Gay/Lesbian Membership Approval/Retention in CAP?

[RADIOMAN015]

I haven't seen anything specifically in CAP regulations that state that Gay/Lesbians can't join CAP.  HOWEVER, I'm wondering if the actual CAP policy is similiar to the military's "don't ask/don't tell" policy?  IF a member/potential member  told his/her commander that they were gay would that commander than be forced to initiate 2B action, under CAPR 35-3, section B, para 4b or not initially approve membership?

I'd assume that with CAP having such a large senior membership base, that there's potentially gay members at every organizational level, since in my opinion it would be easier for these members to serve the nation in this organization versus in the military service.

BTW in my military career, we discharged some personnel for being gay per the DOD policy at that time, BUT from my force management experience/observation, all of them were very dedicated to the mission; had very good/excellent duty performance; and no complaints had ever been received from their co-workers about being inappropriately approached.

Personally I have nothing against gays (since my military and business experience have shown that they were not problems to the organization), nor am I trying to start a witch hunt so to speak.  HOWEVER, again I'm wondering what CAP's policy is? OR perhaps this really is a "don't ask & don't tell" subject?     

RM

[RiverAux]

It is not a basis for kicking someone out or not letting them in.  No factor.

[PHall]

There have been gay/lesbian members of CAP, both cadet and senior, for as long as I can remember.
And I joined CAP in Dec 1969.

[smj58501]

One point of interest, however. Sexual orientation is not addressed (one way or the other) in our nondiscrimination policy. I am not saying it should or should not, and I don't think that changes anything in relation to the original post.... its just not there.

[flyguync]

As with any member or potential member, if they can do the tasks their assigned, wear one of the multitude of uniforms properly and do nothing stupid then there should be no problem...

With that said if said member does act up etc and you do have it inititate disp action then you better CYA and not let their status influence your decisions in this sue happy society we live in today.

[D2SK]

As with any member or potential member, if they can do the tasks their assigned, wear one of the multitude of uniforms properly and do nothing stupid then there should be no problem...

With that said if said member does act up etc and you do have it inititate disp action then you better CYA and not let their status influence your decisions in this sue happy society we live in today.

These types of deviants are not allowed in the US Air Force, and should be likewise DISALLOWED in the US Air Force Auxiliary.

[FW]

Civil Air Patrol membership is open to ALL that qualify.  We do not discriminate based on any criteria other than ability to carry out or support our missions.  

If anyone has a problem with this policy, I suggest they not renew their membership.  The corporation does not insure members who violate this policy and the leadership of CAP has a zero tolerance for members who wish to "test" it.  

[flyguync]

These types of deviants are not allowed in the US Air Force, and should be likewise DISALLOWED in the US Air Force Auxiliary

Thats the best argument that you can come up with.... Gees

No one is forcing you to be a judge, jury and lynchmob,  If you truly have problems with "different" people then Im afraid that CAP is going to be short lived in your future.   

[MIKE]

Ok, I nuked one post already... If we can keep this professional, and above board we can keep this thread open... Otherwise, you know the drill.

[JC004]

I'm thinking that it isn't in our ND policy, in part, because the ND is attempting to meet federal/state laws, which in most cases do not cover sexual orientation.  I saw a thing before (somewhere) on which states cover it in their ND laws, but it's not a plurality.  I think it was on some non-profit management site that I was reading.  The other end is that we are supposed to brief on and agree to the DoD ND policy.  Since they have the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and such, it should be fairly obvious why it isn't covered in their policy.

[cap235629]

Just for the record, I do not think this is an issue.  And for those that do, YOU might want to rethink your position and membership with CAP as our current National Commander is a board member of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

More info on SLDN can be found here:

http://www.sldn.org/templates/about/index.html?section=87

Here is the national board:

http://www.sldn.org/templates/about/index.html?section=80

I sincerely doubt any issues about denying membership based upon sexual orientation would be looked highly upon at NHQ.

WE ARE NOT IN THE MILITARY FOLKS!

DON'T ASK DON'T TELL DOES NOT APPLY!

I just wish some of the folks on here would stop having these delusions that they are in the military and get on with the missions of CAP.

[lordmonar]

I was wondering when this particular quesiton was going to come up. 

[Senior]

If the National CC is on the Board of the SLDN what is here position on
that Board?  What is the CC background and what is her profession?
I was in the Army Reserve when they instituted the DA/DT agenda.
I and a lot of the soldiers in my unit felt it was a social experiment put upon
the military by the military loving >:(Clintons.  Please don't comment about
my remarks I was there and saw first hand the divisions it caused in my
unit.

[PHall]

If the National CC is on the Board of the SLDN what is here position on
that Board?  What is the CC background and what is her profession?
I was in the Army Reserve when they instituted the DA/DT agenda.
I and a lot of the soldiers in my unit felt it was a social experiment put upon
the military by the military loving >:(Clintons.  Please don't comment about
my remarks I was there and saw first hand the divisions it caused in my
unit.

And it basically caused nothing to happen in my Air Force Reserve unit. The same people kept doing their jobs.
And yes, there were gays and lesbians in the unit, many were "out" and nobody really cared.

