Editorial: Marginalizing gays was a mistake
Beyond don’t ask, don’t tell
The end of a deceitful, discriminatory policy will strengthen the military.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” ended this week, nearly a generation after the policy was adopted. Some Americans look back on the 1993 agreement between then-President Bill Clinton and Congress as a well-meaning if misguided compromise. Others view it as a cynical and craven dodge to avoid acknowledging that the previous outright ban on gays in the military was an injustice.
But the majority of Americans today recognize the policy as absurd, self-righteous and impossible to defend. It created a hostile and dishonest environment in which unknown thousands of men and women willing to die for their country were forced to participate in their own discrimination and marginalization. Nearly 14,000 others were discharged, either because they told the truth or because they were forced out by malicious accusations.
September 23, 2011 - 6:15 AM
As bad as the policy was, it was better than the law it was enacted to circumvent.
I am reminded of the CIA’s former policy on openly-gay employees. They were banned, ostensibly on the hopelessly-illogical grounds that national security might be compromised if someone found out they were gay and blackmailed them with a threat of outing them.
This issue is not about acceptance; it is about the desperate compulsion that some in the homosexual community have to celebrate their lifestyle. That is the problem: It is all about them, not the country, not their service and not their comrades. The military trains its people to subordinate self to the good of the whole. This is the very essence of the discipline and unit cohesion needed in combat. Homosexual advocates are about self. They want the organization to be about them. Acceptance and tolerance are not enough – they crave celebration and won‘t stop until they get it. Very few people in the military are falling for the argument that this is about tolerance. Most people I have served with have known or supposed that someone they worked with was homosexual. As long as that person was competent and did not disrupt the unit, the assumption was that what he did off-duty was no one else‘s business. But that is not the agenda here. The real purpose is to make the rest of the unit openly embrace the entire lifestyle, and that will be disruptive to good order and discipline, even though the uniformed lackeys who have supported this change in policy deny it, it will cause problems. We need to remember how General Colon Powell accurately contrasted the difference between integration of minorities and open homosexuality when President Clinton attempted to do so during the early ’90′s. Powell stated, “Skin color is a benign characteristic while homosexual is behavioral”.
@ # 2 the CIA never had a policy about openly gay employees the only written policy was towards those in the closets. They said you could not serve as a homosexual but those who were openly gay were actually recruited.
# @ 3 I retired from the Army. I served in five hostile theaters. I could have cared less about someone being gay. That was so far from any thought I had when the balloon went up as to be nonsensical.
This was the thought we came in together we went out together if anyone costs or I believed they would cost our mission or lives I would leave them. I never left anyone, but everyone knowing I would do meant no one ever tested me. Were there gays serving with me over the years? I have no idea. Did I have the finest men in the world with me? Dammed right. Gay or straight, we were soldiers, and being a soldier has no sexual preference to it.
I have very mixed “emotions” reference gays serving openly in the military.
On the one hand I consider myself a classic liberal and very much believe in “letting” (inescapable irony) people live their lives as they see fit. I admit to the same dilemma as to abortion, but another can of worms. Also I served in the military at a time in history (mid-late 70′s) arguably more socially progressively liberal than now. We all knew gays, what they did in private was their business. Military service was (and is) voluntary & everyone knew the rules.
To me the question is one of practical function. Whether gays serving openly, or women in combat, the question should not be whether to subject the military to whatever is the social acceptance (to be very objective) of the day. It should be the ability of the military to do it’s job when push comes to shove.
I don’t know. I do know that IMO such real questions seem to have taken a back seat to P.C. and campaign chits.
It seems General Powell has changed his mind: ““Attitudes and circumstances have changed,” Powell said. “It’s been a whole generation” since the legislation was adopted, and there is increased “acceptance of gays and lesbians in society,” he said. “Society is always reflected in the military. It’s where we get our soldiers from.”
And with all due respect to his position 18 years ago, this issue is not one of a “characteristic”, it is an issue of fairness, civil rights and common decency. Being homosexual is as benign as skin color as both are innate but the discrimination, mistreatment and ostracism that both can engender are the real and underlying problem. Listening to the stories of many of the homosexual service members who were “outed” and dismissed from service they were dedicated to belies the point that Semper Fidelis makes and speaks to the bigotry that homosexuals are still subjected to.
