Democratic Presidential Candidate Moulton: Restore Benefits of Military Discharged for Being Gay

Seth Moulton

Democratic U.S. Representative Seth Moulton, a 2020 presidential candidate, on Thursday said if elected he would seek to retroactively upgrade the discharge status of military members dismissed on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Moulton, a former U.S. Marine who did four tours in Iraq, said former service members now must challenge their discharge status even though President Barack Obama repealed the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

A less-than-honorable discharge means no or limited access to military benefits, such as the GI Bill and healthcare, and hurts their career prospects.

“If you were kicked out of a service because you’re gay or if you engaged in homosexual activity, then we’re going to right that wrong,” the Massachusetts congressman said on CNN.

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, implemented under President Bill Clinton, prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian or bisexual people from military service.

The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” did not include retroactive upgrades for service members who had been less-than-honorably discharged since World War Two because of their sexual preference.

Moulton estimated there have been about 100,000 service members kicked out of the military for “being gay.”

“We’ve changed the policy, but we haven’t gone back to fix the discharges of those people who were kicked out,” Moulton said.

His comments came on the same day President Donald Trump joined world leaders in France to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Normandy, the U.S.-led invasion widely considered as the turning point in World War Two.

Of the more than 20 candidates for the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination, only South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg has publicly said he is gay.

(Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw; Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Steve Orlofsky)

Responses

  1. Dear Mr.Moulton, thre are 23 people in the Democratic party running for President in 2020, this is a total disgrace to this country, Mr. Obma creating Bigender Facilities in places of the public, was so scandelous, it was and still is not a laughing matter, as well as very costly to the American tax . We all know Gay people stick together lesbian people stick together, as African Americans stick together we seen that in action when Obama was in the White House and I did not see any Senior Senator put a stop to it, in or out fo the Democratic Party nor attack any corruption that was going on by him , latinos stick together. 90 % of the time. As in the chicgo mayoral election 14 people ran for office that was horrifiic too , there should only be 2 candidates to be allowed to run for offcie in our country for positions. it si gettign too much out of hand.

  2. By that very same logic, Democrats wold want everyone who was convicted of possession or distribution of marijuana to have their criminal arrest and conviction records removed! It was a clear violation of the UCMJ at the time these gay men or women were dishonorably discharged. Revisionist history, being a pet project of the left, shold not be allowed in these cases!

  3. Nope. It was against regulations at the time and if they violated the UCMJ and were discharged for it, then the record should stand.

  4. This is how he honors those who served and died for their country on the beaches of Normandy? Talk about pandering…geez.

  5. NO. They violated the code for entry.

    Perverts need not apply in the real man’s force
    Give them their own unit. Like women in fox holes with men…distraction will get one killed!

  6. I’m going to sound obtuse perhaps but why must an individual declare their sexuality? I never had to declare myself as heterosexual. It should say don’t ask because it’s no one’s business. But in today’s times it becomes a war cry when someone doesn’t get what they think they deserve. Even if they don’t deserve it.

    1. Yeah, that’s how it should be. Being gay shouldn’t be a big deal. Unfortunately, it tends to lead to parental rejection, job discrimination, and public abuse. A person doesn’t have to wear a rainbow shirt to be discriminated against. Those dismissed for the sole reason of ‘being gay’ are not unworthy of the benefits they lost. To be gay is not dishonorable, and that falsehood must be corrected in the military.

      1. I believe the VAST majority of the men who served at Normandy would disagree with you.

    2. That doesn’t mean I support this guy, or the Democratic Party in general, but in this individual case I agree with the issue.

      1. zane….’you say hat you ‘don’t support this guy’ but you so support queers??

    3. When I served in the military, I became aware of several homosexuals who did not declare their sexual preference; but were actually CAUGHT in the act. They were all discharged under the then current regulations as security risks and subjecting themselves to blackmail.

      Unless a homosexual is assigned to being a cook or cleaning latrines, they have no place in the military.

      1. James, while i understand why some may be discharged if they are fraternizing while on the job – that is probably be done gay or straight if that is the rule. But can you explain why being gay would impact serving in the military otherwise?

        This is an honest question because i legitimately do not understand.

        1. Fraternizing will get you fired in almost EVERY job in this country. Other than that, all that matters is what you do in the service of your country. PERIOD. Us stupid, Civil Libertarians have got to keep it simple.

