On Thursday, a federal judge in California ruled that the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy unconstitutionally violates the rights of gay and lesbian citizens.
The decision will almost certainly be appealed by the Department of Justice, starting a prolonged legal struggle – if the Senate doesn’t just vote to overturn the policy first.
But last week’s decision was an important step in a long-overdue battle.
Now you probably expect me to tell you why the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is so horrible.
I could start by carefully explaining that gays and lesbians are citizens deserving of equal rights. I could decry the policy for it’s discriminatory assumptions. I could remind you that a soldier’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with his ability to perform his duties.
But you’ve probably heard all these arguments before.
This isn’t a new subject, and the idea of equality isn’t either.
So I’m going to give you some information you probably haven’t heard before.
The main claim, and the one with the most legitimate basis, for the necessity of maintaining “don’t ask, don’t tell” stems from its effects on troop morale and unit cohesion.
Senators, experts and the average man on the street have argued that our servicemen and women won’t be able to live and work in close quarters with gay soldiers.
But they have been doing just that quite successfully for a while now: An Urban Institute study showed that there are at least 66,000 gay and lesbian soldiers currently serving.
A recent article in Joint Force Quarterly concluded that “after a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively effected if homosexuals serve openly.”
And a 2006 poll by Zogby International showed that 73 percent of military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gays in general. Just take a look at some of our allies: Australia, Israel, Great Britain and Canada all allow openly gay soldiers to serve in their militaries and haven’t shown negative effects on military preparedness, enrollment or retention.
Obviously, the policy isn’t having the positive effect on troop cohesion that supporters have claimed.
In fact, it’s actually a significant, measurable detriment to our military. According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, more than 13,500 soldiers have been discharged under the policy since 1994. Of those, more than 750 were mission-critical and more than 320 had skills in desperately needed languages, such as Arabic, Korean and Farsi.
We’re letting go of essential human resources while we’re fighting two wars abroad because these soldiers happen to like members of the same sex.
Even more ridiculous, and frankly embarrassing, is the fact that we routinely give conduct waivers to recruits with criminal records, including those with bomb threats, sex crimes and vehicular homicides in their pasts.
This policy came about because, according to the Pentagon, 75 percent of American youth are ineligible to serve due to problems with their education, criminal record or health. And yet we’re consistently turning down or discharging law-abiding, intelligent, qualified young people based on their sexual orientation.
So we’d rather have soldiers who have non-consensual sex than soldiers who have gay sex?
This isn’t even addressing the monetary costs.
The Government Accountability Office found that the policy, just from 1994-2004, cost at least $190 million.
Experts have since pointed out that this study didn’t take into account the cost of training the soldiers that were discharged, which would bring the total up to $363 million. Add to that the price of the six years since that study, and you have an awfully high price tag to enforce our bigotry at no benefit to our troops in the field.
Wouldn’t that money be put to better use buying necessary supplies for the war fronts?
Apparently, most of the country thinks it would.
A recent poll by ABC News and the Washington Post shows that 75 percent of Americans support gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. This number includes the majority of Independents and Republicans.
If the majority of people from all parties want it repealed, if it doesn’t provide any measurable benefit to our troops and if it actually harms them in very clear ways, why are we still even debating the existence of “don’t ask, don’t tell?”
Like Senator Barry Goldwater said, “You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
mustafa 1 year, 8 months ago
You views are based on the idea homosexuality is like race. It isn't.
What is to stop homosexual solders from clogging the system with lawsuits because they had to run and extra lap or do extra push ups or get KP not because they loafed on had demerits, but actually because they're gay?
dargus 1 year, 8 months ago
What is to stop anyone from doing that, mustafa?
mustafa 1 year, 8 months ago
dargus Well I assume there will be a slew of legal dos and don'ts to "protect" homosexuals in the military. Are you saying there won't be?
And it takes us back to the tolerance discussion of last week. Are heterosexuals going to be allowed, especially in the military, to personally view homosexuality as something strange and odd? Because such a view on the part of heterosexuals, is the natural, instinctive reaction. Homosexuals claim the slightest negative reaction, causes a dangerous environment for them.
Here at OU students are asked if they would like a queer roommate. It isn't mandatory, you can bet it won't be the case in many situations the military.
