Yes

by Katie Murray

Created on: May 13, 2010   Last Updated: May 14, 2010

The “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy was enacted in 1993, and we knew then that the subject of gays in the military would be revisited.  Perhaps though, we may not have expected it to be dragged out quite so long.  Now, seventeen years later, we have to say, “We’re still talking about this?” 

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a strange policy.  Most people see it as the rule that is keeping gays out of the military, when it actuality the ban has been around for a long time. 

Before Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, gays were still discharged simply for being gay.  The only thing that the policy did was reward discretion.  You could technically be gay in the military, as long as no one knew about it.  At the time, it was seen by some as a step in the right direction, acting as a bridge between a destination of equality and a society that was not ready to go there. 

The social landscape has changed some since then.  Gay people can adopt and marry in some parts of the country.  Homosexuality becomes more and more acceptable in mainstream culture every year.  So why have we not repealed this archaic ban?

Let us take a moment to address some of the key arguments for keeping Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  The first are typical moral objections, generally argued by the Religious Right.  The idea is that because homosexuality is morally wrong, then we should not allow it to be openly practiced in our military. 

The first problem with this argument is, of course, the idea that it is wrong.  Moral judgments are not objective fact.  Even among those of the same religion, there are differing opinions as to the morality involved in sexuality. 

But even if we assume, for the sake of humoring the Right, that it is wrong, what about all the other immoral activity that our soldiers may engage in?  Surely adultery is still morally wrong. 

Shall we enact a policy that says any member of the Armed Forces who is found to be committing adultery should be discharged?  I mean no disrespect to our military, but they are still human after all. 

If the ban on gays in the military is for moral reasons, then we need to adjust this policy to include other immoral indiscretions or face being labeled a hypocrite.

Another common argument in support of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is the disruption it would cause within the ranks.  It has been said that the sudden knowledge that a squad member may be gay would create a problem with “unit cohesion.” 

In other words, that good ol’ fashion male bonding would be destroyed.  Most recently Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has asked that repeal not be considered until the military has completed its study on how the policy change would affect soldiers. 

Though he has previously expressed support for ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, it seemed like backtracking to say that Congress needed to wait until the completion of the study, which will be at the end of the year. 

According to recently released correspondence between Sec. Gates and Senator Carl Levin (D, MI) of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the study would provide information about how to go about initiating the repeal and how the troops feel about it in general. 

While I agree that it is necessary to fully understand the situation in order to not cause drastic upheaval of the system, this idea that the troops will somehow just revolt because of the change is absurd. 

In 1948, President Truman desegregated the military.  He didn’t conduct a study or hold anyone’s hand when he did it.  He signed an executive order and it was done.  I wonder if “unit cohesion” was a concern back then.  Of course not everyone was thrilled about it. 

There were racists in the military that caused trouble or only grudgingly served next to black men.  They got over it eventually.  A few weeks ago, when the long standing ban against women on submarines was lifted, there was no year-long, in depth study conducted. 

There was no controversy or upset.  Granted, the new policy has not been implemented yet: they will start training female officers who will begin reporting for duty aboard subs within two years. 

It all happened quite simply.  Secretary Gates told Congress they were doing it and no one complained.  If our military could handle desegregation in the pre-civil rights era, and we don’t bat an eyelash at women on subs, then what is the hold up with lifting the gay ban? 

Yes, there will be those who are uncomfortable sleeping in a bunk next to a gay man or lesbian.  Yes, it will be an odd adjustment for some to make.  Guess what.  They will get over it.

So what are some good, solid arguments for gays serving in the military?

Firstly, most other nations have already done it and their armies have not been devastated by the lack of cohesion.  Canada, Israel and all members of the European Union, with the exception of Greece, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve. 

I know we in America like to consider ourselves different from the rest of the world, but we’re not that different.  If the other militaries of the world have not spontaneously combusted from the stress of accommodating homosexuals, then neither will ours.

Secondly, do we not care at all about the talent that is being wasted when we discharge gay people?  Granted, not all of those discharged under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell have highly sought after qualifications.  Some do.  And those that don’t have one thing that new (straight) recruits won’t have: experience. 

In the seventeen years since Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, more than 13,000 qualified, experienced men and women have been fired from the military simply because our government has a problem with who they sleep with.  We are talking about capable officers. 

Some, like Lt. Dan Choi, who has been in the news recently in connection to the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell protests, have special skills that are desired during this time of war. 

Choi, a West Point graduate, speaks Arabic, not a skill picked up by just any kid enlisting right out of high school.  During war time, can we really afford to waste experience and talent like this?

This next argument is going to sound trite, but let’s think about it critically.  Given the harassment that gay men and women know they will face going into military service, shouldn’t it be taken as a sign of true devotion and love for one’s country that they are willing to put not only their lives, but their reputations on the line in order to serve?  Really. 

These soldiers may spend years building a career, forming bonds with their fellow service members and going through the added stress of hiding their private lives from everyone around them, only to have it all taken away when someone discovers the truth. 

They risk their lives, the same as their straight counterparts, the difference is that if they let anyone know the truth they will go through the humiliation of an investigation into their private lives, a military trial and finally being fired from the job that they loved.  With all that at risk, what gay person would want to serve in the military? 

Unless they truly loved this country and believed in democracy and every human’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  At any time, but especially during war, can we really afford to betray loyalty like this?

This brings us to one last point, and perhaps the most important one.  The gay men and lesbians in the military are United States citizens.  Shouldn’t that be enough? 

From the moment our country was founded we have been struggling forward toward the ideal that all persons should be seen as equal under our law.  It was something that the founders believed in, even if they didn’t quite live up to it. 

We’ve spent more than two hundred years perfecting this idea of equality and justice and yet we are still treating gay people as second class citizens in a number of ways.  But to not even allow them to serve their country?  Shame on us.  We are a nation that prides ourselves on our values of freedom and democracy.  Let’s start practicing what we preach.

Learn more about this author, Katie Murray.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.