It's only an issue if somebody wants it to be.

[lordmonar]

22 years ago....there were guys in the military.....today there are gays in the military.

22 years from an openly gay man will be chief of staff of the Air Force.

[Hawk200]

The lifestyle choice should not ever be a factor in a person's membership in Civil Air Patrol, nor should it ever be an issue in dealing with them in any manner. They don't ask you if you're straight, no reason to ask them if they're gay.

A straight person sleeping around in a unit is far more of a morale issue than someone being a homosexual, especially if there's a lack of discretion. Homosexuality is not an automatic problem like some people assume.

[cap235629]

just some more food for thought...

CAP was founded by people who had the desire to serve but were for some reason or another disqualified for military service.  Open membership is in our basic foundation.  Why is this particular disqualification any different?

As long as you can do the job, I could care less who you sleep with.  None of my business.  The reality that is the AD military is NOT the reality of CAP.

[Whocares]

Since being homosexual is not in CAPR 35-3 Section B, then homosexuals are allowed to stay in CAP.  Although, I guess you could try to argue it as moral turpitude but I believe that the ACLU would probably fight in favor of the person and NHQ would not even put up an argument and reinstate him/her. 

Now, let us reverse this question:  Why should not Gay/Lesbian Members be allowed in CAP?

Please don't comment about
my remarks I was there and saw first hand the divisions it caused in my
unit.

If you do not want your remarks to be commented on, then do not post them.  Using that same logic, how many divisions were created when the military started allowing black and white integrated units?  Or how about when the first black person was accepted to West Point?  Or how about when the first women was allowed into a Service Academy?  How about when the Army decided to give women a commission for being a NURSE?

[BillB]

Probably what has a big effect is state laws. If you live in a state where sexual preference is allowed by law, CAP could be taken to court if a Commander refused a gay or lesbian membership. I've seen gays and lesbians in CAP, and they excelled in their jobs. And I've never seen any relationships develop between gays and lesbians and other senior members or cadets.

[Cecil DP]

When I was in MAWG, we had a Squadron with 3 openly Lesbian officers. None of them had or caused any problems. In fact one was selected as the Wing Senior Member of the Year. Please wait until there is a problem before commenting on what if. This is a volunteer program and nowhere do we ask about sexual preference-nor should we.

[Frenchie]

As with any member or potential member, if they can do the tasks their assigned, wear one of the multitude of uniforms properly and do nothing stupid then there should be no problem...

With that said if said member does act up etc and you do have it inititate disp action then you better CYA and not let their status influence your decisions in this sue happy society we live in today.

There's no basis to sue.  Homosexuality is not covered by any nondiscrimination statute.  People get fired from paying jobs ever day because of it and there's very little recourse if they are not covered by some type of contract that protects them.

However anyone who wishes to discriminate against someone based on some factor that has nothing to do with their ability to do the mission should seek professional help for their deviant behavior.

[hatentx]

the don't ask don't tell isn't for cap.  there is a huge difference between the military's reason and so reason that cap could come up with. 
in the ad you have to worry about moral and having your battle buddy peeping you in the shower is going to drop moral.  also the military, atleast the army is sometimes quick to fistacufs and imagine what ridicule a straight man would get if he got beat up by a gay man. 
In cap I can see a cadet inflience argument but in the same way I wouldn't expect a straight SM telling of his drunkin weekend deflowering women nor would I expect to hear a homosexual  telling similar stories.
it boils down to professionalism

[RiverAux]

There's no basis to sue.  Homosexuality is not covered by any nondiscrimination statute.

It is in some states.  Just because CAP is a nationwide organization doesn't mean that state laws don't apply to actions taken in those states (California is one example).

[Frenchie]

There's no basis to sue.  Homosexuality is not covered by any nondiscrimination statute.

It is in some states.  Just because CAP is a nationwide organization doesn't mean that state laws don't apply to actions taken in those states (California is one example).

No states that I know of have such laws.  The California law applies to employment discrimination, not volunteer organizations.

[RiverAux]

Ah, but you forget that many states make their non-discrimination policies applicable to any program receiving state funds.  Including California:

From a bill approved a few years ago in CA:

SECTION 1. Section 11135 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
11135. (a) No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of
race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual
orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access
to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any
program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the
state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any
financial assistance from the state.

As CAP in California is partially funded by the state, it would seem to appy to CA Wing.

[ColonelJack]

Why is this even an issue for some people?  What possible difference could it make to Civil Air Patrol?

Jack

[Frenchie]

Ah, but you forget that many states make their non-discrimination policies applicable to any program receiving state funds.  Including California:

From a bill approved a few years ago in CA:

SECTION 1. Section 11135 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
11135. (a) No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of
race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual
orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access
to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any
program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the
state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any
financial assistance from the state.

As CAP in California is partially funded by the state, it would seem to appy to CA Wing.

The law in question provides no basis for a lawsuit, only the potential to have state funds revoked.  Even at that, it would also depend on how CAP is receiving such funds.  If CAP is just flying missions for the state and getting reimbursed, that's not going to apply as that's not financial assistance.  Also CAP usually doesn't receive support from states directly because they usually receive it from local governments, but there may be some squadron that has an office in a state funded building.  