DeeinOK 1 year, 8 months ago
Sher8427, what "sources" did you want the author to use in this case? That's not meant to be snarky either. I'm truly curious. Mary's quoted material comes from the Servicemembers' Legal Defense Network, the Pentagon, and the Government Accountability Office, among others. I actually thought she used a pretty nice variety of sources considering this isn't a peer-reviewed journal article on the viability of gays and lesbians in the military.
zekielj 1 year, 8 months ago
Mustafa, I really HAD hoped that you had moved on from trolling on practically EVERY story about gays and gay rights. Get a life already.
To the author — this was very well-written, and the facts you presented were interesting, relevant, and useful!
ethe0682 1 year, 8 months ago
@ mustafa
“You[r] views are based on the idea homosexuality is like race. It isn't”
---Ok smart guy… What is it like then?
"Well I assume there will be a slew of legal dos and don'ts to "protect" homosexuals in the military. Are you saying there won't be?"
--- No mustafa. There should be. You are suggesting things that apply to everyone, not just homosexuals. Protections already exist for a variety of minority groups (i.e. women, minority races, people with disabilities, children, etc.).
ethe0682 1 year, 8 months ago
More @ mustafa
"And it takes us back to the tolerance discussion of last week. Are heterosexuals going to be allowed, especially in the military, to personally view homosexuality as something strange and odd?"
---I may be a little off here, but I don't recall any thought-control devices during my time in the military. You and everyone else (including those in the military) are free to "think" whatever you want; you are just not allowed to "act" on everything you think. At least not in a way that unjustly privileges some, while oppressing others. For example, I can think you are stupid, but I am not allowed to treat you unfairly. Unjust discrimination is not a matter of tolerance; it is a matter of equal protections and due process guaranteed by the 14th amendment (In case you're wondering mustafa, the 14th amendment is located within the U.S. constitution). Just because you feel something is strange and odd doesn’t mean you get to pass laws prohibiting it. A lot of people hate the taste of cauliflower. I don’t see anyone parading around trying to have it outlawed. Instead, they simply deal with the fact that certain people like cauliflower while they do not.
"Because such a view on the part of heterosexuals, is the natural, instinctive reaction.”
--It's a natural, instinctive reaction? Really? Do you realize the argument you’re putting forth has been used countless times throughout history—having always been proved false? Consider slavery, miscegenation, or the subjugation of women. If you truly believe this, then I truly believe you are a bigot. The aversion you are discussing is societally driven, not innate (thus, it is malleable and not inherently right or wrong). And, more to the point, most heterosexuals do not feel the way you feel. You are reacting to your own fear and contempt for the unknown. Why else would you seek to stop behavior that has absolutely no direct/indirect impact on you or any other non-consenting party? John Stuart Mill used to speak of “self-regarding action” and the need to protect such actions—self-regarding meaning behavior that has no direct negative affect on a non-consenting third party. So, dismissing the fact that heterosexuals engage in the same sexual behaviors and/or the fact that it is now common practice for heterosexual women to “experiment” with the same sex, one must ask why the private sexual interests of two consenting adults (same sex or not) is of any interest to you or the state?--simple answer: it isn't.
Bubba 1 year, 8 months ago
But, if they repealed, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" American society would be left with far fewer juicy "Show and Tell" memoirs from our gay troops- and that wouldn't benefit anybody...
Bubb-tard
sher8427 1 year, 8 months ago
To the author- I'm sorry, but Ive read a number of your articles. And while you have a right to your opinion as anyone else. Most of the facts you try to add in are either from crappy sources or at least really biased sources. It takes 5 mins on Google to find better facts than you use. And its not just you, it is sad, but most of what I read especially in the opinion section that tries to use facts to back them are very very very very bad.
Not saying I disagree with your opinion always. Sometimes its good and others its very bad. With this your just off center. The policy shouldn't be "Don't ask, don't tell." It should be "We don't ask because we don't care." Gay should get no special (good or bad) treatment, period. It shouldn't be on any application anywhere, but if they want to be open about it go ahead. They'll never be able to ask those law suits like Mustafa was saying because the military doesn't work like that.
mustafa 1 year, 8 months ago
-"It's a natural, instinctive reaction? Really? Do you realize the argument you’re putting forth has been used countless times throughout history—having always been proved false? Consider slavery, miscegenation, or the subjugation of women."
What the hell are you talking. I point is plain enough Being repelled by homosexuality is simply the mark of a healthy heterosexual attitude. They are polar opposites. Bringing slavery into this is nonsense.
