrifice and risk; but the risk for women prisoners of rape and sexual molestation was infinitely greater than the same risk for men.

Source: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/State/The+Israel+Defense+Forces.htm

 

Which makes sense to me, even though I think that men can be raped and tortured too. The main problem, in my opinion, is social. If a man returns "broken" from torture -- even if he was raped or had his manparts "removed" (equivalent, more or less, to having a woman's breasts 'shot off' as one of you mentioned) -- society seems to be less horrified than if the same thing happened to a woman. This is a psychological social issue, imho, more than it is a biological issue.

Also, in recent years more and more women are fighting to get into combat lines, and a few decisions were made regarding that (see the sources below, if you want more info about some of the ways women are reintegrated into full combat-zone duties).

 

 

That said, I don't quite see how women integration in the military is particularly relevant as a whole to the case of specifically gays integration, nor do I see how women's integration into battle positions is relevant to this woman's story -- she's not "front lines" per say, she's a nurse. Yes, she's near the front lines, treating the wounded, but that exists in Israel as well. That's not called "front lines", though, because she's not actively (or not meant to be) in the front line against enemy combatants. She's doing her job in the military in a high-activity zone, perhaps, but there are soldiers "protecting" them == her and her crew. I don't quite think these positions, at least not in the Israeli Army, are considered "front line" combat positions.

 

Also, the idea of integrating women is different than integrating lesbians or gays. I am not quite sure I understand why this question of women in GENERAL in the army is brought up in here.. isn't that a red herring? The nurse the title speaks of is a "big deal" story not because she's a woman, but because she is a Lesbian, and because she was outed forcefully (she never "told" as part of the "don't ask don't tell" someone ELSE told), *and* because she was reinstated, seeing as the judge examined the case and decided that pulling her off her unit is more damaging than keeping a professional nurse (gasp!) lesbian serving in such an important position.

 

Why are we discussing women integration in general?

 

 

 

Just something I found that might be a bit MORE relevant, imho, to this story, is this paper from "Armed Forces and Society", speaking of the influence of gays and lesbians on the IDF: http://www.filmforum.org/films/yossi/israelstudyafs.pdf

And an article quoting a US Study (couldn't find the actual US Study.. if anyone can link it, it can be really interesting read) urging to look at the IDF as an example to gay/lesbian integration in the IDF:http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362505,00.html

 

Now, anyone who says that gays/lesbians have no problems at all after integration -- in Israel or any other country that allows their integration in public -- is wrong. Obviously, there are problems, but there are also problems of skin-color, poor and rich origins, your hair color sometimes.. your lineage.. The army is a microcosm of society a lot of the time, and when people spend a long time in close quarters with people they didn't *choose* to spend 24 hours a day with, problems arise. I had a girl who was suffering over her persian background in bootcamp until we switched to our permanent base, at which time I was the butt-of-jokes for being too damn white and pale as a wall. So, in my case, *most* of the "harassment" was light-hearted. But not all of it. You deal with it, it's not just with gays and lesbians and it's not just with blacks and whites. It's what happens when people are stuck together - they bond, and they also get on each other's nerves, and people's inner racism/intolerance comes out.

 

It's the job of Commanding Officers (and it is very hard, I speak of experience as an ex-Lieutenant CO) to balance these human social tendencies and make sure that they don't go out of hand. You can dislike someone all you want, but when you're diong your job, you're professional. And if the COs know what they are doing and get enough support from THEIR system, then these social intolerances are dealt with quickly and swiftly and prevent drama and trouble.

 

 

 

 

Anyways, in case you're interested, here are some interesting sources on how the Israeli Army views the service of women:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Women
• http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/State/The+Israel+Defense+Forces.htm
• 
  Israel Air Force appoints first female deputy squadron commander
  http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-air-force-appoints-first-female-deputy-squadron-commander-1.234139

 

~moo

[jackson33]

On a final note I have to take issue with a statement in your first comment Jackson;

 

jackson quote "As for a Civilian Judge, telling the UNITED STATES MILITARY, what they must do, seems the ultimate display of arrogance toward authority."

 

Civilian Authority must always tell the Military what to do, any other option where the Military are above civilian control is a Military Government, either Junta or Dictatorship. I can't speak for the USA, but down here the Military is subservient to and always answers to, civilian authority. And a Judge and the Courts are the ultimate arbiters of that civilian authority.[/Quote]

 

JonhB; In the US, the President is the Commander in Chief (as a civilian) and the President has taken an oath to uphold to Constitution and Laws of the land (policy). Duties have either been outlined in the Constitutional or set by legislation over the years by Congress (Militia Act 1903, just one tiny example). However no Court has any authority or Jurisdiction over any Military Unit, can dictate what they must or must not do or in fact over ride any currently accepted procedure, policy or practice of the military structure. Since any person feeling harmed by any entity, does have the right for recourse, they can file suit for recovery. The question then becomes the roll of Judges, which is simply to judge or direct judgement in accordance to the current law of their jurisdiction (State/Federal), not imposing personal ideology into the process, which IMO was done during the "Witt" case.

 

When Ms. Witt, joined the Air Force (about 1985), there was no 'DADT' policy, rather a policy of no 'G/L' allowed to serve. SHE accepted that rule then, in both signing up and taking the oath. If Lesbian, at the time or anytime during her 19 years of service (up to discharge 2004) she CHOSE to practice the Lesbian Lifestyle, by her own contract she should have resigned or in this case practiced the newer DADT policy.

