Ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

October 13th, 2009

By Brent Edwards

On Saturday, October 10th, President Obama addressed the Human Rights Campaign, a prominent gay rights organization. In his address he repeated his campaign promise to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy in the military. The current policy maintains that nobody in the military will be asked their sexual orientation; gays and lesbians are also advised to not disclose their sexual preference. While this is better than banning gay or lesbian service outright, many still view this as discriminatory. In a May 2009 Gallup Poll, 69 percent of those polled responded affirmately to the statement: “Do you favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military?” It is clear that the public’s opinion is strongly supportive of full gay and lesbian integration in our armed forces.

Joseph Rocha, who was discharged as a result of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," stands on stage at the National Equality March in Washington, D.c.

President Obama campaigned on the promise of repealing DADT, but there has been very little legislative action on this matter. There are also a variety of challenges that may prevent full integration for a significant amount of time. The military as a whole has a more conservative culture then the rest of the nation. A recent Military Times poll showed that 58 percent of respondents stated that they opposed change to the current policy. Even further, 23 percent of soldiers threaten to not reenlist if the policy changes.

So how would DADT be removed or changed? The consensus is that an act of Congress is necessary, and the military would implement it using its own internal policies. However, those policies do not match with the way in which most laws are passed and administered. In short, although a policy may be implemented, it may take a great deal of time for the policy to trickle down through the massive military bureaucracy. It took a period of 8 years (from 1945 to 1953) for full racial integration to happen in the military. Few are suggesting that a transition to open gay and lesbians service would take that long, but it gives an idea of the difficulties associated with changing military policy.

It does not appear that this process will begin any time soon. Congress and the Obama administration are currently focused on reviving the economy, winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and passing legislation on climate change and healthcare. Given all these priorities, it is unlikely that the issue of gay rights will be at the top of the list any time this year. How early this issue is addressed depends entirely on what happens with other administration priorities and how much pressure gay rights groups place on the Obama administration.

Brent Edwards is an 18 year old freshmen at Xavier University and a NGJ contributor. He is currently majoring in Political Science. He is interested in current events, politics and journalism.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.

Share:

ArthurCorbett

My dad is a Marine. I know dozens of people who sereve. I have taled to a dozen about this topic. Not a single one would ever support such a poor choice by the president. Queers make poor leaders in a millitary situation, knowing that the man who is making life and death decisions, not to mention the simple ones, is physicaly attracted to you is disgusting. I am not saying homosexuals make poor leaders, but that the troops following them would be and are repulsed by knowing it. If no one knows, no one cares. DADT is a perfect policy in this regard.

CDR ANONYMOUS

DADT? Gay vs Straight? Tolerance?

The discussion goes much deeper than simply “lets have an openly Gay policy in the Service”, but rather why not accept “all” styles of living? If the discussion is one of being that of discrimination then why discriminate against Polygamist marriages? Why not have one man, two women. How about 2 women and one man. Hey, why not throw a 14 year old boy into the mix?!

The problem with gay issues/rights is one of abject discrimination from gays themselves. They will place the nature of their “gayness” on a scale equal to heterosexuals, but when the “other” people with “different” moral stances, such as polygamist marriages, marriages with no age or minimal age requirements…etc, then gays cry out “foul. That would be absurd”. Absurd, really? Why? Where is their moral compass planted? Or why is their moral compass better than a NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy love association) member? Are gays going to run to their Bibles and cry out “God abhors that”….hell, sounds like some evangelical Christian.

No. Gays have serious issues to overcome themselves that they will never want to address. A few follow:

First, biologically. The basic existence of all species is to perpetuate the species, ie, have hetero-sex to produce off-spring. This cycle is repeated for the continual existence of that species. Homosexual activity does not allow the species to perpetuate.

Second, socially. If we believe that the social norm should be two men, two women should be able to have sex with each other and this is right then lets be truly socially honest and democratic. There should be no age limit to sexual acts between any age, any sex or animal. The norm is “what two people believe is fun and good should be allowed”. PETA can argue against the animal sex, if they wish. For two gay people to state they “have the right” and then deny the same right to two males age twelve is discrimination, or deny the right for three or more to marry is also “discrimination”. If the social norm is to change to accommodate new homosexuality rights, then these very norms should change for all types of sexuality, no just homosexuality or it is “discrimination”.

Third, theologically. Depending on the religious faith, most, if not all, major faiths, ie, Catholic Christianity, Protestant Christianity, Moslem and Hinduism’s theology and Holy Books state that homosexuality is a sin to God and should not be tolerated as the norm. Most Western religions will tolerate sin (homosexuality, etc) in an effort to change the sinner. God loves all and this attribute is expected of the followers, but God does not change the rules and then say “homosexual behavior is OK and is now the norm”. Some major non-Western religions kill homosexuals per their Holy books decree.

