HeloDude Posted August 11, 2013 Share Posted August 11, 2013 What about when guys are stationed overseas--is there permissive TDY to go back to the States to get married? For all I know maybe that exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaddebate Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 (edited) DOD Announces Same-Sex Spouse Benefits Full benefits implementation shortly. Edited August 15, 2013 by deaddebate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hercster Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Disheartening...preach tolerance and acceptance, except for those that disagree. The American dream lives on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap-10 Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Two letters..... IG Cheers, Cap-10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 (edited) Disheartening...preach tolerance and acceptance, except for those that disagree. The American dream lives on. The bigger point is that it falls into the same bucket as criticizing any civilian leadership decision. You can raise issues, you can argue your point, but at some point, the decision has been made and you are expected to salute and follow orders. Especially for a first sergeant who is responsible for getting the rest of the squadron on-board. Just as we all bitch about losing morale patches, or ROE changes, or the giant witch-hunt for sexual predators...but at the end of the day, you are expected to take off the morale patches, follow the ROE, and clean the Maxims out of your desk. You can hold whatever personal opinions you want, but when you represent the Air Force, especially in a leadership capacity, you must also represent the Air Force's official policy on these things. Edited August 15, 2013 by pawnman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Right but now we are in the thought police area, its no longer a matter of what you do but now what you think. Taking one side of the argument or the other is not discrimination, acting on it against Air Force policy is discrimination. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe1234 Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Had this happened to pretty much anyone else in the unit, I would agree, but the First Shirt being a policy cheerleader for the commander is pretty much one of the primary job requirements of being a shirt. Other people in the unit can bitch about whatever, but you're not going to fire them from their job because they don't like the policy. A shirt may not like the idea of women in combat roles, but he would still have the toe the line on that policy. Same thing about hands in pockets, the PT test, or whatever else. Having said that, freedom of expression is limited in the military, but it's especially limited for a shirt. It's the nature of that particular job. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 There is nothing stating that he didn't uphold air force policy, he was fired for not saying he though homosexuality/marriage/ect. was OK, when asked by the SQ/CC. Again its the thought police, he did his job and from the article was objective when it came to dealing with the young MTI, however the SQ/CC is all about diversity only when she agrees with it, that my friend is not diversity, it is hypocritical discrimination. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Had this happened to pretty much anyone else in the unit, I would agree, but the First Shirt being a policy cheerleader for the commander is pretty much one of the primary job requirements of being a shirt. Other people in the unit can bitch about whatever, but you're not going to fire them from their job because they don't like the policy. A shirt may not like the idea of women in combat roles, but he would still have the toe the line on that policy. Same thing about hands in pockets, the PT test, or whatever else. Having said that, freedom of expression is limited in the military, but it's especially limited for a shirt. It's the nature of that particular job. You missed the point. You're not allowed to have your hands in your pocket, and you're not allowed to discriminate against gender (ie tell a woman they can't/shouldn't serve in certain career fields if they're legally allowed to do so) because it goes against the AFI. But saying you don't believe/agree with gay marriage has nothing to do with the military as you don't have to be married/not married to do a job in the military...marriage is a lifestyle choice, pure and simple. If I loved to watch porn and gamble in Nevada but a First Shirt said he didn't agree with people watching pornography or gambling, then it's just his opinion, same as this situation as I read it (within the last 2 months I have personally heard an O-6 tell his folks that it's not good to watch pornography). Smoking is also a lifestyle choice--we are free to smoke, but there are several programs to help you stop doing it. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to discriminate against smokers, but you can have your opinion in that you don't think it's a healthy lifestyle choice (as the Air Force tells us). This is all PC bullshit, plain and simple. I'm still waiting though for dudes to be able to wear earrings and nail polish while in uniform--I mean if chicks can do it, why can't we? In other news...unless AF Crimes got it wrong, this article makes it sound that the '10 days of leave for gays to get married' is indeed going to happen. To compensate for the fact that same-sex couples cannot legally marry in 37 states, DoD will grant special leave to gay troops who want to get married but are stationed more than 100 miles from a state that legally recognizes same-sex marriages. That leave will be for seven days for troops stationed in the continental U.S., and 10 days for those stationed outside the continental U.S., according to a memo signed by Jessica Wright, acting undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe1234 Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 There is nothing stating that he didn't uphold air force policy, he was fired for not saying he though homosexuality/marriage/ect. was OK, when asked by the SQ/CC. Again its the thought police, he did his job and from the article was objective when it came to dealing with the young MTI, however the SQ/CC is all about diversity only when she agrees with it, that my friend is not diversity, it is hypocritical discrimination. I didn't say anything about upholding policy, I'm talking about being a cheerleader. It's not his job to be objective. It's his job to be the golden boy propsganda mouthpiece of the commander to the enlisted corps whether he agrees with the CC or not. I agree that the commander is a biased idiot, but if that shirt has a problem being a cheerleader for an idiot, he can give up his diamond and go find a new fucking job. This guy is acting like a victim, and it's bullshit. Thought police my ass. