In President Obama's State of the Union address, one of the many controversial topics that he talked about was the U.S. military's “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. This policy, enacted under President Clinton 1993, says that officers in the U.S. military aren’t supposed to ask about a soldier’s sexual orientation and holds the rule that service men and women are not to discuss their sexuality under the penalty being discharged from the armed forces. The rule was seen as a compromise between allowing openly gay, lesbian and bisexual men and women to serve in the military and banning them from serving all together. Since that time around 13,000 servicemen have left as a result of the policy. In President Obama’s mind, it is time to change.
In following his promise to prosecute civil rights violations and protect against hate driven crimes, Obama called for a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in saying:
“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."
Since giving the address well over a month ago, the president has urged high-ranking government and military officials to take steps to implement a plan that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. This has caused quite a stir among conservative leaders, human rights activists, and the general American public.
The first issue that many close-minded, conservative, homophobic types run up against is the mind block of accepting that people can be gay in the first place. We really must look past this, however, because it has nothing to do with the situation at hand. The idea that must instead be addressed is whether or not being openly gay affects the ability of a military man or woman.
If we were able to pull the records of the past 234 years since our country was founded, I think we would be hard pressed to prove that haven't been any homosexuals in the U.S. military. Add that to the fact the U.S. is known for having an incredibly strong military system, both now and historically, and the answer seems quite simple. Regardless of any soldier being heterosexual, homosexual, or even asexual, our armed forces are extraordinarily capable and efficient. I wonder, however, would this ability change if the members of their unit knew their sexual orientation?
Living in the twenty-first century, I fully believe that we, as an American society, have become more open and accepting of people from different walks of life. If nothing else, people are more willing to challenge the topics of race and sexual discrimination than they were 20 years ago. Unfortunately, many are slow in accepting or even understanding members of the gay community. Some will even outright put their foot down against working with a known homosexual, even though government policies state such discrimination is illegal.
This unrelenting bias is what causes me to question if some soldiers would still be willing to fight alongside someone if they were openly gay. That would result in a break in the cohesion of the unit, inherently causing a rift in one of the core strengths of the U.S. military. The safety of the other men or women in a unit would be in jeopardy if all members couldn’t present a unified front.
In an interesting CNN debate, Nathaniel Frank, the author of “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America,” and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, face off over the repeal. They address the issues of safety and the need for more manpower in the armed forces today in a discussion that warrants a closer look.
I do admit that Mr. Perkins makes some viable points about the military being a unique environment, with laws made in order to enforce proper conduct at all times. There are, quite certainly, practices of the military that neither U.S. citizens nor our lawmakers understand. But in an age when where our soldiers in uniform are deployed across the globe, fighting to protect the freedom that we profess is the cornerstone of our country, how can we reject any qualified man or woman from serving their country?
Men and women in our armed forces are being forced to do back to back tours in places like Iraq and Afghanistan because our military is stretched so thin. It doesn’t make sense that this law causes the discharge of anyone found to be gay, thus playing into the shortage of able bodies. If someone is able to meet all of the requirements, has excelled in serving the Army for years, has formed bonds with the other members of their unit, and turns out to be gay, there should be no difference.
I do agree with President Obama that the time has come to initiate change. Clearly, precautions must be taken in order to ensure the safety of the men and women serving in combat zones. Any change will undoubtedly take time to implement, and must be done in a way that centers on proper person conduct and human behavior while serving in the military. But, there is no cost that outweighs the benefits of repealing the policy.
Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have been serving in the military for years and have proven to be as capable as any other soldier. Anyone who spends day in and day out with another person often knows his or her companions sexual orientation anyway. The military would gain back the members they lost as a result of the policy, plus more in the long run.
All it takes on our part is some understanding and support, and the patience to see the correct changes made. After all, if someone is willing to go into battle and lay down his or her life for the betterment and protection of our nation, that’s the guiding factor that really matters.
Contact Molly Ferree at molly.ferree@whitworthian.com.
2 comments