Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[ehowton]

SIXTEEN YEARS AGO


I was serving in the United Kingdom when Clinton's historic Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy was enacted, allowing, for the first time, a lift on the ban of homosexuals to serve in the Armed Forces. This was met, as you may be able to imagine, with derision and mockery from within the ranks, but it paled in comparison to the editorial cartoons reprinted in the Stars and Stripes overseas newspaper, the only forum we had in which to gauge U.S. reaction.

I was home on leave later the next year and had mentioned to my gay friends that I never understood why gays were so hell-bent on getting in the military what with it being forbidden and all. I asked them if it was a sort of rite-of-passage or a thrill to do something they weren't allowed to. One of them asked me if I figured out the answer. I had not and I'm ashamed to admit that once he told me, it still took me many years to understand it: They wanted to serve.

My Air Force sister-in-arms kat_rowe recently asked for signatures repealing the law on its anniversary, and I must admit, I'd not thought much about it. Fortunately, the link she posted provided a wealth of information for me to consider my options, and these are my findings.

• And yet issues with implementation – such as a vague and widely varied interpretation on what qualifies as a gay or lesbian ‘act’ – still exist.¹


• No one has to define for me what is, or is not, a homosexual act. There are many things I instinctively understand and this is one of them. Furthermore, the US Code is *crystal clear* to me: "any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires;"²


• Sixty-seven percent of civilians support allowing gays to serve openly³


• That's fantastic! However, those civilians are not currently serving. I read your blogs - your biggest complaint on a bad day is what so-and-so said about you or the traffic. People living in prison have more rights and freedoms than I experienced while in Saudi Arabia. Frankly, your vote means nothing to me.


• Nearly three in four troops (73 percent) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians.⁴


• And here's always the way it is. "Nearly" means its not, and is used only when trying to inflate something, and "comfortable" isn't exactly a rousing recommendation. To me, not seeing any difference whatsoever is key to its success. Obviously we're not there yet.


• More than 20 of the 26 NATO nations, including Great Britain, Australia, Canada and Israel, already allow open service by gays and lesbians, and none of the countries reports morale or recruitment problems.⁵


• How many of those services are manned by conscripts? You want to impress me with facts, compare our career infantrymen with theirs.

Sadly, these points I disagree with were gleaned from the anti-DADT website and the links they provided. At least they were thorough. Also linked is the 2009 winner of the Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition, "The Efficacy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”" which very succinctly outlines how complex this law is from several different legal viewpoints, but does challenge the stated "unit cohesion" verbiage of the law as being without scientific evidence⁶, but unfortunately does not back up his claim by providing scientific evidence to the contrary.

One last aspect I would like to touch on is religious beliefs. This one is hard even for me, because I was taught that homosexuality was a sin. Its difficult to unlearn a lifetime of lessons.

I have two books at my bedside, Lieutenant: the Marine Corps Code of Conduct and the King James Bible. The only proper authorities I am aware of are my commanding officer, Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, and the Lord our God.

~ Lt. Kendrick, "A Few Good Men"

The statement that "societal views have grown far more accommodating in the last 16 years..."⁷ I realized applied to me. I am part of that dynamic and undulating society and have learned and experienced much in that time. I've also learned that your sacred religious doctrine is nothing more than a societal tool itself, evolving as we do. It therefore no longer holds power over me.





If I was sitting on the fence throughout all of this, there was one notation from an Office of the Secretary of Defense memorandum which was quoted in Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members which I kept coming back to:

The Department of Defense has long held that, as a general rule, homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it interferes with the factors critical to combat effectiveness, including unit morale, unit cohesion, and individual privacy. Nevertheless, the Department of Defense also recognizes that individuals with a homosexual orientation have served with distinction in the armed services of the United States.⁸

Yes, they have. And they're no different from me.