        2. Phoenix: It would depend wholly on the job an individual member is trained to perform. In my case, I held a Top Secret Cryptographic security clearance involving National intelligence throughout my entire time in uniform. There were NO homosexuals with security clearances (per regulation) – whose backgrounds were investigated by the FBI – in any of the units I served with; but there were homosexuals in non-security-sensitive units/jobs (cooks, motor pool, clerk typists, medics, etc.) which were operating jointly on the same bases.

          I will only add that fraternizing with the opposite sex (as with someone else’s wife or husband) was also grounds for Court Martial action under the UCMJ. I personally know of one instance in Germany where an NCO (E-5) was reduced in rank; lost his TSC security clearance, was reassigned and was ordered to move his wife and young daughter out of Government housing because he did not then have the rank which entitled his family to reside there. The wife who was involved in that incident was ordered out of Europe by USAFE as an “undesirable dependent; a disruption to the good order and discipline of the troops”” and was not allowed to ever go back.

          1. Thank you James and i might have been able to understand how in the past being homosexual would be a security issue, but it isn’t really today. No one cares and most people are openly gay in their civilian life therefore likely not open to blackmail any more than someone who is straight. I’m not saying all gays should be automatically approved, but at least judged on even grounds during their background investigations.

            Was your comment that homosexuals shouldn’t have a position in the military based off what you know from the past or does it take today’s more positive attitude toward homosexuals into consideration? You haven’t really explained why your opinion hasn’t changed now that society opinion has.

            Also, i was certainly not advocating for fraternization in the military – just agreeing that it was likely a standard for people who were straight and therefore should be upheld for people who are not. That is very fair and if losing benefits is part of that discharge for straight people then should be upheld for others as well.

    4. Cherl, it isn’t like they are showing up with a gay pride flag as a cape and tossing glitter as they walk.

      You may not outright say you are straight, but i would be able to tell you are straight if you spoke about your husband or perhaps even mentioning kids. For example, I found out a co worker was gay after working with him for years because he accidentally used a pronoun when i asked him about his family vacation. Some of these people may have been very private, but things slip or they get outed.

      If their military service itself was without fault and being gay was the only issue then i would certainly say these people deserve benefits.

  7. I’m sure the homosexuals new it was against regulation, policy and the law to join the military and be gay.
    They don’t deserve a dime for going against regulations.

    1. Audie Murphy, born in 1925, was accepted into the military in 1942. He lied about his age, attempted to enter the army underage at 16, and was accepted at the age of 17. He is credited with eliminating 240 enemy soldiers in his military career (which ended at the age of 21), and earned 33 medals and awards, including the Medal of Honor. Despite the fact that he broke regulations by entering the army underage, he remains a national hero of World War II.
      Regulations have their place, but a hero is not determined by age, nor gender, nor sexuality. Going above and beyond the call of duty sometimes means going above and beyond human law.

      1. Your statement does not support your argument.
        You stated Mr. Murphy ATTEMPTED to enlist in the Army at 16 years of age, but was ACCEPTED at 17 years of age (which was legal age to enlist with parental consent during WW2).
        Then you state “Despite the fact that he broke regulations by entering the army underage, he remains a national hero of World War II”.
        Clearly he did note violate regulations according to your own words.
        Thus, your statement is inaccurate and your argument void.

        Regulations are put in place for a reason, especially in the military, and should be followed to the letter.

        Fact citation below:

        United States. In World War II, the US only allowed men and women 18 years or older to be drafted or enlisted into the armed forces, although 17-year-olds were allowed to enlist with parental consent.
        Current Day:
        In the United States 17-year-olds may join the armed forces with the written agreement of parents.
        Per OPAC, US military personnel are NORMALLY prohibited from direct participation in hostilities until the age of 18, but they are eligible for ‘forward deployment’, which means that may be posted to a combat zone to perform support tasks.
        Therefore at 18 you may fight on front lines. However, you may also do so at 17 out of necessity due to extreme circumstances.

  8. Does this mean he will reimburse everyone who got find for speeding in a 55 MPH zone that has since been upped to 70 MPH.

  9. Is this guy a recent entrant in the Democratic lottery?

  10. This is the same jerkoff who said Stacy Abrahms would now be Governor of Georgia if it weren’t for racism. He conveniently seems to forget that she LOST by 55,000 votes.

  11. Someone should tell him that homosexuals are NOT “gay”; they are sick people who need help.

Comments are closed.