[Frenchie]

Why is this even an issue for some people?  What possible difference could it make to Civil Air Patrol?

Jack

I could very easily see a parent raising a stink if a known gay CAP senior member was attending an encampment or some other function where cadets were involved.  In fact, I would be very surprised if this situation hadn't come up before.  I would hope a squadron commander would not be influenced by bigots, but if several parents were involved it would certainly put a commander in a tough spot.

[RiverAux]

Also CAP usually doesn't receive support from states directly because they usually receive it from local governments, but there may be some squadron that has an office in a state funded building. 

About 2/3 of CAP Wings receive state funding. 

[FW]

Gee, it seems like we went over this before.

Anyway, for what it's worth, most states consider an organization to be discriminating against if the organization takes state funds.  Most wings get contributed property/funds from the state.  The funding/property would be in jeopardy if we discriminated against any person for other than proper reasons.
At the national level this, if not considered discrimination, would be considered a civil rights issue which CAP would not or could not (way too expensive) defend.  Of course, our annual grant would be in serious trouble;  as would our tax exempt status.

Speaking on purely an "academic" basis;  If you don't like it, don't join it.  I, for one, don't enjoy fools but, they're all around me.  So, I learned to live with it.

[Senior]

My question still has not been answered.  What is the position that the
National CC holds on the Board of the SLDN?  Someone on this blog should
be able to give an answer.  Is CAP going to turn into another social experiment like the U.S. military has had to endure?

PHall:  The commander of your unit should have kicked those members
           out for violation of the UCMJ.  Don't ask/Don't tell doesn't protect
           openly gay military members if I remember correctly.

Whocares:  The premise of a black/white, civil rights issue is not a logical
                    argument compared to a lifestyle choice.  DA/DT is a social
                    experiment and it caused a lot of morale problems in my
                    Army Reserve unit.     

[PHall]

My question still has not been answered.  What is the position that the
National CC holds on the Board of the SLDN?  Someone on this blog should
be able to give an answer.  Is CAP going to turn into another social experiment like the U.S. military has had to endure?

PHall:  The commander of your unit should have kicked those members
           out for violation of the UCMJ.  Don't ask/Don't tell doesn't protect
           openly gay military members if I remember correctly.

Whocares:  The premise of a black/white, civil rights issue is not a logical
                    argument compared to a lifestyle choice.  DA/DT is a social
                    experiment and it caused a lot of morale problems in my
                    Army Reserve unit.     

You know, the rules are a bit different in the Guard/Reserve. The UCMJ does not apply to Guard/Reserve members when they are not on duty.

And Maj Gen Courter is a pretty easy going person. I bet that she would answer your question if you asked her.

[RiverAux]

My question still has not been answered.  What is the position that the
National CC holds on the Board of the SLDN?

What does that matter?

[FW]

My question still has not been answered.  What is the position that the
National CC holds on the Board of the SLDN?  Someone on this blog should
be able to give an answer.  Is CAP going to turn into another social experiment like the U.S. military has had to endure?


Whocares:  The premise of a black/white, civil rights issue is not a logical
                    argument compared to a lifestyle choice.  DA/DT is a social
                    experiment and it caused a lot of morale problems in my
                    Army Reserve unit.     

Gen Courter's position she holds in  SLDN can be found at its web site.  So can its mission statement and goals.  Her relationship in that organization has no bearing on this discussion, IMO, however, CAP's policy regarding this is: "Not an issue, Not a problem".  

CAP does NOT consider this a "social experiment"  CAP does NOT consider this an issue.  In fact, I know someone on National Staff who can easily get CAPR 39-2 changed to clarify the intent of the organization's non discrimination policy.  But, it's not worth the effort for the opinions of the few.  As I said previously; I learned to live with it.

[Cecil DP]

PHall:  The commander of your unit should have kicked those members
           out for violation of the UCMJ.  Don't ask/Don't tell doesn't protect
           openly gay military members if I remember correctly.

Whocares:  The premise of a black/white, civil rights issue is not a logical
                    argument compared to a lifestyle choice.  DA/DT is a social
                    experiment and it caused a lot of morale problems in my
                    Army Reserve unit.     

CAP does not and never has fallen under the UCMJ.

[afgeo4]

Ah, but you forget that many states make their non-discrimination policies applicable to any program receiving state funds.  Including California:

From a bill approved a few years ago in CA:

SECTION 1. Section 11135 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
11135. (a) No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of
race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual
orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access
to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any
program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the
state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any
financial assistance from the state.

As CAP in California is partially funded by the state, it would seem to appy to CA Wing.

If such was the case, the CA National Guard would have to allow openly gay people into the services. They do not. The Federal Gov't is not subject to state laws. In fact, it is specifically exempt from them. CAP is a federal government agency that happens to have a non-profit corp structure.

[Short Field]

Personally, I think it is a shame that WE have to associate with those  Fill-in whichever group you are can't stand in our CAP organizations.  There should be a law against it!!!!