[Poll #1493282]

Repeal DADT: http://www.hrc.org/sites/voicesofhonor/index.asp^*

---

<sup>1 - http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/11/announcing-the-voices-of-honor-campaign ¶ 3.
2 - US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 37 §654, ¶ F, Subcategory 3A.
3 - http://www.hrc.org/sites/voicesofhonor/dadt.asp ¶ 9.
4 - Ibid ¶ 10.
5 - Ibid ¶ 11.
6 - http://wilddamntexan.com/kids/EfficacyofDADT.pdf Page 94, ¶ 1.
7 - Ibid Page 89, ¶ 3.
8 - http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/randstudy.pdf Page 2, ¶4.

*Thanks to kat_rowe</sup>

Comments

[swashbuckler332.livejournal.com]

They wanted to serve.

And this is the crux of this issue to me.

Ultimately it boils down to the fact that certain citizens have a right to serve their country in a certain way and others do not. The idea that homosexuality is somehow "incompatible" with anything is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned: if the soldier has been properly trained, then their sexual orientation should make no more difference to their performance than their skin color, which was its own issue back in the day. This is what the DOD is acknowledging when it recognized the distinguished service of homosexuals in the military.

While I understand that policy should not entirely be dictated by those who aren't conversant of the facts on the ground, it should also not be dictated by bigotry, regardless of how ingrained it is.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

In discussing this topic with a retired Special Forces veteran, certain units require the utmost in trust, the wavering of which can be deadly. He doesn't disagree that homosexuals don't serve with distinction, rather that truly professional gay soldiers don't bring their gayness into then unit, thus living of their own volition a personally strict version of the current law - not because its law, but because its professional.

This is what the DOD is acknowledging when it recognized the distinguished service of homosexuals in the military.
Which probably came out after the fact. In short, their entire careers were at the level of professionalism previously mentioned. They likely didn't serve as "flaming" which would've diminished that view.

[swashbuckler332.livejournal.com]

Professionalism is professionalism, which is an issue that is true regardless of a person's orientation. I just don't really understand why people should have to pretend that they're something that they're not, particularly if they're perfectly good at their job. Even in the example you related, the story boils down to one guy feeling uncomfortable about another guy because of the other guy's personal life. I'm sorry, the inability to deal with somebody having different tastes than yourself is a basic human failing, military or no.

I listen predominantly to film music. Should I suppress my tastes because somebody else is made uncomfortable by the suspense cues in a James Bond score? Fagh.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Professionalism is professionalism, which is an issue that is true regardless of a person's orientation.
I agree 100%. I acknowledge productivity and usefulness far more than I acknowledge diversity, despite the latter being corporate policy.

I just don't really understand why people should have to pretend that they're something that they're not, particularly if they're perfectly good at their job.
They way I see it, that's why DADT is in place. So they don't have to pretend. Why would it even come up in conversation?

Even in the example you related, the story boils down to one guy feeling uncomfortable about another guy because of the other guy's personal life.
In the corporate world I'll give you that one. However, I've personally never put my career in someone else's hands, and certainly never my life. Its difficult to imagine being in that scenario - because even when I served I wasn't infantry - I wasn't a frontline combatant, so I argued to the retired Special Forces veteran all the things you're arguing to me now, up to and including "the shortcoming is yours, not his" film score example, which he rejected with examples of infantry life that though I never experienced in the USAF, I'm familiar with and understand his point of view. If you'd really like to hear it, I don't mind relaying it here, but he's all for repealing DADT as long as it doesn't permeate combat units, much like the restrictions we have in place for women.

[swashbuckler332.livejournal.com]

They way I see it, that's why DADT is in place. So they don't have to pretend. Why would it even come up in conversation?

Quite to the contrary, why would it not come up in conversation? You've mentioned elsewhere in this discussion that you don't boast about your conquests and whatnot, but is it so unusual in any situation, military or civilian, to mention that you took the wife/girlfriend/whatever to the museum when you were on leave last weekend? But a person who is gay will have to suddenly carefully choose their words to avoid terms like "companion" or "boy/girlfriend" just because it might hint that they're gay. That goes beyond reasonable expectations of professionalism and becomes a violation of their intrinsic right to be who they are.

