![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
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
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
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.8Yes, they have. And they're no different from me.
[Poll #1493282]
Repeal DADT: http://www.hrc.org/sites/voicesofhonor/index.asp*
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
no subject
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
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.