Fairness of GO#1

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:03:52 -0500

I was having a discussion with my soldiers during my last deployment. GO #1 states that opposite sexes cannot be in the same room with the door closed or cohabitate at any time. With the repeal of don't ask don't tell, how is it now fair for same sexes that may be homosexual to cohabitate or be in the same room with the door closed? How is it ok now to share a shower with someone that may be attracted to you? Your thoughts?

Response by SFC James Baber made Dec 13 at 2013 9:16 AM

SFC James Baber — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:16:06 -0500

I think that as with all the other rules and regulations that have or need to be updated with the repeal of DADT and the allowance and recognition of same sex marriages, this is another that needs to readdressed and updated, but the question how do you do that, it is not that you could ask if someone is homosexual or if they are attracted to their roommates to determine housing assignments.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2013 11:54 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:54:09 -0500

This is an interesting question and one that many of my Soldiers and peers have pondered as well. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to it. I can tell you that I don't think the military is going to take a route that will cost more money by building a separate latrine facility for gay service members. That just isn't feasible at this point in time and really would assist in fostering the climate of tolerance that we are trying to create. I don't think they will take on added expense to proved a single occupant rooming arrangement either. That would be more costly than the latrine thing. How do we create a policy that is "fair" across the board. I really don't know. That is a very difficult undertaking and will be sure to anger one group or another regardless of what the policy is. As an openly gay Soldier, I can tell you that I am just as uncomfortable in those situations as a straight person is. Mostly due to preconceived notions that every gay person wants to have sex with every other person they meet. which is ENTIRELY FALSE by the way. But, because of this, I am uncomfortable showering with other guys and rooming with them too. I think that there must be a way to bring this policy into a fairer light but, I can't think of how to do so. Honestly, if you were to try to implement a policy that would, everyone would have to be in their own single occupant quarters and no one would be able to be in a room with a shut door. Again, not feasible. So what is the solution? I guess this one will have to be one that simply isn't 100% fair to everyone. Unfortunately, sometimes we just have to "suck it up and drive on". There isn't a good solution for this question that I can see.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2013 2:40 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:40:37 -0500

SFC Holmes, I think this may open up a Pandora's box of issues. The main thing I would say with regards to this question is the DADT act itself or its repeal didn't change the physical gender of anybody. Is it now suggested that it was fair before, or that I didn't know the guy/gal (depending on your gender) in the shower with me had/displayed LBGT tendencies before? For me, fairness doesn't become an issue, for I realize that any/all LGBT personnel are probably not be attracted to me. And the ones that are and present unwanted attention of any sorts would definitely fall into the category of a SHARP complaint, not a fairness complaint, IMO.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2013 3:37 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:37:44 -0500

I see individual rooms (or at least divided rooms) and individual latrines (again, at least divided) as the future of acceptable accommodations in garrison, but I know that will take many, many years to accomplish... and downrange... well, sometimes you just have to make the best of what you have...

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Dec 14 at 2013 3:31 PM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 15:31:47 -0500

During my first deployment I was the only woman on a convoy. The convoy commander didn't want me staying by myself across the FOB so he put me in the tent with the rest of the convoy escort team, the same guys I had just been locked in an MRAP with for 12+ hours. The billeting OIC came in and forced me to stay in the female tent where I slept by myself with no lock on the tent and ZERO battle buddies. All because it was a violation of GO1 to stay with my team.

RIDICULOUS!!!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2013 3:36 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 15:36:38 -0500

That is a good point and a potentially legal conundrum. Gays might say that you are discriminating against them when they can close the doors and straights cannot. You know I never thought about it. I am sure there is a political answer to this, especially amongst active duty people.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2013 4:36 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:36:56 -0500

It's a complex issue with a simple answer: Because it is easier that way.
We're assuming a "hetero-normative" standard in a male dominated environment and that leads us to focus our attention on heterosexual man-and-woman relationships with special accommodations for the minority party in that potential relationship: Women.

It's not about fairness or deeper philosophical underpinnings of habitation policy. It's about making the mission happen with the least friction in the form of sexual harassment/assault, pregnancy, morale, and everything else while the civilian paymasters are breathing down our higher's back to make sure we don't get any bad headlines from down range that lose us the public relations war at home.

Here's my personal preference: A gender neutral environment with coed lodging, hygiene facilities, strict punishment for sexual harassment from anyone, and an end to adultery as a UCMJ offense as long as it doesn't even create the appearance of undue influence on the CoC. But I'll take what I can get.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2013 6:20 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:20:54 -0500

That is a pretty good point. But I don't think this is going to change much. I was deployed with a married couple and they shared a CHU. I don't think this is really an issue. I recall having a PSG that was really paranoid about this. After one of his many rants I asked him if he really though if a gay soldier would even want a burnt out old man like you. He really didn't have a comeback. I have served with gay soldiers and we pretty knew that he was gay. It didn't matter. He was a brother, with a great sense of interior design. None the less you wouldn't care if your brother was gay. You may not want him to take you to a bar but it really shouldn't matter.

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Dec 14 at 2013 6:40 PM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:40:11 -0500

If sexual preference shouldn't matter then it shouldn't matter for heterosexuals either...correct?