Regarding that last bit, I don't know what to say. I will agree that having been a civilian all of my life most likely does color the way that I see the issue, but what do you think that sounds like to me? Your Special Forces friend is saying that he doesn't trust somebody simply because they're gay.

Ultimately, the problem with DADT is not that it keeps people from showing up for their shift in chartreuse fatigues. That person is not suited for the military, the same as any straight person who can't handle the military structure. The problem with DADT is that it is that perfectly good soldiers have to be constantly vigilant to keep themselves from saying something that might raise an eyebrow. If anything, it would cause them to fall short of their potential because of the need for constant secrecy about something that they shouldn't have to be secretive about in this day and age. I think kat_rowe is making this point much better than I.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

...but is it so unusual in any situation, military or civilian, to mention that you took the wife/girlfriend/whatever to the museum when you were on leave last weekend?
Not at all. All of us interject a bit of ourselves to any career, especially when working closely with the same group of people for any period of time. Being professional should never be mistaken for not being human.

...but what do you think that sounds like to me?
I took a broader view, and while I understand and agree with his description of the psychological challenges of infantry, I must also agree that it does indeed sound precisely like that and wonder, if at some level, that won't eventually be able to be overcome as well.

Thank you for your perspective.

[dentin.livejournal.com]

It doesn't have to make sense, but these are the constraints we've been given.

Yes, DADT sucks. Many things suck and life is unfair. But sometimes we have to deal with that suckage anyway, because that's the way it is.

You can work to change the suckage, but if that takes longer than the time you've got at hand, you have no choice but to deal with it.

If you want to dismantle and rebuild branches of the military such that they have an open policy and sexual preference isn't an issue, fine. But be aware that doing so takes said branch of the military off-line while the transition occurs.

The other option is to wait for and push for less invasive, incremental changes that in the long run will have the same effect. DADT was a beautiful step in this direction, even for all its flaws.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Apparently the US has been discussing just that - implementing incremental changes modeled after the Brit's successful (but not easy, apparently) lifting of the full ban after a court determined it was illegal for homosexuals to be precluded from serving.

So even if they make it law, your same rule applies and we find the other half not understanding the sense behind of, but operating within the constraints.

Interesting.

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

While there are many motivations for serving, the fact of the matter is you go into the Service to do a job, not play grab-ass. I agree with the essence of what you said here: be professional.

To me, this is just like legal immigration. You're not expected to deny your heritage, but you are expected to assimilate. You don't come to this country and try to get us to become the country you left. You bring the strengths of your culture to the table to build a stronger society. If you want to do things like speak a different language or promote a certain custom, you do it in the proper place at the proper time--usually in the privacy of one's home.

Why can't we view the question of homosexuals serving in the military in the same light?

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

I'm a huge proponent of celebrating commonality rather than diversity.

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

More to the point, it's about promoting the autonomy of the individual serving the autonomy of the group, or, if you will, a Nash-equilibrium of sorts, i.e. individuals doing what's best for themselves so long as it doesn't have a negative effect on the group.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

That of course runs contrary to military service, but sure.

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'm articulating my point correctly. What I'm suggesting is that everyone know the objective well enough that with a bit of cross-training, they could fill whatever need necessary based on their own initiative as it serves the purpose of the group.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

And I'm obviously not articulating my point correctly. Out of the two of us, only one of us has served. The military is keen on highly specialized fields in which you do exactly as you're told, and through learned behavior, not to question orders. Its the opposite of what you're suggesting.

While that works great in the corporate world, the mission of the distinct services is usually far more narrow in execution while being quite encompassing in scope.

This is not a blog about homosexuals. I am not an outspoken LGBT advocate. This entry was also very narrowly defined.

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

While that works great in the corporate world
Maybe this is my problem. My perspective comes from what I know and what I know is sitting behind my computer and that knowledge is power. The greater my abilities, the more I can profit by them.