[RiverAux]

You might want to re-think your broad statement there.  Please provide the legal citation saying CAP is exempt from state laws.   I guess that means that we register our vehicles and planes in accordance with state law because we just feel like it.    

Keep in mind that we recently revised our cadet protection regulations to reflect the need to follow state laws because some members apparently thought like you.  

[FW]

CAP is a federal government agency that happens to have a non-profit corp structure.

Sorry, George.  CAP is a federally chartered 501c3 Non Profit educational benevilent corporation set up on a military model.  We are absolutly NOT a federal agency and we must follow all federal, state and local laws.  CAP hires employees down to the wing level and must follow all employment rules and statutes.  Our non discrimination policy holds for volunteers as well as paid employees.  We don't make any exceptions.

[ColonelJack]

I'm a little lost.

I still don't understand why a person's sexual orientation would have any application whatsoever to duties within Civil Air Patrol.

And except for one hypothetical scenario (which I agree could happen but hey -- if the people involved do their jobs professionally it's still not an issue) and some apparent bigotry and/or small-mindedness being shown on the part of some people, I have not received a real answer to my question.

What does it matter?  Why is it an issue?  Why is this even being discussed?

And by the way ... anyone who believes sexual orientation is a "lifestyle choice" needs to review the latest journals of medical and psychological folks.  Research shows that -- no matter what some may wish to believe -- it's no more a choice than the color of one's skin or the shape of one's ears.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Jack

[FW]

^Jack, it's a slow news day.  The Russians aren't doing anything new in Georgia, Phelps is finished winning medals.  Obama and McCain are going to confession and, the markets are closed.  So, I guess people want to just stir something up.  Beats watching reruns.  

[lordmonar]

If such was the case, the CA National Guard would have to allow openly gay people into the services. They do not. The Federal Gov't is not subject to state laws. In fact, it is specifically exempt from them. CAP is a federal government agency that happens to have a non-profit corp structure.

Well to be absolutely honest...CAP is only a federal agency when it is on an AFAM.  Even then......the federal government (with the exception of the military) cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  So even if we were a federal agency and exempt from state rules....we would not be able to use sexual orientation as a bar for membership.

[JayT]

As with any member or potential member, if they can do the tasks their assigned, wear one of the multitude of uniforms properly and do nothing stupid then there should be no problem...

With that said if said member does act up etc and you do have it inititate disp action then you better CYA and not let their status influence your decisions in this sue happy society we live in today.

These types of deviants are not allowed in the US Air Force, and should be likewise DISALLOWED in the US Air Force Auxiliary.

Deviants, eh?

Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

[ColonelJack]

^Jack, it's a slow news day.  The Russians aren't doing anything new in Georgia, Phelps is finished winning medals.  Obama and McCain are going to confession and, the markets are closed.  So, I guess people want to just stir something up.  Beats watching reruns.  

Funny you should mention the Russians and Georgia.  I live about 70 miles southwest of Atlanta and haven't seen a Russian yet.

Jack

[Eclipse]

They are wearing the new peachi-pat camouflage!

[Whocares]

Is CAP going to turn into another social experiment like the U.S. military has had to endure?

Well if we want to look at it from a "social experiment" then I guess the whole federal government is a social experiment.   After all, homosexuals work in all aspects of the federal government (except the military and even that can be debated).  

Whocares:  The premise of a black/white, civil rights issue is not a logical
                    argument compared to a lifestyle choice.  DA/DT is a social
                    experiment and it caused a lot of morale problems in my
                    Army Reserve unit.     

You may want to consider your knowledge again.  Recent research is showing that sexual orientation (homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality) is based off of genetics and not so much as nuture as people would like to think.  But then again, I do believe some religious people believe that HIV is still only a homosexual disease dispite the medical evidence it is not.  

So tell me, why should not homosexuals serve in CAP?  How does one's sexual orientation affect the mission?  How does it affect you?  

[Bluelakes 13]

Isn't it amazing when people can post anonymously - they can post any poop they want...

[Whocares]

Isn't it amazing when people can post anonymously - they can post any poop they want...

Are you speaking of me?  Just because I do not use a signature does not mean that I cannot support what I am saying.  All one must do is ask.

[tjaxe]

Radioman015,
As you can see, your question spurs a flurry of opinions, stands, and in some unfortunate cases, outright bigoted rants.  This question -- about "allowing" gays to join, to participate, and even to exist -- permeates the current fabric of our nation.  In my opinion CAP has taken a stand by NOT taking a stand one way or the other.  With sexual orientation not singled out CAP has made it clear -- as many here have said -- that it is NOT AN ISSUE.  The DADT   "experiment" will not happen here, cannot happen here, and unfortunately only stains one aspect of of our government.  That CAP is here to "allow" patriotic gays and lesbians to serve their country in some way is -- again, in my humble opinion -- a very good thing indeed.

All,
By the way, that so many people on this thread outshine the narrow and bigoted voices heartens this CAP soul very much.  :clap:

[lordmonar]

^Jack, it's a slow news day.  The Russians aren't doing anything new in Georgia, Phelps is finished winning medals.  Obama and McCain are going to confession and, the markets are closed.  So, I guess people want to just stir something up.  Beats watching reruns.  

