Joe Biden has moved to correct a “great injustice” by pardoning thousands of US veterans convicted over six decades under a military law that banned gay sex.

The presidential proclamation, which comes during Pride month and an election year, allows LGBTQ+ service members convicted of crimes based solely on their sexual orientation to apply for a certificate of pardon that will help them receive withheld benefits.

It grants clemency to service members convicted under Uniform Code of Military Justice article 125 – which criminalised sodomy, including between consenting adults – between 1951 and 2013, when it was rewritten by Congress.

That includes victims of the 1950s “lavender scare”, a witch-hunt in which many LGBTQ+ people employed by the federal government were viewed as security risks amid fears their sexual orientation made them vulnerable to blackmail. Thousands were investigated and fired or denied employment.

  • Omega@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    I thought the concept of don’t ask don’t tell was a way to let gay people serve without getting congress to change the laws. Kind of like federal pot laws. It’s technically illegal, they’re just not supposed to enforce it.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      I can’t speak for Bill Clinton’s thoughts but the military never engaged with it in good faith. They considered any discovery as “telling”. Some service members at the time even described unit members spying on their homes to see who they lived with. Even a letter from an old lover that someone took from your belongings would be considered telling. The function of the policy was that if they could “out” you, they would discharge you with bad papers.

      Under this kind of atmosphere homophobia becomes ten times worse because the possibility of that guy being gay puts your career at risk too, in case you get too close and are swept up with them.

      • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, it was a step in the right direction. There may have been units and commanders that tried to seek out gays but there were also plenty of commanders that really didn’t want to know so never asked.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          That’s the thing, the commander could be the nicest person in the world. Once you were outed, their hands were tied. So your platoon’s lieutenant might be alright, but the platoon sergeant from the next platoon over could be nosy as hell and out you. also it functioned as a second lavender scare. Even if you beat the official investigation after being “outed” because you aren’t gay and it’s impossible to actually out you, you’re forever tainted. Your career is over and your life is in danger from homophobes, that felt empowered by the function of the policy to go after anyone they thought was gay.

          If they wanted this to be a step in the right direction instead of leadership taking a step back and letting the bigotry just do it’s thing they needed to come down hard on the bigots too and allow gay service members who did not actually tell anyone to stay. That would have sent the message the public was sold on DADT.

          Hilariously, the thing that really spelled the end of DADT (along with changing morals in society) was the GWOT. It’s actually kind of hard to railroad the guy who’s been clearing rooms and getting blown up with you. And the people who did keep doing it in the combat units found themselves alienated finally because it’s nearly impossible to “other” someone you served with like that.

    • Tyfud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      It was a way to not deal with the issue directly, and to give members of the LGBTQ+ community an option to hide who they are and not receive punishment. But it in no way protected them. It was sold as a “compromise”, but was actually a thinly veiled way to continue to suppress the community and enact harsh penalties and convictions for anyone who didn’t follow the protocol.

    • BakerBagel@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah it was progressive at the time since it stopped the military from digging around and asking your family if you are gay, especially since there weren’t even civil unions in most states back then.

      What i don’t understand is why Obama didn’t pardon them all since DADT was overtirned in 2010

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        It stopped official investigations before an accusation. It did not stop your chain of command from spying on their soldiers to find LGBTQ people. The function of the policy was that no matter how you got outed you were in violation of the policy. So they treated someone grabbing a letter from home and reading it aloud the same as you telling your commander you were going to a gay bar to look for a date.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      that’s how all of our progressive laws & rules take place; they seem progressive on the surface but if you look the tiniest bit closer it’s clear that it’s not.