 

The proper wording in many of these cases "Judicial Activism" has become far to common and our appeals system is overloaded with such decisions, probably as each DIFFERENT Administration, will try to get like minded Judges appointed into the Federal System or in many of the States (California one) where State Judges are elected by the electorate. Below is one more case along the line of the OP Case.

 

 

 

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) - A federal judge in Southern California has declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional.

 

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips on Thursday granted a request for an injunction halting the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military.

 

Phillips says the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services.

 

The lawsuit was the biggest legal test of the law in recent years and came amid promises by President Barack Obama that he will work to repeal the policy.

 

Government lawyers argued Phillips lacked the authority to issue a nationwide injunction and the issue should be decided by Congress. [/Quote]

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4ON4G0&show_article=1

 

 

As earlier explained, I personally don't care if G/L are allowed to serve in the Military, but they do so and have been doing so for some time under the idea NOT to openly practice, participate or in some extreme cases promote their personal agenda. This is my objection and the military is bound by the same law/policy to have them discharged. I could go back over all the same type contracts people in much of private and industrial life agree to, over countless issues (including morals), most recently the "closed contracts" issued "Tiger Woods".

 

Then the Military is a somewhat tight nit, disciplined and restricted organization, which happens to cost a great deal to train and get ready for whatever purpose the 2 plus million people are CHOSE by superiors to practice in. Since today this is voluntary and the reason I admire those that choose to, if circumstance under which they joined change, they are not then eligible to void any current commitment. I don't know how many members or more importantly potential future members of the military will be effected, but there are still many members of the American Society, for whatever reason that feel uncomfortable around folks they might feel are different in some way than themselves. Many Countries that openly allow G/L into their military use conscription (compulsory military service), Germany for one or G/L or some practice (sodomy) is already illegal, most all Muslim Nations.

[Moontanman]

Jackson33, so far you have equated Homosexuality with smoking as though second hand homosexuality is passed on through contact. (please expand on this idea)

 

Fear of turning the military into a gay bar (please explain)

 

Fear of Homosexuals imposing their preference on every one else (please explain)

 

Asserted that homosexuality is learned behavior (this has been shown over and over on these forums to be false, either stop asserting it or show some proof other than "you talked to someone who is gay")

 

Asserted that signing up to be in the military some how says you do not have to deal with homosexuals in any way (please explain why the military should be the last bastion of society where a man can hide from homosexuals)

 

Asserted that having gay soldiers would piss off the enemy if they believe homosexuality is immoral (please explain, do gay soldiers wear pink uniforms? )

 

Then you showed how easy social change in the military is easy, Eisenhower just integrated by saying that was the way it would done... If it can be done for black people then why can't it be done for gay people?

 

So far i have seen no one who asserts that overt gay behavior should be allowed any more than overt sexual behavior between heterosexuals should be allowed.

 

Can you back up any of this stuff ?

Edited October 2, 2010 by Moontanman

[mooeypoo]

I'd also like to point out that there are several armies out there in the big wide world who don't have any "don't ask don't tell" policies, and they do not suffer from the doomsday predictions that seem to arise in this thread.

 

Moreover, the assumption that if a military system doesn't go after the gays then the gays will dance nude in the bunks or start being sexually open in public is flawed to its core. People are not instinctively vulgar, and gays are no exception. When a heterosexual male soldier goes after a heterosexual female soldier, it's dealt with. Same will be done to any homosexual soldier going after homosexual or non homosexual soldier.

 

Sexual misconduct is wrong under the circumstances for *both* heterosexual and homosexual soldiers, so giving it as a reason against openly gay service is a red herring.

 

Finally, this is about persecution. If "don't ask don't tell" was truly about the army not asking, it would be one thing. But the army *is* asking, in a manner of speaking, seeing the large number of cases that were forcibly outed without their desire or knowledge. That's persecution. There's no difference between doing that to a closeted (or simply non-public, like most are, even in real life) homosexual than doing that to a closeted heterosexual about their affinity towards rough sex. Who the hell cares.

 

While the gay community is dealing with the public perception and politics, and hence has public displays of extremes (like the gay parade), in real life, gays and lesbians are regular people who - much like heterosexuals - don't quite care to indulge anyone around them with the nasty lovemaking they prefer on conducting in their own closed quarters.

 

Openly gay does not equal public displays of tutu-wearing feminine cartoonish men, and it doesn't equal sexual assault. you guys are in a forum that cares for rational debate -- separate those two extremes out, they serve nothing in this debate other than to raise irrelevant red herrings and misconceptions about homosexuals and about the army.

 

It just doesn't work like that in the real world, really, and it doesn't work like that in the army. No one gives a rat's tail what you do in your own bed when you lie with a gun next to your comrade, and everyone cares about what you're doing with *everything* when you talk in the mess-hall. Would we ban "the gingers" from the army because their comrades tend to take their "ginger hair" as a laughing matter? should we ban men with little facial hair from the army because their comrades find that funny? Come on now.

 

Soldiers are much more professional than it seems to be thought by some here, and their system deals with the regular problems that are "threatened" to arise by homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

 

~moo