This is not a blog about homosexuals. I am not an outspoken LGBT advocate.
I don't know how you jumped to this conclusion unless you feel guilty for entertaining the thought that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve openly, or, as you called it, flaming.

[dentin.livejournal.com]

Unlike Eric, I have not served - but I understand very clearly what he is talking about with respect to defined roles. No, universal cross training and tolerance is simply not an option. It is 'not an option' to an extent that I find difficult to put into words.

My understanding of Eric's position (correct me if I'm wrong) is that sexual orientation is irrelevant and should not affect performance. However, at this point in time, on average, it -does- affect performance. It does not matter why and it does not matter how. It does not have to be fair, because life is not fair.

All that matters is the data, because performance failures translate directly into blood spilled on the ground.

[quicksilvermad.livejournal.com]

Around the time Clinton introduced the DADT policy, he had quite a few Air Force Bases shut down in Europe. One of them was Iraklion AFB, where my dad was serving as a security policeman. It was toward the end of 1994, I think (because I was just starting second grade), that we were told to pack up* and leave. In a strange way, I resent former President Clinton for shutting us down. This is probably because I was just settling down into good friendships for the first time in my tiny little life and I loved Greece enough that I was comfortable with the idea of living so far away from extended family and I will be going back some day for longer than just a vacation...

I also vaguely remember my dad picking up his copy of The Stars & Stripes and reading about the DADT Policy. I know now, after growing up and learning about how he feels on the issue. You said it here: One last aspect I would like to touch on is religious beliefs. This one is hard even for me, because I was taught that homosexuality was a sin. Its difficult to unlearn a lifetime of lessons. That is exactly what my father was brought up to believe and he thinks that by saying: "I have worked with plenty of gay people before" it means that homosexuality doesn't bother him.
But I know better. Especially when I can see those micro-expressions of disgust on his face before he can control them.

Because I'm young and I have not served my country (I'm starting to consider seeing if the Air Force would like to have its very own talented artist/graphic designer, though) I've been able to take my own religious background, look at it head on, and say: "What other people believe and feel is as important to them as what I believe and feel is important to me. Therefore, if a friend of mine comes up to me and tells me she is a lesbian, I can still be her close friend because it does not change the fact that she has been there for me through all my drama." Yes, the Bible says that "a man lying with another man" is a sin. But the Bible also says that eating pig parts is a sin. And I love me some bacon.
I think that is what puts it all in perspective to me. The Bible was written well before the world itself "grew up" and people branched out to all curves of the globe in exploration.

*grumbles* I have no idea if I'm talking in circles here or what... But I trust you can catch what I'm throwing you here. I understand both sides because my father is all for DADT and I'm all for that old thing just getting thrown out.

*I remember packing up and leaving vividly because it was a painful experience. Not just because we had to ship all of our furniture and stuff out to the States before we left and were stuck with what the Base called "stick furniture." Greece was my home by that time. I was speaking the language and embracing the culture and it was getting ripped out from under me by this guy who looked at all of these Bases and said: "well, that's a useless place for our Armed Forces that's costing us money." That, and one evening before we had to leave, I cracked my head open on the corner of the "stick furniture" coffee table. Which just added injury to insult (and made the plane trips back even more nauseating).

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

You are refreshingly mature beyond your years - something which catches me off guard often.

[quicksilvermad.livejournal.com]

I think this is the kindest thing anyone has ever said to me... Thank you, Eric.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Well I may have overshot that a bit. All I really wanted to say was that I almost always forget how young you are.

When I comment that I know you'll succeed even though we've never met, its because I see things in you which I have proven to myself to be paramount to success. You are many things I myself refuse to waver on - subsequently I can identity these traits in others.

Age isn't as important to me as experience (which your travels in your youth have provided you - that perspective is obvious) or an enthusiasm for life (which is clear in all your posts). Add to that your tenacity (the most important of all your characteristics) and your education, and I wanted to somehow express in a non-creepy way (because I'm 40 and you're...not 40) that I consider you a peer.

[quicksilvermad.livejournal.com]

See, now that just made my day. That you can see these qualities in me...

