Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Days of Don't Ask, Don't Tell Are Numbered
Don't Ask, Don't Tell cannot stand.
This 15-year-old law, which bans gay Americans from serving openly in the military, was the subject of its first ever Congressional hearing on July 23. The testimony was damning.
Members of the Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee were unusually outspoken.
"Just bonkers."
"Shocked."
"Scurrilous."
"Cruel."
"Dumb."
"Inappropriate."
"An affront to me and many of the soldiers."
Those were just some of the criticisms levied by members, who included a retired admiral and an Iraq veteran.
These rebukes mark a turning point in the debate that will likely lead to repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the next couple of years.
There are two big reasons for the increasing support for gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.
First, there is significant new data about how Don't Ask, Don't Tell undermines military readiness.
Second, there has been a major cultural shift in support of gay Americans over the past fifteen years. 2008 is simply not 1993.
The 2000 Census showed that there are 65,000 lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans currently serving in our armed forces. There are one million gay veterans. According to a Zogby poll, 23 percent of returning Iraq and Afghan veterans report that they knew of an openly gay service member in their unit, exploding the myth that gays are not serving openly, even at risk to their careers.
Though short of troops, the Pentagon has discharged more than 12,500 service members for being gay since Don't Ask, Don't Tell was implemented. Each year, an additional 4,000 service members resign their commissions or decline to re-enlist because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The Pentagon admits it has discharged service members in mission-critical specialties since Don't Ask, Don't Tell was made law. The most notorious instances are the sixty Arabic linguists the military let go, despite the Army's severe shortage of language specialists.
Proponents of Don't Ask, Don't Tell said that openly gay troops would undermine readiness and morale. But American forces have been serving with openly gay troops from foreign militaries in joint operations and with NATO forces deployed around the world, and yet there has been no report of operational deficiency as a result.
In 2000, America's strongest military ally, Great Britain, lifted its ban on gays in the military without incident, joining 23 other nations that have lifted their bans, including one of the most combat-tested militaries in the world -- Israel's.
In 1993, the sense was that military leaders unanimously opposed gays serving openly. Today, sixty-two flag officers are on record supporting repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General John Shalikashvili, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Wesley Clark, and the first woman to achieve the rank of lieutenant general, Claudia Kennedy.
A poll by military sociologist Charlie Moskos during the debate in 1993 found that only 13 percent of the troops supported gays serving openly. According to a new Washington Post/ABC poll, 50 percent of veterans support gays serving openly.
The seismic shift in military opinion supporting gays serving openly has paralleled the shift among the general public. According to the Post poll, 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly today, up from 44 percent in 1993. Significant majorities of evangelicals (57 percent), Catholics (82 percent) and conservatives (64 percent) support gays serving openly.
At the hearing of the Personnel Subcommittee, the Pentagon testified that it stood ready to implement any change to the law that Congress approves.
Now that is a welcome sea change. It should sweep away any lingering opposition to overturning Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
C. Dixon Osburn is co-founder, and former executive director, of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
Copyright 2008 The Progressive Magazine
26 Comments so far
Show AllPDF
(I started to type 'force it down my throat' but decided against it, based on the topic)
I'm still laughing.....
I think too much is made of it all anyway. I'd say lets just get on with it. There were some great guys and gals I knew in the Marines and they never pushed it. It was no big deal to the rank and file. I just think as far as the services go, those serving should be able to do so in dignity.
A little more humor in dealing with these things, not just this, would not go amiss.
Thomas,
The only thing is, I'll certainly be labeled a homophobe by some for having that viewpoint. I can accept that, but it gets a little tedious having that very same argument time and time again. Live and let live, I say! I hold no grudge against anyone, as long as they don't beat me over the head with it. My best friend in High School was a Jehovah's Witness, and we remained best friends throughout. I think one of the reasons why was because he never tried to push it in my face. (I started to type 'force it down my throat' but decided against it, based on the topic)
But if I started demanding recognition and acceptance of MY choices, whether they have any bearing on my workplace or not, I should be ready and willing to take some pushback on those demands. True?
Frankly, I've never worked in a place where sexuality in any form has come up in the course of doing business. Perhaps it's a job requirement in SOME workplaces, but alas, never has been in one of mine!
.pdf
The only issues that have ever come up is when militant and flamboyant individuals have demanded recognition and special treatment has it become an issue.
An extremely good point.
I spent six years in the military; living and working with a several hundred guys on a ship. No doubt a percentage of them were homosexual, none whatsoever. However, this was in a time when sexuality choices were not worn on one's sleeve and what guys did on their own time was not a problem. Never came up once, not in six years.
Since those days, I've worked with thousands of others, both male and female in various professional and managerial environments and oddly enough, sexuality has never really come up in the course of work. Yes, I have known several women who had partners and kept pictures of them on their desks. Again, not a problem.
The only issues that have ever come up is when militant and flamboyant individuals have demanded recognition and special treatment has it become an issue. It makes it very tough on a business when somebody demands that they should have their own bathroom designed and built when they don't fit the standard male / female role category. From my perspective, it's the demanding of respect that generates the majorityi of problems.
"sexual orientation, identity, activity is a private, personal matter that has no bearing on fitness for duty or any other aspect of public life."