"And, more to the point, most heterosexuals do not feel the way you feel."
If they don't why do you people bore with all these complaints about homophobia.
"Why else would you seek to stop behavior that has absolutely no direct/indirect impact on you or any other non-consenting party?"
When have I ever sought to stop it? All I've asked is for recognition of the right of heterosexuals to exist. You trotted out your canned rhetorical and it reveals what a phony you.
I spent hundreds of hours talking and debating with homosexuals. I wager I know more about where they're coming than you do. Homosexual intellectual argument does not allow for the existence of exclusive heterosexuality. Everybody is at least bi-sexual. To claim to be exclusively hetero is considered homophobic. You recognize this when you claim any aversion we feel is societally driven, not innate.
We all born killers when you get right to it but most of don't want to go there just because it is possible.
When people like you tell straights that they are really queer but don't know it because of societal expectations, that creates great hatred for homosexuality and homosexuals. For some it is fighting words. Matthew Shepard smarted off that way one time too many.
ethe0682 1 year, 8 months ago
@ Mustafa
“What the hell are you talking. I point is plain enough Being repelled by homosexuality is simply the mark of a healthy heterosexual attitude. They are polar opposites. Bringing slavery into this is nonsense.”
---Wow! You really are a moron! First off, learn how to write. I find it difficult to read your bigoted cipher. Second, being [appalled] by a homosexuality is NOT the mark of a “healthy heterosexual attitude.” There is no inherent “mark.” You could apply the same argument to Americanness, whiteness, or maleness. It doesn’t work. As a heterosexual, I (and most others) have no natural aversions to the idea/ practice of homosexuality by consenting parties. Furthermore, there are no conflicts that preclude the existence of several sexual attitudes at one time. I prefer the opposite sex. That preference does not require that I am appalled by homosexuality. The same applies to homosexuality. You imply that a proper homosexual attitude must involve disgust toward heterosexuals. That is false.
---BTW, slavery is very relevant to this discussion as it involves the degradation and dehumanization of a minority group. Whether you would like to recognize it or not, homosexuals are members of an oppressed minority group. We passed legislation abolishing slavery, segregation, and miscegenation—recognizing that the practices were wrong. Gays are victims of oppression as well. And just like the previous Jim Crow laws served to fortify and legitimize the oppression of African Americans, the lack of protections and denial of basic rights serves to oppress Gay Americans.
ethe0682 1 year, 8 months ago
More @ Mustafa
“If they don't why do you people bore with all these complaints about homophobia.”
---“You people”? What exactly is meant by this sort of rhetoric? I assume this to confirm my initial suspicion. You are a bigot. Otherwise, this is not worthy of my time.
“When have I ever sought to stop it? All I've asked is for recognition of the right of heterosexuals to exist. You trotted out your canned rhetorical and it reveals what a phony you.”
---Oh I see! So you’re a humanist. How hard it must be to fight the good fight for the continued existence of the overwhelming majority. Yes, we all know that homosexuals seek to destroy America and force all men to swing both ways, but thankfully we have you fighting in our corner. How silly of me to “[trot] out” with my “canned [rhetoric].” I should’ve known that a brainiac of your caliber would see straight through to my lack of knowledge. After all, I CAN write and I CAN think, so this must seem very phony to someone like you.
ethe0682 1 year, 8 months ago
“Homosexual intellectual argument does not allow for the existence of exclusive heterosexuality. Everybody is at least bi-sexual. To claim to be exclusively hetero is considered homophobic. You recognize this when you claim any aversion we feel is societally driven, not innate.”
---You’re on! And I wager that you can’t tie your shoes. You’ve spent “hundreds of hours talking and debating with homosexuals” huh? Yet you still find a way to dehumanize them and sanctify yourself as the voice of pure reason. I DON’T believe you. If you have, you learned nothing. “Homosexual intellectual argument” (whatever that means!) is simple and straightforward: we (LGBT) deserve equal protections/ the same rights as all Americans. It has nothing to do with your notion that the existence of homosexuality creates conflict with the existence of heterosexuality. You didn’t derive that from any pro-gay argument and you can’t derive this from mine (at least not without a GIGANTIC leap). The notion that the aversion to the idea/practice of homosexuality is socio-cultural and not innate does not lead to the claim that non-LGBTs are homophobic. As I stated above, you are implying the argument that LGBT’s are heterophobic. This is also false. All my argument claims is that socio-cultural mores are subject to change over time. Therefore, the initial disgust felt by the majority is not grounds for law. If laws are passed in effort to restrict individual liberties, the reasons must be deeper than public aversion (as it is relative to time and place). Ethics must be ground in logic, not in misguided passion.