I often forget that when I am online most people forget my age because of how I "speak" rather than how I "look." I've been expressing myself about five to ten years ahead of my so-called peers since I was in grade school (hell, I was learning a second language in first grade and reading Star Wars novels by second grade).

So I appreciate the fact that you consider me a peer. And it's nice to know I'm tenacious.

You are never creepy. I know "creepy." It ain't you, sir.

[irulan-amy.livejournal.com]

I have not a lot of useful things to say as I cringe away from anything that might encourage someone to start a debate with me. But I wanted to say that this is a really excellent post. Well researched and well written. I love having you on my f-list for many reasons, but a big one is that you post on such a variety of topics. Well written sir.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

I have not a lot of useful things to say as I cringe away from anything that might encourage someone to start a debate with me.
Well I disagree! (Oh, wait...what?)

Seriously - wow. Thanks.

*BEAM*

[kat-rowe.livejournal.com]

If wikipedia is to be trusted (sorry, but Kat is feeling too out of it to do proper research) conscription isn't practiced by the UK (except in Bermuda but that's a separate human rights issue), Australia, or Canada. Granted, I've never served with members of any of those militaries so I don't know how analogous they are to ours *shrugs* IDF is definitely not valid to compare to a volunteer military, however.

To me, it comes down to the fact that we want to serve and restrictions are being applied. For me, it never came down to whether I was getting sexual pleasure from physical contact with a female; it was about whether it could be perceived that way. Maybe that was paranoid of me but it did inform my behavior at times. I was more comfortable hugging male friends than female ones (which is silly since I’m equally attracted to both).

I won’t point out that there was a time in this world’s history where strict heterosexuality was believed to undermine troop morale (Sacred Band of Thebes, anyone?) but it seems to me like it’s impractical. Either say we can serve or say that we can’t; don’t tell us we can serve if we pretend not to be what we are. It’s not about whether you’re “flaming” or a dyke or whatever. It’s about whether, during your downtime, you’re allowed to date who you want that way your squad mates are. Maybe it’s unrealistic of me to think that, if you pull your weight in your unit, that should be your right but I do like to think we’ve moved past that. I personally would rather be declared unfit for service outright than told not to be the way I was born.

Thanks for taking the time to research and post on this issue *hugs you*

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

If wikipedia is to be trusted...
Hrm, probably should've cited my source - I used http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_con-military-conscription and yes, you're exactly right - notice however that of the "more than 20 of the 26" only 4 are listed :/

I've never served with members of any of those militaries so I don't know how analogous they are to ours
I served with two different units of RAF in Saudi Arabia. They reminded me of the old Phil Silver's show, "Sgt. Bilko." More the era than the antics, but that too.

...it was about whether it could be perceived that way.
One of the great causalities of the Tolerance Movement - individual expression.

(Sacred Band of Thebes, anyone?)
Interestingly enough, the retired Special Forces veteran I consulted during my research phase brought up that unit of solely homosexual couples. Sadly, it was reported that the experiment was a dismal failure which resulted in "total annihilation" of the group :(

It’s about whether, during your downtime, you’re allowed to date who you want...
And that's the tenant of DADT. Believe me - my white, heterosexual coworkers and I NEVER discuss our sexual conquests with each other. Why would you?

Thanks for taking the time to research and post on this issue
Hey! Thank YOU for bringing it to our attention.

[kat-rowe.livejournal.com]

There's no comparison between a military composed of conscripts and one composed of willing volunteers. That's part of why the free world is always going to have military supremacy :)

Sadly, it was reported that the experiment was a dismal failure which resulted in "total annihilation" of the group :(

Elite units tend to get their asses handed to them because they tend to get sent up against overwhelming forces of foes (the 300 at Thermopyle, anyone?). They were feared beyond any other foes for the 40+ years they were in action and my understanding has always been that they weren't reformed with new soldiers out of respect to the Band, not out of any sense that it had been a failure. Doesn't much matter, however, since the whole ethos was different back then anyway

my white, heterosexual coworkers and I NEVER discuss our sexual conquests with each other. Why would you?