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learjetter Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 Joe, you're wrong. Go re-read the article. The shirt was FIRED for NOT saying he AGREED with the CC that "anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is guilty of discrimination". Think about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hercster Posted August 16, 2013 Share Posted August 16, 2013 The bigger point is that it falls into the same bucket as criticizing any civilian leadership decision. You can raise issues, you can argue your point, but at some point, the decision has been made and you are expected to salute and follow orders. Especially for a first sergeant who is responsible for getting the rest of the squadron on-board. Just as we all bitch about losing morale patches, or ROE changes, or the giant witch-hunt for sexual predators...but at the end of the day, you are expected to take off the morale patches, follow the ROE, and clean the Maxims out of your desk. You can hold whatever personal opinions you want, but when you represent the Air Force, especially in a leadership capacity, you must also represent the Air Force's official policy on these things. I think it was pretty well said after your post, but to reiterate, he didn't come out and say he was against the policy or her endorsement. He was enforcing the lawful regs as far as I can tell, but he (and I) are entitled to our opinions. I don't have to agree with the new DOD policy of same-sex marriage benefits but it is the law and if I'm in a position to affect it, I will make sure that the law is followed. But that's not enough, I have to conform not just outwardly, but inwardly. My thoughts can no longer be my own, only what have been approved and endorsed by the reigning authority or popular public opion. That crosses the line. And it's downright scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 This is one of the reasons why someone like the shirt needs to be on-board with the policy. When Amn Joe comes to the shirt because finance isn't paying out dependent BAH/FSA/slow-rolling DEERs enrollment (I know that one isn't finance) for his new husband Bob, the shirt should be supportive in Amn Joe's attempts to un-fuck his pay and benefits. Do you really think a shirt who so strongly believes gay marriage is wrong will put in the same effort for Joe and Bob that he would put in for Joe and Barbara? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 It's nobody's business what his personal thoughts on the subject are, as long as he does his job. You really want to go down the thought police road? Cool come talk to me when you loose you job not because of what you do but because of what you think. The problem is this commander believes that you must absolutely support gay marriage or you are wrong, there is no other side, and frankly why the hell is this commander even bringing this up? The commander had no right to ask him his personal beliefs (nor take any action due to them), now if she wanted to ask if he would execute his duties in accordance with AF policy, that is fair game. I may not agree with Tom having a husband, but I need Tom focused on properly loading my jet or sitting in the other pilot seat, so yes I will help him get his stuff squared away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grabby Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 This is one of the reasons why someone like the shirt needs to be on-board with the policy. When Amn Joe comes to the shirt because finance isn't paying out dependent BAH/FSA/slow-rolling DEERs enrollment (I know that one isn't finance) for his new husband Bob, the shirt should be supportive in Amn Joe's attempts to un-###### his pay and benefits. Do you really think a shirt who so strongly believes gay marriage is wrong will put in the same effort for Joe and Bob that he would put in for Joe and Barbara? Yes I do. I'd say it's pretty apparent you were never a Shirt. Or known one that well. At least not one worth a shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Gotta love the "support mind, body, and soul" mantra for gay rights and marriages within the USAF being displayed. Ok, the rules now are it's all good and everyone's equal. Right, play by those rules or get out. Fair enough. But enthusiastically support, even in your private opinions, something you find objectionable? Being a professional is not good enough in that you carry out those rules despite any private thoughts on the matter? Did and would you make the same argument when gays were getting kicked out for being gay and the 1st Sgt was involved in that process and may have thought differently, i.e., "I don't agree with the 'no gays' rules, but I have to do my job." It appears that only one view is permissable, let alone acceptable now. 'Tolerance,' indeed. Off to 're-education' camp for you. Also regarding the "cheerleader" first sergeant theme: True, that individual is supposed to help sell the commander's, and Big Blue's, policies and rules to the troops (BTW, not just the enlisted). But he or she is also supposed to be the voice of the troops back to the commander: "Hey, boss, got a minute? Lemme close the door..." Sad what you think of them and sadder still if that is all you've experienced. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tac airlifter Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Gotta love the "support mind, body, and soul" mantra for gay rights and marriages within the USAF being displayed. Interesting to note the hypocrisy as well; progressives weren't advocating that a homosexual first sergeant profess loudly his personal disdain for gay marriage a year ago..... No, no, they all thought it was a foul that he was forced to lie about himself just for a job. But now a heterosexual first sergeant must really and truly believe in the rules he administers, it's not enough to just do so competently, he needs to be a true believer or the thought police come after him. This isn't about equality, never was. This is about power eradicating other points of view. You can't argue with hypocrites, they'll always have a reason why it's ok to justify their way of operating. There will be more of this stuff, anytime I hear talk about tolerance it's always a cover for "give me power so I can be intolerant towards other beliefs." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 The guy was asked his personal opinion on a new, still controversial subject that affects both straights and gays. He was sacked because his commander didn't like that opinion. Not, based upon the article, on how well he did or did not do the job, but for having a different private opinion. Nice diversion of the argument, but I am sticking to the topic at hand, a differing private opinion. And, by the way, as a commander, you don't get to "fire" your first sergeant based upon your perception. You have to prove, via documentation and formal proceedings, on why you want to replace your first sergeant. Command by personal whim. I think there have been a few threads on that. And I pity the future of the USAF because I see it is strong with you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe1234 Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 I disagree with commanding by personal whim. However, if a commander has a specific agenda that they're trying to pursue (and in this case, I totally disagree with the commander's agenda), I think they shouldn't have to keep someone in a job like a first shirt that they obviously don't want there, and is key to the process of seeing that agenda through. But it's part of the AF culture to be risk-averse to firing. We're conditioned to just wait it out, regardless of how bad things get fucked up along the way. If that's TLDR, then I'm just saying that when it comes to the shirt, I agree with the process, but disagree with the reason why this commander did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe1234 Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Again you miss the point, this guy wasn't focusing elsewhere and ignoring the commanders directives, he did his job but had different private beliefs. Taking your example and correctly applying it to the story, your first shirt thinks your push towards tactics is dumb and believes we should be enforcing sock colors more, BUT does his job by enforcing your new initiatives. Do you fire him still? I'm not missing the point. Your point is flawed and based on faulty assumptions. You don't know how, or even -if- he did his job or not because you only have one side of the story, in a story specifically written to make him out as a victim. And, as it turns out, this guy clearly disagreed with part of the commander's agenda while being in a role that is key to prosecuting that agenda. The commander is well within their rights to replace that guy with someone who's on board with her vision, and will be more effective. Apparently this commander came to the conclusion that the shirt couldn't do what she needed him to do effectively. And the shirt was at the end of his stint, with the CC deciding not to "renew his contract", going with a different choice. That seems to be the thing you don't understand, is the relevance of the shirt's opinion to the shirt doing his job. Sort of like, making sure your SARC actually respects women and won't try to molest women in the parking lot. If he was just some dude turning wrenches or handing out towels at the gym, nobody would give a shit what he thought. He would have a legitimate complaint for getting fired from that job for having a dissenting opinion. But, hey, all we can do is assume the CC is an evil, feminazi parade-marching gay rights fanatic who fired the decent hardworking christian family man and patriot first shirt because he didn't subscribe to her RADICAL FAR LEFT ANTI-WASP GAYGENDA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff_Man Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/first-air-force-same-sex-couple-granted-joint-spouse-assignment-happy-to-be-moving-forward-together-1.241381 I bet they'll fit right in with all the judgmental Mormons in Salt Lake City. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 http://www.stripes.c...gether-1.241381 The comments on the article are unbelievably stupid, standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 I'm not sure I see the problem here. We know the AF has said that as an institution, they approve of homosexual marriage. What basis would they have to deny a join-spouse assignment after all the preaching about tolerance and acceptance we've just had? I'm not looking forward to the AF having a public affairs field-day with this couple..."First gay couple to shop in the commissary", "first mil-to-mil gay couple to buy a house in SLC", "first gay join-spouse couple separated because one is deploying"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Gay, lesbian troops perform in drag at Kadena Air Base fundraiser Sophie's Choice - this, or Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaarman Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 TIB spends government funds in an era of tightening fiscal policies, this was a freebie fundraiser where people paid their own money to see a show. I don't really think it's much of a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now