Frankly thats my feeling. As to the social acceptance...some will accept it and some won't. Thats what makes us a free country.
But it should have no bearing in professional settings for anyone. That also is what makes us a free country.
Sexual orientation is NOT a private matter IF you are heterosexual and have biological children
Because the results of your sexual behavior are running around out there for all and sundry to see
And women in particular are often judged by others through the lens of how their kids behave
Why can't people see that the consequences of 'sex that matters' are NOT private ?
Does that mean all the "Troops" would come home if they admitted being gay?
I agree with zzz, insofar as I believe that there's a misguided, er, tendency to rely on the notion that sexual orientation and behavior isn't malleable to justify social acceptance of homosexuality.
Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. But the deeper, or larger, point-- can't get away from unintended innuendo here, dammit-- is that sexual orientation, identity, activity is a private, personal matter that has no bearing on fitness for duty or any other aspect of public life.
Mmmmm... milkshakes. I prefer black & white, myself.
If you place three milk shakes in front of me; I will choose the chocolate milk shake. It's what I like, and with an opportunity presented to make the choice, I have a very strong and established preference for the chocolate one.
Am I hardwired to choose chocolate or am I just choosing it because I like it?
Hey, just making a point..... don't shoot me.
This is a stupid rule in any case. We always had gays in the service. They were't "attacking" us in the showers.
The only real difference I ever noticed was we went to different bars. (and that not all the time)
There was certainly no difference in combat, they were just as scared as the rest of us, but they still did their duty.
It hasn't hurt any other military service in any other country in the world, I'm sure allowing these folk's dignity of service won't destroy the American family or lead to the collapse of Western Civilization.
Time to give credit to actuality if you ask me.
One can see how desperate the Imperial Military and Government must be for warm bodies from any source, as long as conscription isn't renewed. The Imperial Military doesn't want it, even for fighting quagmires, and the Imperial Government's trough-feeders know that so much as mentioning it can be an almost certain career-killer.
A past Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke was talking in the Australian vernacular to a Japanese trade delegation. He said he was not there to "Play silly buggers." The translation was "Humourous homosexuals."
"Its biologically hardwired and involves no cognitive preference."
What complete BS. If people enjoy orgies, were they born that way? This is a classic us vs. them ploy. They might be inclined in one direction or another by biology, but might also be just as influenced by their life experience. Everyone is free to experiment with sex with either gender. Some may start off Hetero and wind up homo, or vice-versa. It's a spectrum, with bi-sexual in the middle. People do have a choice, and that should be fine, it shouldn't be used against them.
The Upright Citizen's Brigade once did a great sketch about babies being born porn stars to demonstrate the absurdity of biological gayness. "I'm sorry Mr. and Mrs. Jones, but being born a porn star isn't a choice, you need to learn to accept your porn star baby..."
mrE said: "employers can't legally discriminate against sexual preference"
Don't buy into the propaganda, its sexual orientation and not sexual preference. Its biologically hardwired and involves no cognitive preference.
Few people desire to join the military today.
It seems to me that this is another way to increase the number of troops, sailors, and marines.
Changing this policy is only for the benefit of the ruling elite who now must recruit more to fill the dwindling ranks.
There has to be a sexual problem at the root of anybody who is obsessed with other people's sex lives.
Entire fleets of dutiful, patriotic, and flamboyantly gay seamen have served in the world's imperial navies.
When two or more belligerent nation states decide war and aggression are the way to satiate their needs, this is the decision that needs to be vilified. War then, is an ultimate form of heinous discrimination, Perhaps, a sliver of forward progress can be made if a ridiculous policy and the traditional control driven pathology of malevolence towards so-called 'abnormal' sexual preference, can be eradicated. This could then, ultimately, lead to the destruction of the military itself, a need that is overdue.
I can think of one VERY successful army that was rife with homosexuality.
They routinely kicked the crap out of anyone who crossed swords with them.
Does the name 'Sparta' ring any bells?
I wonder if a military referrendum has ever been considered? It's the world they live in, perhaps it ought to be left to them?
Just a thought....
Does the KKK accept gays? Maybe that could be the next big issue.
Why are we fu**ing talking about this with climate change and economic collapse staring us in the face. This is exactly why we will not make it, we can't face reality.
flainn: well, unlike the military, employers can't legally discriminate against sexual preference, right?
anyway, i just brought up the point because i've heard people say that the "dont ask, dont tell" policy was implemented by the clinton administration with somewhat of an intentional loophole. (i dont really buy it though...)
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Don't Care, Don't Serve
mrE: Sure, you have the ability to get out. If you don't mind a dishonorable discharge ("homosexual admission") following you for the rest of your life. That'll be fun to explain to employers...
If you didn't have a slightly Democratic Congress, you wouldn't be seeing any hearings held on this topic. And unless you have a thoroughly Democratic Congress and President, you certainly will not see any law change.
The "days are numbered" on this and dozens to hundreds of other important issues ONLY to the extent liberals win the government.
an interesting twist to this issue is with this policy you have the ability to get out of military service in times of immoral and illegal occupations by claiming to be gay (regardless of whether its true or not)
not saying i support discrimination, just that i have heard this argument made before...