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.

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was bigoted propaganda branded as a consideration, and the Lavender Scare was horrifically layered oppression. It was basically, “We’ve decided your sexuality is scandalous, forcing you to hide it, which makes you at risk of being blackmailed, so we’re charging you with a crime.” Fucking despicable.

    These pardons are excellent. It’s such a shame thousands of veterans had to live so long with criminal records for who they are, not even what they did.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      We’ve decided your sexuality is scandalous, forcing you to hide it, which makes you at risk of being blackmailed, so we’re charging you with a crime.” Fucking despicable.

      While obviously not near the same level of criminalizing someone for part of their core identity, I’ve felt the same way about the US government’s treatment of pot smokers. Can’t get a security clearance if you’ve smoked pot within the past 7 years because it’s blackmail leverage ignoring the fact that it’s only blackmail material when the government considers it verboten

      • ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        10 months ago

        You can 100% get a clearance if you’ve smoked within 7 years of applying for one. Hell, you can get a clearance if you smoked within the last year. You just have to a) disclose the fact, b) be able to show mitigations as to why smoking weed won’t be an issue while you have a clearance, and then c) not do it while you have a clearance. It ends up being not so much about the fact that you smoke weed as it is that you’re not following the law, and that’s the real clearance risk (from their POV). Getting a clearance is really about proving you’re trustworthy to the investigator.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          There are agencies, iirc mostly law enforcement, that consider it a strict bar. It also depends on the level of clearance, and how much they need you. An Army private getting a secret clearance to present weather to the general on the daily isn’t getting nearly as much scrutiny as a nuclear physicist. But nuclear physicists willing to work for the government are a finite resource. It’s all clear as mud and the fear of losing your career over some stupid persecution is real.

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s not so much the blackmail with pot, it’s the fact you can’t “follow the rules”. They will give a bye for previous smoking events (before you need the clearance, took a position etc.), it’s smoking with a clearance or NOT telling them that will get you wrapped up.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months 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
        15
        ·
        10 months 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.

      • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’d all but guarantee those 6 people are well-known “anti-genocide” bots here on lemmy.

          • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Maybe learn what scare quotes are. Because you clearly have no clue how they work. I’ll start you off with a hint:

            …they don’t mean the opposite of a thing.

            Even better, I’ll just tell you how they work:

            In this case, they mean bad-faith, fake trolls that use “gEnOciDe” as a platform to urge people to not vote against Trump.

            So… by all means continue to defend them. It’s only illustrating my point.

            • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              10 months ago

              Lol you sound like a Republican yelling about virtue signaling. Who would be against genocide or the guy enabling it? That’s impossible! Must be bots or paid actors.

              Biden could do good things but still not have it outweigh causing a genocide in some people’s eyes. I may not even agree with them, but I can see from their point of view, and totally empathize with that.

              But yes, this is a good thing. I’d rather we celebrate this good thing without getting side tracked by the bad things Biden has done or arguments about how bad they are.

              • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                If that’s your take, it’s not my place to change it. But this isn’t about virtue signaling at all.

                And I’m sure you know that.

                • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  A genocide is actually happening however you choose to spell it or sarcastically pronounce it. It’s a serious thing. Children are dying. Millions are becoming refugees. A mass famine is spreading. It’s a perfectly reasonable line to draw to not vote for someone enabling it, especially if it can possibly pressure that person to take a better actions to save their job. It doesn’t require bad faith arguments or fake troll bots. It requires actual humans with real morals and ethics appalled by what they are seeing and who actually believe “never again” means “never again”, especially when it’s something done by their government that their voice can possibly change.

                  He still has time to improve his stance, if it’s not for moral reasons or to save lives, I hope it eventually becomes to save his job and keep Trump out of office, though I’m not sure the movement will ever become big enough to affect his electoral chances with how much influence AIPAC has in our politics, and how much liberal Americans hate Trump more than genocide, so you can probably rest easy on that front.

              • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                I never said it wasn’t genocide. Try and pay attention. What I said was that there are people jumping on the genocide bandwagon for the purpose of trying to interfere with an election. Hence- “genocide.”

                And if you honestly believe this isn’t happening…. I’d have you take a closer look at the 2016 and 2020 elections and foreign agencies influence campaigns.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I never said it wasn’t genocide.

                  So its genocide, but talking about it in a way that makes the current President look bad means you’re not human?

                  And if you honestly believe this isn’t happening….

                  The problem with Americans is that they literally cannot break out of the Two-Party mentality. Since Joe Biden is endorsing genocide in Israel, anyone that suggests Biden might be bad for doing so is implicitly supporting Trump. And since Trump is also endorsing genocide, you can twist yourself into a knot suggesting that anyone espousing anti-genocidal views is somehow pro-genocide by the transitive property of “You must be a MAGA Russian bot”.

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Who? Where?

                  Sure that was a thing to some* extent. Where is your evidence the people you disagree with here and now are bots.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              10 months ago

              they mean bad-faith, fake trolls that use “gEnOciDe” as a platform to urge people to not vote against Trump.

              Christ, this is a bad take.

  • Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    10 months ago

    My boss was talking about wanting them all investigated for sex crimes. Just like… How is that a good use of tax money? More funny is the fact that he doesn’t believe taxation should be a thing…

  • andrewta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    10 months ago

    Only question is: those people who (for example) went to West Point and got kicked out after it was discovered they were gay and then had to pay back their education fees. (Which can be very large) do they get their money back?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      No. This is clemency for prosecution of criminal misconduct and (potential) reinstatement of “honorable discharge” status. If you got fucked financially by a military that lured you in and then crapped you back out again, you’ll have to get in line for Biden’s debt forgiveness plan.

      Also, should note that we changed the law in 2013 and then sat on this for four full years until Obama turned the keys over to Trump. Then retook the White House and waited an additional four years to grant clemency.

      Very frustrating to see Presidents implement these policies out of desperation in the middle of a tight election season rather than rolling them out ASAP.

      • Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Of course they’re going to wait until they need (re)elected. I’m almost positive the whole student loan thing will happen before the end of this election cycle

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      People take LGBT rights for granted. Especially gay marriage. I remember when it wasn’t legal. And it only became legal because of the courts.

      When people act like SCOTUS and the GOP would never come after established rights, they’re either ignorant or liars.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      The whole thing was stupid circular logic…

      many LGBTQ+ people employed by the federal government were viewed as security risks amid fears their sexual orientation made them vulnerable to blackmail.

      LGBTQ people weren’t allowed in the government/military, so if you were LGBTQ, they kicked you out because someone could blackmail you for being LGBTQ…

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          You’re confusing them thinking it made sense, and not just an excuse.

          But they stopped about a decade ago, it just took an election that Biden might not win for him to pardon the people who got fucked over for it.

          And I’m sure someone is about to explain to me while waiting 4 years for Biden to do this is “smart”…

          Because they don’t understand voters want politicians who try to help 24/7 and not just throwing out bread crumbs in the months before an election

    • andrewta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Every country was like this. Most don’t care anymore but some still do. At least it is starting to get fixed in most countries.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    If Trump somehow gets back in the WH, expect these veterans to get rebanned.

  • andros_rex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Now might be the time to put some protections in place for trans folks serving in the military - those bans are a little more recent and likely to return if someone happens to win office…

    I was going to join the Navy to help pay for school, and then one day it was no longer legal 🤡

    • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      It would be up to Congress to make something that couldn’t simply be reversed, but I wouldn’t say now is the time for that since the GOP-controlled House almost certainly wouldn’t pass the bill, even if the Senate did. Biden can only issue executive orders that can be reversed on a whim.

  • JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    Check out the book “Conduct Unbecoming” by Randy Shilts. It is a great read and account of much of this history (herstory).

  • banana_lama@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Quick question

    Why didn’t he do that 3 years ago when he got into office