Semper Fidelis, thank you for your service but please know that I am grateful for the homosexual Americans willing to serve in a military that displays your attitude as well.
My gut feeling is at least to those in combat that it really does not matter. All one wants to know is are they going to cover each others backs.
As with any poll (especially one taken by the gov’t), I highly doubt the accuracy of it.
I suspect that the troops didn’t actually support it, but rather are tired of dealing with it.
The gate has been opened…it’s only going to get worse.
This book has a different take on the CIA Jack, Sexual orientation and the law
By Harvard Law Review
The government would “cheat” on a poll, but Rasmussen or Fox would not?
Quite frankly, I don’t care how a person chooses to reach organism – same sex, opposite sex, multiple partners, with one’s spouse, with someone else’s spouse, with a prostitute, etc. Just don’t publically celebrate your choices and don’t expect me to give my approval. Keep your organisms in the bedroom and in private. I don’t need to know and don’t want to be told. Period!
#2 and #11 I agree with you. I am sick and tired of seeing men and women kissing in public, holding hands and appearing on reality shows trying to find a partner. Why do these people feel the need to publically show off their sexuality?
Only allowing straight people to serve in the military makes it all about them and not about country…
There has been WAY too much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” … as if all those tough, studly soldiers who would otherwise be willing to die in the fight against terrorism would just fall to pieces at the thought of sharing a foxhole with a Gay man.
Everyone in the military knows that Gay soldiers have always been there. Everyone in the military knows that Gay and Straight soldiers have always showered together and bunked together. None of that was ever going to change whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was kept or repealed. I don’t know why people are getting all bent out of shape about it now.
For what it’s worth, I really don’t care if any soldier, Gay OR Straight, is disciplined or booted out of the military because of inappropriate conduct when on-duty. That’s not what’s at issue here. A qualified soldier should not be at risk for losing his career simply because of who he’s dating on his own time.
Hold all soldiers to the same standards of professional behavior, regardless of their sexual orientation, and the military will be able to do its job just fine. We don’t need DADT to accomplish that goal.
As for the fears of a few chaplains, they are in a unique situation, in that they are SUPPOSED to provide spiritual comfort and support to soldiers of ANY faith, not just their own. I would fully expect a Jewish chaplain to have enough understanding of the Christian or Muslims faiths that he would be able to provide a mortally wounded Christian or Muslim soldier spiritual comfort, without necessarily compromising his own beliefs. It would not be appropriate for a Christian chaplain to tell a mortally-wounded Jewish or Hindu soldier, “You’re going to HELL if you don’t accept Jesus as your Savior!”
Chaplains are supposed to be ecumenical than that. Frankly I wouldn’t want any chaplain, whose position is funded by taxpayers, to be preaching against Gay soldiers any more than they should be preaching against Muslim soldiers.
#3 You’re at least partly wrong, Semper. The objective for the gays I’ve known who were in the military is not “celebration” because none of them do that. Instead, they wanted (they’re all out now) wanted to be able to be honest and live their life without the constant fear somebody would have them booted out.
#10 – “The government would “cheat” on a poll, but Rasmussen or Fox would not?”
I never said that, Sandi. There ya go again, putting words in peoples mouths…
I certainly agree we should keep our organisms to ourselves, as much as possible. Just kidding #11, typos & misuses evrywhere, but funny!
So Michael #15, by saying, “As with any poll (especially one taken by the gov’t), I highly doubt the accuracy of it.” You were NOT saying that the government would “cheat” to get the results they wanted? How then would they or any other pollster get their desired results and why then would you “doubt the accuracy”, if that is not what they did?
Nice use of a euphemism Alan #11, I laughed out loud!
#17 – You added Rasmussen and Fox, Sandi, not me. While you’re at it, you should have included CNN, MSNBC, and any other Liberal biased media source that you consider honest.
And yes, I don’t trust ANY survey conducted by the gov’t..especially one from the current regime.