You can be seen in public kissing and holding hands with your lover without having to worry about losing your job. I've never bragged about my "conquests" and never will, but if I want to cuddle with a date (or with a platonic friend) at the corner pub, I should be allowed to without needing to worry about repercussions.

DADT means that you have to guard your actions, even off-base for fear a coworker with a grudge might see you "acting gay" ... the second you start worrying about being informed against by members of your own unit, the idea that DADT promotes cohesion flies out the window. Like I said, I'd prefer a military to say they don't want homosexuals/bisexuals period to one that says "Oh, we'll take you, BUT..."

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

There's no comparison between a military composed of conscripts and one composed of willing volunteers. That's part of why the free world is always going to have military supremacy :)
Provided that we continue to fund our military instead of cutting that funding, claiming that we've spent too much on social programs.

[kat-rowe.livejournal.com]

okay, okay...

All other things being equal, the free world is always going to have military supremacy ;p

[thesweetestnote.livejournal.com]

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

if you have a point, please make it. I've already concisely stated mine.

[thesweetestnote.livejournal.com]

No point. I thought it was funny. Much like the whole debate over gays in the military. I mean, what does liking it in the butt have to do with killing another human being?

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

[thesweetestnote.livejournal.com]

Oh My! That is something else. LOL. It's so WTF? Hilarious! BRAVO!

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Klinger!

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Doesn't much matter, however, since the whole ethos was different back then anyway.

Goddamn Puritans.

[kat-rowe.livejournal.com]

um, actually I mean the Greek "dying horribly is better than the dishonor of living to fight another day" ethos, lol... that makes practical comparrisons between their military and ours impossible

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

SPARTA!

[kat-rowe.livejournal.com]

*giggle!snort*

[thesweetestnote.livejournal.com]

I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

-Kinky Friedman

Somehow this quote applies here - in a far off strange way...

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

That's the theme song to The Jeffersons. Man, you really need help.

[thesweetestnote.livejournal.com]

Man, just cause it's a theme song don't make it not true.

[dentin.livejournal.com]

I voted no, with comment.

The comment is that we're not ready, and I think the part of the posting around 73% is a good explanation of why. It's not the right thing to do, but it's a damned good reason.

Quite frankly, there's no suitable replacement, because we as a people aren't ready. For fuck's sake, we still don't have gay marriage in more than a handful of states, and even California is fighting an aggressive battle for it. How can one possibly think it's safe to openly put gays into a combat team when a quarter of that team has violent psychological conflicts with the very existence of homosexuality?

The world is an imperfect place. Yes, the law -should- be thrown out and replaced with open tolerance. Yes, gay and other arbitrary forms of legally binding marriage -should- be allowed. Yes, suitably strong artificial intelligence -should- be recognized as having legal rights and identity. However, now is not the time.

It is an imperfect world, and while I am ready, others more important than me are not. As you so eloquently put it, I am a civilian, and my vote counts for shit. What matters is the servicemen, the guys getting shot at, and until -they- are ready for it, open disclosure should be shelved. A better way to handle it would be to open it up slightly, over time; an intermediate compromise might be 'DADT, but if your troop finds out and there's a problem, you will be transferred. If you are repeatedly transferred, you may be involuntarily discharged.'

I learned a long time ago not to underestimate religious zealotry, whether it comes from Alabama's good ol' boys, Kentucky's very active KKK, or members of Al Queda.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Yes, the law -should- be thrown out and replaced with open tolerance.

Tolerance is our corporate policy. But wear a mu-mu to work and see what happens. People make the law, not the other way around. I think you're right, we - as a nation - aren't ready.

[swashbuckler332.livejournal.com]

We shall now see soon enough.

I do take issue with this idea of whether we are or are not "ready" is relevant however. Social change comes as a result of resistance. Should persons of color have "waited" until the time was "right" for a civil rights movement? Who dictates which generation reaps the benefits from eventual compassion?