Why is this not a major issue? (Page 2)

Literary license, man.  I couldn't come up with something for "Brigadier."

This isn't even just the military.... there are a lot of companies that have rules about employee conduct while wearing company cloths. If you are acting on your own, then go act on your own... if you are acting on your own as a military member, as a city official, as a employee of Acme computer services... then you are not acting on your own. You do not have freedom of expression on someone else's dime, period.

If the employer has a problem with it then the employer has the right to discontinue employment. I personally am not offended or threatened by a person, group of persons, company, military - whatever - expressing themselves politically or otherwise...on or off the clock, in or out of uniform. I see a lot of people wanting to restrict freedoms of others because those expressions of freedom are dissimilar to ones own beliefs. The way I see it, if "you" dont believe in expressing "yourself" while in your work clothes, then dont. But if "someone else" wants to express themselves while in "their" work clothes, mind your own business and live "your" life.

You dont want me to stop you from living your life because of my beliefs, right?

Since that one is associated with "General", I think it's covered.

It's not about what "you" do, or don't have a problem with... It is about a person entering into an agreement with some entity... military, employer, citizens group... then not abiding by the rules they agreed to. It you want to go express yourself, then do it in a way that does not compromise other agreements you made. How hard is that? It is against military rules to express individual political opinions in uniform... go to the parade, have a great time, support the event... in your street cloths. It's pretty darn simple.

Like I said, if the employer has a problem with an employees behavior the employer can discontinue the relationship. I dont know what the rules of the military are, so if someone is breaking rules then they may have to deal with the consequences.

Personally, I dont see a gay pride parade as a political parade. Being a homosexual is not a political stance.

But surely you understand that gays serving in the military openly (which I do not have a problem with) is a political issue... because it is.

And as was said... yes you do have consequences... and others that have done the same have had to suffer those consequence, but this time the rules were ignored... guess what by... political pressure. It's simply a issue of consistency with the rules. Enough people made the conscious decision to break the rules so the military bent them.

I can even agree with you that it should not be an issue... but I can't go to the local Man Pride parade in uniform. My gender isn't a political issue but my actions are.

As with all rules they need to uphold them. If they are not going to do that, then get rid of them.

maybe it's your wording, but i can't agree with you that a gay man (or woman) serving in the military and being openly gay is a political issue.  it's just...that man or woman, who happens to be gay, serving in the military.  they aren't doing it to make a statement, it's who they are. 

i am not well enough educated on uniform regulations so i won't weigh in on that, but the bolded sentence above...upset me a lot.

I'm not trying to make it something it is not. When we have elected officials discussing bans on gay marriage, when we have both parties debating gays serving in the military, when Clinton makes rules for it, the rules are debated, Obama pledges to do away with them, when the JCOFS review it and discuss the subject... it's political. I'm not making this stuff up. I'm not making a personal statement as to what I think... it just is.

Even the event... was it that gays wanted to participate in the Gay Pride parade... no. It is that military members wanted to participate as military members expressing personal opinions on a subject in the parade... A subject that is political in nature. We can discuss the merits of that subject... but it is what it is.

I guess I can't say it any differently. It seems pretty cut and dried to me. YMMV... not that there is anything wrong with that....

Details of USMC Uniform Regs (Department of the Navy so most are the same) can be found here: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/uniformwearmc.htm

I think this was the wrong decision not by the troops that marched, but by the DOD for specifically making a decision to allow these troops to wear their uniforms for this event.  The Uniform is not supposed to be used to make statements whether it's "I love dudes" or "I hate cats".  Fact is that the DOD made the exemptions, so the troops are ok to do this.  But it was not the right decision by the DOD.  It'll be interesting to see the lawsuits that come from groups like the KKK, MMM, and Promise Keepers and others when they want the right to march in uniform and the DOD says no.

I find it interesting that they made that exemption when the point below is the heading to the Navy Regs on appropriate wear of the uniform...

11003. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY POLICY PERTAINING TO UNIFORMS

1. Pursuant to subparagraph 11002.1a(5), the Secretary of the Navy has prescribed that:

a. The exercise of the rights of freedom of speech and assembly does not include the right to borrow the inherent dignity, prestige, and traditions represented by uniforms of the naval service to lend weight and significance to privately held convictions on public issues.

And on that Tony we agree... they actually didn't do anything wrong because they had permission... they said they were going to break the rules, then got permission.... but still. Like Aces, I disagree with the DOD making an allowance.

And again, if the DOD has a problem with how they want their members behaving in accordance to rules... then just change the rules. It is really simple.