Funny you should mention the Russians and Georgia.  I live about 70 miles southwest of Atlanta and haven't seen a Russian yet.

Jack

Well...you can never trust them rooskies....the're sneeky  

[hatentx]

I dont see an issue as long as they are not being overtly open about it.  Just as I would expect a Straight SM to be about their sexuality. 

I can see the argument already coming up about what is they are the SM with a cadet and something happens, we could have stopped it.  It would be the same way with a straight SM as well. 

The Fact of the matter is that as long as they are able to do their job and be professional about it then what is the issue.  CAP is not the military and the military is not CAP.  I know of homosexuals in the military.  They do their jobs and that is great by me.  What more can you ask for period from a person regardless of why they are the way they are. 

I am not certain exactly were I stand on the DA/DT part about the military but when it comes to CAP it shouldnt matter.  Who cares if they can leagly sue or not.  Believe me the news isnt going to cover that part they are going to cover the part about the ACLU suing CAP for discrimination and that is it.  So in the last few years we would have the Steve Fosset search and then the ACLU suit.  Wow What kind of light are we trying to get into.

[afgeo4]

If such was the case, the CA National Guard would have to allow openly gay people into the services. They do not. The Federal Gov't is not subject to state laws. In fact, it is specifically exempt from them. CAP is a federal government agency that happens to have a non-profit corp structure.

Well to be absolutely honest...CAP is only a federal agency when it is on an AFAM.  Even then......the federal government (with the exception of the military) cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  So even if we were a federal agency and exempt from state rules....we would not be able to use sexual orientation as a bar for membership.

CAP is a gov't agency 24/7. We're the USAF Aux when AFAM. Don't mistake the two. We were established by the Senate and it is federal law that governs us as an agency. Sure, we work with state and local agencies, but we aren't a private entity and we aren't a state entity.

Either way, the CAP currently has no policy about gay people. There is no policy that we must accept and there is no policy that we must exclude.

All statements here are opinions. The only truth is that we do not have a policy at this time.

[lordmonar]

Sorry George...I got to disagree....Congress chartered the Red Cross and the Boy Scouts too...and they most certainly are NOT government agencies.....the Boy Scouts are allowed to discriminate against atheists and that has been upheld by the supreme court.

Our regulations and our charter make it perfectly clear we are only a government entity when we are on and AFAM.

[afgeo4]

Sorry George...I got to disagree....Congress chartered the Red Cross and the Boy Scouts too...and they most certainly are NOT government agencies.....the Boy Scouts are allowed to discriminate against atheists and that has been upheld by the supreme court.

Our regulations and our charter make it perfectly clear we are only a government entity when we are on and AFAM.

We exist at the discretion of the Secretary of The Air Force and thus you're not correct. That's according to law.

Please show me where it says otherwise. We are the USAF Auxiliary when on AFAM and that's who pays the bill for that mission, but otherwise, we are still a US agency, still to a large degree funded by USAF and guided by CAP-USAF (not just on AFAMs). AFAM or not is an issue of funding. Think about this... if we screw up badly outside of an AFAM, who's going to punish us? The Federal Gov't, that's who. Why? Because we're a part of it.

[lordmonar]

No we are not.

§ 9441. Status as federally chartered corporation; purposes
How Current is This? (a) Status.—
(1) The Civil Air Patrol is a nonprofit corporation that is federally chartered under section 40301 of title 36.
(2) Except as provided in section 9442 (b)(2) of this title, the Civil Air Patrol is not an instrumentality of the Federal Government for any purpose.
(b) Purposes.— The purposes of the Civil Air Patrol are set forth in section 40302 of title 36.

§ 9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force
How Current is This? (a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.— The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
(b) Use by Air Force.—
(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

Emphasis mine.

[afgeo4]

That goes against everything we do.

We have 3 missions set forth by the US Gov't and those are the missions we do because the Gov't told us to do so even though they aren't AFAMs.

As such, Title 10 or not, we are an instrument of the federal government since if we stop doing those missions, they will stop funding us and we will stop to exist.

[Ned]

A couple of thoughts to try to harmonize the various responses in this controversial area:

1.  George and Patrick may be discussing a semantic difference in that I think they are both using agency in a different sense.  To a legal professional "agency" means a person or entity entitled to acy for another -- like an employment agency or a real estate agent.  "Instrumentality status" is a kind of agency. Clearly CAP acts on behalf of several federal departments, including the USAF.  Most folks, however, tend to use "agency" to mean an adminstrative division of a government - like the Central Intelligence Agency.  CAP is not a division of our government.  There are no government employees at NHQ (other than CAP-USAF folks who clearly are USAF employees.)

2.  Academically, it is fairly clear that homosexuality is neither a function of pure genetics ("nature") nor a function of pure environmental factors ("nurture") as a quick review of studies done in identical and fraternal twins will quickly reveal.  Here's a quick Wikipedia Article to summarize.

