Gay/Lesbian Membership Approval/Retention in CAP?

[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