Forth, anatomically. For the sake of brevity, a penis has two functions, 1) deliver semen to a uterus to conceive offspring or 2) urinate. An anus is an anatomical exit for fecal material that is laden with numerous bacteria that can cause sickness and death. In the USA it is a Federal violation of the highest magnitude for farmers to fertilize their crops with human waste (fecal/urine) because the bacterial consequences are so enormous. Therefore, anatomically it makes no sense to subject the penis to a function it was not intended for.

Fifth, medically/psychologically. There are numerous medically/psychologically disorders that are not of the norm, ie, bipolars, depressions, psychoprenia…etc, yet we as a society do not promote such disorders. In all actuality, medicine tries to minimize psychological disorders, not make them part of the norm. Medicine actually “tries” to return such people back to a social “norm”, if there is a norm, but certainly medicine thinks there is. So how does the homosexual community defend their behavior as “normal”?

Open gays in the military is a huge mistake, but Obama is used to making huge mistakes and this will be his legacy. Obama is destined to be the Black equivalent to Jimmy Carter.

Stanly

If you cannot tell the difference between homosexual intercourse and a person having sex with an animal there is something profoundly wrong with your judgment.

Equating homosexuality with pedophilia is just disgusting, you should be ashamed.

Its irrelevant what the religious doctrines say. Despite your best efforts we are a secular nation. Your local bishop doesn't choose who can run for Congress, and Obama doesn't hand pick your pastor. If you want a place where homosexuals are killed (which seems to be what you're hinting at) go to Iran or some other Middle East nation. I'm sure they would take you with open arms.

In short, be like a farmer, and don't recycle your crap.

cdranonymous

Brent Edwards naiveté, related to DADT, is exceeded only by his lack of age. As a US Navy Commander for better than 16 years Brent needs to approach this first as a lie from President Obama, then as a military social issue, not a public issue. I believe Obama’s campaign words were close to “…with a stroke of the pen, I will abolish DADT in the US military”. In reality, that is what President Obama can do and he can do it this very instant. He is the Commander-in-Chief. Instead of playing golf for an afternoon, taking Michelle to a show or campaigning for one of his buddies, he could stay at the White House and sign a bill abolishing DADT. Bing. Bang. Boom…that fast No excuses of “he’s busy”. He has no internal fortitude because he is a political animal like the rest.

Obama pandered to the gay vote with this DADT discussion but will lie like all politicians do. If Obama does anything he will sign a bill on the last day he is in office. He has no mettal to do it now. I have several military gay friends that are furious with Obama’s lack of promise fulfillment.

Now, Brent also needs to look at this from a military social angle also since he is a poli-sci guy. We have a separation of the sexes now with public bathrooms and showers. Naturally, I think we all can assume why, right. This is not rocket science…men on this side of the wall, women on the other side. Women, in particular, want their privacy from men that look at them as sexual objects and may very well fear for their physical and mental well-being because few women would feel comfortable with men in the next bathroom or shower stall. Makes sense, huh?

Now, if we have an open gay policy in the military where one gay man was sexually attracted to a straight man in a bathroom/shower area, doesn’t the straight man merit the same privacy rights, as that woman above does, from a man that has sexual desires on them? Not allowing such a right to a straight man would be opening a Pandora’s box of equal rights under the law.

A man has every right not to feel intimidated by another man that can cause problems for his mental and/or physical well-being. The problems in the military are enormous. The amount of machismo in the military is huge. It has to be there, too. Therefore, if some known gay guy makes what is “perceived” as a come-on to some straight guy there will be an instant fight or greater disruption. The amount of “fragging” in combat would be enormous.

The military is no supposed to be a social animal. It is there to win wars, to beat an enemy that wants to destroy you & me …the USA. If you do not believe it then start a campaign against Obama for not getting rid of the DADT policy with the stroke of a pen. Obama can do this because the up-roar would be deafening and he would lose the 2012 election.

Brent should have his DADT policy removed in the military and that we should have bathroom/showers for women, men and gays, then everyone would be happy.

CDR ANONYMOUS (We don't have freedom of speech in the military, especially about President Obama)
US Navy
San Diego, CA

gored09

interesting article and well-written

bobbyD123

I have heard from ex-military that the decision to abolish DADT should be left up to the military and not subject to the input of civilians who do not have to live with the realities of military life. While I believe that there is some validity to this argument I fear that this logic would allow discrimination to be perpetuated.

Isn't it true that many European countries allow their members to be openly gay? It would be interesting to see what types of problems arose and how they were dealt with. However, it may also depend on the amount of anti-gay sentiment among the general public of those countries. Unfortunately, we Americans do not always have a history of being accepting of people that are not typical descendants of northern or western Europeans who are also Protestant Christians and straight and have a "typical" family.

Perhaps it is a good sign that public sentiment is changing in favor of allowing gays to serve openly.

Next Gen Journal

Ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”