(If it were a pure genetic issue, we would expect to see nearly 100% concordance in sexual orientation in identical twins, even if raised apart.  Instead we see figures like 7-50%.  Similarly, if homosexuality were a pure environment/choice issue, we would expect to see little, if any concordance between identical twins raised separately.  Instead, we see that homosexuality occurs with greater frequency between identical twins raised separetly when compared to fraternal twins.)

So the short answer appears to be, that even after a great deal of study, we don't know why or how homosexuality occurs, except that we can be fairly certain that it is neither a pure "nature" or "nurture" issue.  It is clearly either a mixture of the two, and/or includes some other as yet undiscovered factor.

Ned Lee

[afgeo4]

Either way, CAP has no official policy on membership for people of homosexual identification.

As an unwritten rule, we do not discriminate against gay people and in desire not to go to the Supreme Court over said issue and chance embarrassing the organization,  I recommend that people continue that practice.

[wacapgh]

Best advice I ever heard on the whole subject was at SLS years ago from the wing legal officer:

"Call me"

Same thing with all the ADA/Special Needs issues.

As a unit commander, you do not have the authority to make that decision on behalf of the corporation.  The legal officer will run it up through the appropriate channels and then you will get the answer that  CAP, Inc. will stand behind.

[alamrcn]

Sexual orientation is not addressed (one way or the other) in our nondiscrimination policy.

Does it have to be? What is the date on the policy anyway, that could be why...
I'm trying to think when the trend started (in corporate US) to list as many of our differences as possible in order to not leave out anyone that could be discriminated against. If we change it for one thing, we gotta change it for everything.

The standards of acceptance WERE: Race, Creed, and Religion.

Well, no one goes by a "Creed" anymore... It's "Culture" now. "Enthinticity" is different than "Race", so we gotta through that one in there too as well as "Country of Origin". "Physical and mental disabilities" too - everyone has one! Hey, bring back the no bias based on family stature! At the bottom of it all, we get to the "Sexual Orientation" and I think I even once saw "Political Affiliation" in the list! It's just mega-PC bullsnot to keep making this list of groups longer and longer.

Did the now "outed" homosexual member pass the Finger Print Background check upon joining? Have they broken any laws or made any major infractions to CAP regulations since then? Hey, if it's a homosexual member on my ground team is going to spot the missing child first, put him or her in the front and watch 'em go!

Using CAP regulations and everything else aside, a member in this situation (from the OP) should be treated as any other member would - with indifference, no better or worse.

-Ace

[Cecil DP]

In the August edition of Air Force magazine Former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia was qouted as saying:

"Certainly there area very large number of gay and lesbien men and women in our military today. And they're doing itwithin the existing law. I'm not advocating anything-except I'm saying the policy was the right policy for the right time, and time changes. It's appropriate to take another look". 

Sam Nunn was a key leader in adoption of the "Don't Ask, don't Tell" policy

[flyerthom]

Either way, CAP has no official policy on membership for people of homosexual identification.

As an unwritten rule, we do not discriminate against gay people and in desire not to go to the Supreme Court over said issue and chance embarrassing the organization,  I recommend that people continue that practice.

I've been in healthcare for more years than I care to remember. I've learned the following:

We all bleed red.

We're all the same on the autopsy table.

I'm with afgeo on this.

[sarflyer]

Mike,

Please lock this thread!   

[Pylon]

Mike,

Please lock this thread!   

While most of us realize this is a sensitive topic, we don't lock and stymie discussions simply because the subject matter is sensitive.  The vast majority of participants in this discussion replied professionally and within the guidelines of the Membership Code of Conduct.

Funny enough, the discussion was pretty much done (it's clear where the vast majority stands on the issue, and rightfully so).  After it had been dead for almost 24 hours, you dredged it up again to ask us to lock it.   

We don't lock threads because you're uncomfortable discussing something.  We stop threads that destroy professional decorum, that violate the membership code of conduct, or stop ones that get way off tangent on unrelated matters.

[smj58501]

Sexual orientation is not addressed (one way or the other) in our nondiscrimination policy.

Does it have to be? What is the date on the policy anyway, that could be why...

Actually, it wasn't in the most recent release detailed in the latest policy memo.

At any rate it doesn't matter. The way this topic is going, we may actually surpass many uniform discussions in the number of posts containing points of questionable value.

[wingnut55]

OK I am coming out of the closet, I have been a lesbian  for 20 years, which is tough to be since I am a guy :clap:

[BillB]

Defination of lesbian= only likes females. Therefore I am also a lesbian

[DC]

It would appear that all serious discussion on this topic has ended. Perhaps its time to lock this before it gets any worse.

[Pylon]

Last notice:  Keep posts on a professional level and pertinent to the discussion topic.

[sarflyer]

Inappropriate topic.

[ColonelJack]

Inappropriate topic.

Why do you think the topic is inappropriate?

Jack

[sarmed1]

Why do you think the topic is inappropriate?

...why if we talk about them  then it acknowlges their existance.....and makes them scary real...

mk

[tjaxe]

Inappropriate topic.

Sir,
A topic is not inappropriate because it makes us feel uncomfortable.  That's like burying our proverbial heads in the sand to make something that frightens us go away.

