Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants, while barring those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. On Oct. 12, 2010, California District Court Judge Virginia Phillips issued a worldwide ban on the policy, and shortly thereafter the Department of Defense said it would abide by the judge's order. That meant the policy was no longer in effect beginning Oct. 12, 2010. Technically, this also meant that gay and lesbian troops and recruits did not have to hide their sexual orientation, but gay rights advocates urged caution to those servicing, warning that the policy could be reinstated at any time. In other words, if the soldier “came out” and the policy was reinstated, it could then be used against him or her. On October 20, 2010, a three-judge panel granted the Justice Department's emergency request to allow the policy to remain on the books, so that the appeals court could have more time to fully consider the issues presented. The Obama administration has already notified the appeals court that it is planning to appeal Judge Phillips' finding that DADT violates the due process and free speech rights of service members.
The gay community has a long fight ahead of them, but it's a fight that is just and supported by many, including myself. In my opinion, sexual orientation is no different than religion, everyone has a right to their own belief and to express that belief. So you serve with someone you know is gay, what does that change? There are gays in the military now, but they have to hide a part of themselves in fear. That is not only unconstitutional, but it's also inhumane. Soldiers will serve with people from all walks of life that is inevitable; the only thing that matters is that everyone does their job. It is time for our military leaders to get over the old school mentality and realize that everyone is different and it is each persons ability to do their job that makes them an asset or liability - not their sexual orientation. There are many that say it's not worth the fight. Gays should just realize that they are different and live their life. In my response I say, I'm sure there were African American slaves and women that were told the same thing. Our Constitution reads that all men are created equal. It's about time our country recognizes that.
In my opinion, I have to disagree with what the reasons the author has presented in her article. As a current member of the United States Army Reserve Unit, it is clear that I have more insight on this subject than civilians. The author presents only a few arguments, declaring banning homosexuals from the military is unconstitutional and that it is inhumane. Although both arguments are true, the author fails to recognize the downside of openly accepting gays into the military.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I have no ill feelings toward homosexuals. People could kiss, love, and marry the same sex if one desires it. I accept this philosophy and have never discriminated against any gay men or women. With that said however, accepting gays openly into the military causes several problems. First, soldiers are not authorized to sleep in the same building or tent with the sex that they are attracted to. Straight men are not allowed sleep near women and vice versa. Where will gay soldiers sleep is beyond me. Extra building and rules restricting sexual tensions among soldiers will require more time and money. Also, being around gay soldiers might make other soldiers uncomfortable. One might confuse a gesture of friendship or bro-mance with sexual harassment, thus destroying trust and unity in the military. A group of straight soldiers taking a shower in the latrine can’t say that they feel comfortable when a gay soldier walks in.
The army life is very different from the civilian life because soldiers can’t just get over it. Yes, it is unconstitutional, but not inhumane. Many soldiers accept homosexuals and they certainly don’t live in fear. No one is asking and no one is blaming. Openly announcing gay soldier would only create problems and tension.
I know this isn't in direct response to your post but this is what I presented on my blog so this is what I'm going to leave here as well.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, I came across a colleague of mine's blog about an issue that I knew existed but hadn't really given it much thought. Stephanie Heisner provides a direct and factual blog on DADT, the policy that restricts the U.S. Military from efforts to unravel details of those enlisted about their gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation. While at the same time, barring those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. She adds current information on the status of the DADT policy, claiming that as of October 12, 2010 the policy is no longer in effect. However, on October 20, 2010 there was an emergency request granted to allow the policy to remain on the books, so the appeals court would have more time to deliberate the issues exhibited. Ms. Heisner then goes into further detail on her opinions of the matter, which I have to say I whole heartedly agree with. Heisner states, "In my opinion, sexual orientation is no different than religion, everyone has a right to their own belief and to express that belief. So you serve with someone you know is gay, what does that change? There are gays in the military now, but they have to hide a part of themselves in fear. That is not only unconstitutional, but it's also inhumane. Soldiers will serve with people from all walks of life that is inevitable; the only thing that matters is that everyone does their job." We are in a new era, an era that is constantly changing and becoming more understanding of peoples differences and beliefs. Why stop now? There is only so much time here on earth, and for people of higher authority to try and discriminate against what someone wants to do with this precious time is almost cruel. For all you know, the incredible soldier that saved you, that works hard and fights for his/her country, that busts his/her ass just as hard if not harder than anyone you know, might just be gay. What does this change? Does it make him or her less of a man or women? The correct answer is no. We are all human beings. We are all equal. We should all be given the same opportunities no matter what gender, race, or sexual orientation we fall under. I quote Ms. Heisner for the perfect ending to this blog, "Our Constitution reads that all men are created equal. It's about time our country recognizes that."
