Army’s first openly gay general retir after spirg others | Article | The Uned Stat Army

Contents:

• ARMY’S FIRST OPENLY GAY GENERAL RETIR AFTER SPIRG OTHERS
• BOOG A GAY SOLDIER
• I THOUGHT I COULD SERVE AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN THE ARMY. THEN CAME THE DEATH THREATS.
• OPN LISTENERS DIDN’T JT BOO A `GAY’ SOLDIER. THEY BOOED A SOLDIER.
• RSIA SHUTS DOWN THE NEWSPAPER THAT BROKE THE CHECHNYA GAY TORTURE MPS STORY

ARMY’S FIRST OPENLY GAY GENERAL RETIR AFTER SPIRG OTHERS

In 2010 when I was ployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was bee I'm a gay soldier and I didn't want to lose my job. My qutn is, unr one of your princi, do you tend to circumvent the progrs that's been ma for gay and lbian soldiers the ary? Tammy Smh, the ary’s hight-rankg openly gay officer, me out 2012, she has tried beg an example of livg thentilly while also beg a bean of visibily to other Soldiers and their fai.

The policy banned lbians, gay men and bisexuals om servg the ary.

BOOG A GAY SOLDIER

It terrified her to e out as gay such a public way, but she felt a rponsibily to do , she said. As difficult as was for her, g out publicly as gay “may not have been as easy for someone who was at a lower rank, ” Smh said an terview last week. “When I me durg the 80s, thgs were different for women and gay people, and now 2021, the societal l are different aga.

“People mt fd fort and ph back some of that ternalized homophobia, and build a b on the journey between hont and thentic. The are two cril steps toward addrsg discrimatn that harmed an timated 100, 000 or more veterans discharged for homosexualy between World War II and the 2011 repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

I THOUGHT I COULD SERVE AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN THE ARMY. THEN CAME THE DEATH THREATS.

Psychiatric screeng at ductn centers clud qutns about homosexualy, seekg to intify and disqualify gay recs om the outset. But beg disqualified om ary service bee of homosexualy was highly stigmatizg, wh the potential to vastate a rec’s civilian life, so many did not answer tthfully. Addnally, some ducte answered hontly based on the specific wordg of the qutns they were asked (for example, some reported beg asked whether they “liked girls”), others may not have thought of themselv as gay until after they were already the service, and ocsnally some answered that they had experienced attractn to the same sex but were not actually disqualified, part bee of officials’ ncerns that claratns of homosexualy were a means of evadg the the armed forc, however, even spicn of beg gay uld be grounds for discharge, and threatened accs to veterans benefs.

Commanrs equently issued “blue discharg” for spected homosexualy, and they also went disproportnately to Black soldiers.

OPN LISTENERS DIDN’T JT BOO A `GAY’ SOLDIER. THEY BOOED A SOLDIER.

)Bee dividual s uld be rensired based on their facts, many veterans acced of homosexualy sought help om veterans’ and civil rights anizatns to appeal their discharg or obta upgras. Furthermore, homosexualy remaed a reason to discharge someone for “unfns” or “unsuabily.

Invtigators uld leverage this possibily to get admissns of homosexualy, even when the acced ultimately faced no example, the 1953 Army regulatn erng “Separatn of Homosexuals” outled three tegori for acced soldiers. Class II referred to “te or nfirmed homosexual personnel, ” who were acced of engagg “homosexual acts” or attempts at such acts but who were not acced of dog so by force or whout nsent (distguishg this tegory om Class I).

RSIA SHUTS DOWN THE NEWSPAPER THAT BROKE THE CHECHNYA GAY TORTURE MPS STORY

The statement required acknowledgg they might “be prived of many rights as a veteran unr both Feral and State legislatn” and that they uld “expect to enunter substantial prejudice civilian life” if or when the nature of their discharge was facg the threat of crimal trial and potential imprisonment, many soldiers signed this regulatns about homosexualy changed several tim the 1950s and 1960s and were often extremely vague, as ary lears stggled to fe somethg that evad fn. The notorly nebulo term “homosexual tennci” abound personnel regulatns for s, providg wi berth for accatns and promptg plats that was sufficiently specific to mandate 1982, after a seri of legal challeng to the earlier regulatns, the Defense Department revised Directive 1332. 14 to state bluntly, “Homosexualy is patible wh ary service.

” This directive sought to fe homosexualy more clearly and to bar gay service members more unambiguoly.