The question was a good one because no specific CAP documentation points to this particular topic.  I believe the question has also been answered; it's not a problem, it's not even an ISSUE in CAP.  But even though the question has been answered (for me, anyway) that doesn't mean professional, open discourse needs to stop. As I said in my earlier post, it's refreshing to me to see so many posts on the "acceptance side" of the issue.

<edit -- grammatical fixes - Tracey >

[flyerthom]

Inappropriate topic.

Why do you think the topic is inappropriate?

Jack

It's easier to depersonalize and then not deal with the topic. It's easier to dehumanize the people discussed which then makes it easier to maintain the prejudice.

At the risk of sounding like a trite bumper sticker - hatred is not a family value. We as an organization have not had issues because we are accepting of people of various abilities and skill levels. Our origins come from those who were to young, to old, female or some other reason the military could not use them.

We would think it unconscionable to refuse to launch a mission to aid a gay pilot. How can we in good conscience refuse membership to a person we may serve sans evidence of an actual threat?

As I said before, we all bleed red. We are all human. We all have the same basic rights. What group do we ban next? If you are child free you can't join? If you're Islamic? If you've been in a fraternity / sorority? If you haven't been in a fraternity / sorority?

We have far more important things to worry over than consider than sexual orientation.


As for you guys that are lesbians - I don't believe it. Nor will I till I see you Oscar, Emmy or Tony awards! At least your SAG cards ...

[LtCol White]

Inappropriate topic.

The only inappropriate topic is the one that isn't discussed out of fear. Any topic is appropriate if it is discussed in a professional, thoughtful, and intelligent manner.

In today's society, orientation should be a non issue. I think its safe to say that today, almost everyone either has a gay relative, knows someone who is gay, has a gay co-worker, or comes into contact with gay people in the course of normal daily life. 

If people started worrying more about the things that really do affect them rather than the things that only affect them if they allow it to, the world would be a much better place.

To put it bluntly, unless you are the person crawling in bed with them, why do u care about how the other person is.

[D2SK]

Inappropriate topic.

The only inappropriate topic is the one that isn't discussed out of fear. Any topic is appropriate if it is discussed in a professional, thoughtful, and intelligent manner.

In today's society, orientation should be a non issue. I think its safe to say that today, almost everyone either has a gay relative, knows someone who is gay, has a gay co-worker, or comes into contact with gay people in the course of normal daily life. 

If people started worrying more about the things that really do affect them rather than the things that only affect them if they allow it to, the world would be a much better place.

To put it bluntly, unless you are the person crawling in bed with them, why do u care about how the other person is.

Because their behavior is immoral and does not reflect the values held by the majority of Americans or our founding principles.  Moreover, as I have previously pointed out, this behavior makes a person ineligible for military service.  As the Auxiliary of the USAF we should enforce a similar moral standard.

Now I'm beginning to understand why we no longer have MLOs.

[Rotorhead]

Because their behavior is immoral and does not reflect the values held by the majority of Americans or our founding principles.  Moreover, as I have previously pointed out, this behavior makes a person ineligible for military service.  As the Auxiliary of the USAF we should enforce a similar moral standard.

Now I'm beginning to understand why we no longer have MLOs.

Stop embarrassing yourself. For starters, I know several MLOs.

[D2SK]

Actually, you know several former MLOs.

[jimmydeanno]

There is so much that I would like to say, but will refrain in the name of professionalism.

However, when I get a new senior, I like to point them to our core values.  I've never had anyone say they weren't comfortable with them or agree with them.  

Attitudes that intentionally demean, disrespect, assume judgement and discriminate are a direct violation of what our organization stands for and are not welcome.  Someones sexual orientation is neither a violation of our core values, nor does it hinder mission accomplishment except for those who are so close minded that they can not work with someone of different stature.  

We are not talking about people who molest children or are forcing their beliefs on others.  We are talking about people, just like you and me who have a desire to serve their country and communities, who want to help others around them.  Good, law abiding citizens - for that they gain my respect.

We live in a country that was founded by outcasts, those who fled seeking a way to live a free life, one absent from oppression or judgement.  

If we bring the military into this discussion, recent polls and surveys of military members have found that a majority of those in the military really could care less about the sexual orientation of their team members.  Many more find it disgraceful that those members must "hide."  

So, just as a reminder (pay particular attention to #4).

1. Integrity: This is the very fiber of all core values; without it all other core values cannot prevail. It is the cornerstone for all that is moral and just in our society. It is more than simple honesty. It embraces other attributes such as courage, responsibility, accountability, justice, openness, self-respect, and humility. Lastly, this core value means CAP members must practice the highest standards of self-discipline.

2. Volunteer Service: CAP adopted this core value because it reflects the very essence of the organization—service to humanity. All CAP volunteers willingly give of their time, energy, and personal resources. Moreover, many have made the ultimate sacrifice by losing their lives while serving the organization. As a minimum, this core value implies a commitment on the part of all CAP members to place the organization's purposes first and foremost. This process starts with the member's agreement to obey the rules and regulations of CAP and the Air Force. In this regard, self-discipline is an absolute must.