Good post!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you entirely. The bottom line is, Americans descriminate it seems to be our nature quite honestly. We live in a country that is one of the most powerful at best and we are arrogant. I am an avid service worker, I work with homeless artists often through an organization called "Art from the Streets" even then, I can feel myself and other judging. Its the law of the land. If everyone could set down their pompous opinions and accept that there are thousands if not millions of closet gays out there, I think our country would be a lot more unified. I respect the military greatly and am greatful for the brave soldiers that are defending us everyday, but I don't think banning gays and lesbians from the military is a good way to show the respect and honor soldiers are supposed to have. I understand that there are consequences but, isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what we should be doing to help our country? Lets face it- American isn't so hot right now. Our economy is in shambles are there are more unemployed everyday, where do we have to go but up? I cannot reason with an opinion that believes that accepting gay and lesbians into our society would be a bad thing. It's people's own arrogance that stops it from happening now. We honestly shouldn't be worrying about accepting gays and lesbians into the armed forces, we have an even bigger task- accepting gays and lesbians into our country, making gay marriage legal, stop being unsympathetic and start striving to make our country what it once was. Our founding fathers didn't create our country in order to scrutinize it's citizens. In George Washington's farewell speech he addressed the country clearly and told them that he didn't believe in division of any people, he didn't even believe in political parties. That is where our morals should stem from. Accepting each other is not hard, but it is a necessity.
We need to look at the big picture here and ask each other Why should we care about sexual orientation? It doesn't matter, were all people.
Stephanie wrote a post about (DADT) wher soldier have to hide the fact that they are gay. If they are open about it they cant be in the miletary. It shouldnt matter what sexual orientation you are if you are willing to serve our country and risk your life for us that is is all that counts. People are so homophobic what do they think that it is going to rub off on us. Everyone should have the right to be who they are and not be scared of losing their right to serve our country. Stephanie compare this to religion and the right we have to believe in whatever we choose to. I think that is a great comparison and she is definatly on the money about this subject.
ReplyDeleteMs. Heisner’s editorial concerning the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the United States Military is a concise explanation of the current state of the policy as well as her views on the subject.
ReplyDeleteIn her editorial she stated that the Obama adiministration” will appeal Judge Phillips’s ruling “that DADT violates the due process and free speech rights of service members.” Though Ms. Heisner does not address it, I would assume, considering her anti-DADT views, that she must be frustrated and confused with an administration that, during the election, promised to attempt to repeal the policy but is appealing a ruling that would end it.
I agree with Ms. Heisner’s views on allowing openly gay military members the right to serve their country and so do many currently serving. A recent survey by Zogby International showed that 73% were comfortable serving with openly gay comrades. Many countries around the world seem to be comfortable with the idea as well. Unfortunately, the United States joins a less well-regarded (Iran, Cuba, North Korea) group of countries in the list of nations that ban gays. Even many top brass members such as Gen. Raymond Odierno and Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs support repealing DADT.
One of the more common arguments I hear supporting DADT is that it would erode unit cohesion. I served in the US Navy had shipmates that were gay. They served honorably and with distinction. Their sexuality never endangered unit cohesion. Stating that our service members would not be able to perform their duties with someone different from them is a perennial favorite. It was used during race integration in the armed forces and the increasing role of women in the military. Now is the time to end DADT.
Further reading: http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/10-reasons-why-homosexuals-shouldnt-be-allowed-to