3. Excellence: This core value reflects CAP's continuous effort to be the very best, and to consistently improve its humanitarian service to America. From personal appearance to resource management, excellence must be the goal of all CAP members.

4. Respect: CAP members come from all walks of life. Therefore, it is extremely important that members treat each other with fairness and dignity, and work together as a team. To do otherwise would seriously impair CAP's capability to accomplish the mission.

The core values outlined above serve as the foundation for how CAP members treat one another; how they treat the recipients of CAP's humanitarian service; and how they care for the corporate assets under their control. These basic commandments form CAP's ethical centerline – a moral compass for the organization. If one member fails to uphold these values, then, in a way, the entire organization suffers.

[FW]

MLO's are now ChDO's (Character Development Officers)

I was reading an OP ED piece in my local paper this morning.  The header was "Jefferson Would Lose Today".  The article was basically referring to the "forum" at the Saddlebrook Church last Sunday hosting Sen. McCain and Obama.  The authors point was: why are we allowing a religious "test" with our presumptive candidates when there should not be.  She further gives Jefferson's quote saying; what does it matter if my neighbor believes in 20 gods or no god.  It doesn't effect my life nor my family's...
The obvious point is; it doesn't matter what the "majority" of Americans think or how they feel.  It matters how we respect each individuals rights as a citizen.  
That being said, do we really need to continue with this "conversation"?

[tjaxe]

^ I agree.  The conversation has probably run its course.  Most of us are aware that respect matters in CAP, and humanity.  For the rest... they won't learn about respecting others in this thread, nor, I fear, anywhere else.

[DC]

Inappropriate topic.

The only inappropriate topic is the one that isn't discussed out of fear. Any topic is appropriate if it is discussed in a professional, thoughtful, and intelligent manner.

In today's society, orientation should be a non issue. I think its safe to say that today, almost everyone either has a gay relative, knows someone who is gay, has a gay co-worker, or comes into contact with gay people in the course of normal daily life. 

If people started worrying more about the things that really do affect them rather than the things that only affect them if they allow it to, the world would be a much better place.

To put it bluntly, unless you are the person crawling in bed with them, why do u care about how the other person is.

Because their behavior is immoral and does not reflect the values held by the majority of Americans or our founding principles.  Moreover, as I have previously pointed out, this behavior makes a person ineligible for military service.  As the Auxiliary of the USAF we should enforce a similar moral standard.

Now I'm beginning to understand why we no longer have MLOs.

If this discussion, or the numerous polls done on the subject, are any indication the majority of Americans do not care about a person's sexual orientation. The title 'Immoral' is hugely subjective, there are those that believe that military service is immoral, or eating pork is immoral, or not following a certain religion (want to talk about the founding fathers, remember Religious Freedom?) is immoral, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Your argument that CAP should follow the same membership standards of the USAF is utterly rediculous, as numerous posters have pointed out, CAP's initial membership was entirely based on those unfit to serve in the real military, whether by age, gender, or physical condition. By your logic CAP should not have a Cadet Program, too young for the military, or allow SMs who are overweight, or like facial hair. To limit the potential membership pool of an organization that is already understaffed is just plain stupid, especially when done for reasons that have no bearing on a person's ability to accomplish the missions of CAP. A person's sexual orientation is their business, and I, for one, could really care less what a person does in their own bed. If they are willing to answer the phone at oh-dark thirty to go on a mission, keep 'em.

[alamrcn]

4. Respect: CAP members come from all walks of life. Therefore, it is extremely important that members treat each other with fairness and dignity, and work together as a team. To do otherwise would seriously impair CAP's capability to accomplish the mission.

Well, since all of our regulations by definition should spring from our "Core Values" - #4 pretty much says it all and in my opinion answers the OP. CAP is no more likely to have a "Straights Only" squadron than it is a "Whites Only" squadron.

So long as a (formerly-known-as) MLO's "moral" instruction is correctly based on modern social and civil standards, he/she should have an easy time with this type of situation. Their position should not be entirely based on scripture or religious teachings that may direct them. Or even their political interests for that matter.

The military has its own laws (UCMJ), which it must have to exist outside of society. Civil Air Patrol falls under the laws of our society, beginning with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

-Ace

[D2SK]

It is a sad day when people will defend something that is an abomination.  Would you care if what they did involved animals???  I guess it is a sign of the times.   What I've never understood about homosexual conduct is this:  the man wants another man, but often times acts feminine.  Likewise, the woman desires another woman, but many times appears so manly that it is difficult to discern her true gender.  What about this suggests integrity...or what is good and right?  It is perversion and unnatural behavior.  I do not hate these people, nor am I unwilling to work with them.  Indeed, I do work with them on a daily basis.  However, I do not condone, encourage or support their lifestyle.

I wonder if the CPPT should be revised to require that cadets being supervised for over night activities must be watched by a member of the same sex who is straight.  After all, the basis for requiring a same-sex chaperon for females is the rationale that women will not view girls as potential sex partners.  With lesbians, this is questionable.  Likewise for gay men and male cadets.

[MIKE]

I think that is just about enough.