“We all born killers when you get right to it but most of don't want to go there just because it is possible.”
---So we are all homosexuals, but we just don’t engage in homosexual behavior because it isn’t acceptable? An interesting take... Perhaps you are confused about your own sexuality? That would explain a lot.
“When people like you tell straights that they are really queer but don't know it because of societal expectations, that creates great hatred for homosexuality and homosexuals. For some it is fighting words. Matthew Shepard smarted off that way one time too many.”
---You really are confused. How on Earth did you get accepted to OU? This is hate speech. And, in case you are unaware, what you wrote could be construed as a threat.
Fran 1 year, 8 months ago
I am retired military and have served with gay people--they might not have broadcast it to their supervisors but the people around them every day knew (and not just guessing, they told us and we would see them with their partners). The ones I knew were very qualified and good workers. The only issue I had was in deployment situations were we had to sleep and bathe in front of each other. It's kind of a weird feeling knowing that person is sexually interested in your gender--akin to doing those activities in front of someone of the opposite sex. We dealt with the situation the best we could for example putting up sheets between cots in tents (which the fire marshal would make us take down every time they caught us) but anyone who thinks that it doesn't cause you to pause and think about what you are doing is being unrealistic. I don't know that this would be a big issue in an actual combat event as many things that you might consider private (bathroom, crying, etc) are just matter of fact that you have to get beyond when the s*** hits the fan. Just giving you all something else to think about
mustafa 1 year, 8 months ago
"You’re on! And I wager that you can’t tie your shoes."
Great then you mind answering a couple questions-
Is suggesting someone is a latent homosexual an insult or not?
Should doing so be considered a hate crime?
After the Columbine shootings the left, in an effort to excuse the actions of the killers, claimed that they had been driven to the deed because of taunts that they we homosexuals (which they were). In the heat of making this charge suggestions were made that insinuating someone may be homosexual (and not know it) should be considered a hate crime. The suggested was quickly dropped when someone pointed out that virtually the only ones who make such statements are homosexuals like yourself as you have just demonstrated.
Whenever I advise people on how to approach the gay-right issue I warn them to expect being hit with the suggestion that they are motivated to oppose homosexuality to cover their own suppress homosexuality tendencies yada yada. I told them to expect this because it is not only the biggest gun in the advocates arsenal but it is about the only gun. Homosexuals like you when confronted with an opponent quickly whip out this reverse gay-baiting in an effort to back down the opponent. Since most straights regard the status of homosexuality as a greasy perversion involving the ingestion of fecal matter, this tactic is very effective, especially with men. Upon being hit with this extreme insult most men run up a white flag and sign-on to the politically correct position. But it only succeeds in driving the "homophobia" underground. In reality every straight who tells you they support you really thinks the most negative thoughts possible and always will. Homosexual advocates know this thus don't bother trying to win the hearts and minds of a unreachable straight majority, but opt for forcing change through the courts, which of course just increases the animosity toward them.
In 99% of the incidents where homosexuals are physically assaulted it is because they provoked it upon themselves by quick resorting to this slur as a response to "offenses' as trivial as looking away, shaking the head or giggling.
mustafa 1 year, 8 months ago
"As a heterosexual, I (and most others) have no natural aversions to the idea/ practice of homosexuality.."
This is like saying you are "straight but not narrow." But if you were truly "not narrow," as you claim, you would recognize that, at best, you are bi-sexual. No one is truly straight. But you don't want to go there. That is homophobia bub, "AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS hmmmmm."
The fact that you have the ability to view homosexuality without aversion is just further evidence of your true identity,which you have suppressed,.. of the real you trying to come out.
Another example of suppressed homophobia on the part of supposed "friends of gays" is taking offense when the suggestion is made that someone you admire is homosexual.
I once told one such acquaintance, who was a big fan of Simon and Garfunkel, the fact that they were homosexuals. He was on the verge of taking my head off for "insulting" his friends when I pointed out to he supposedly thinks there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. (Oppps...Busted)
PFLAG- an organization to help parents and friends of homosexuals to accept what they don't want to accept and like what they don't want to like. It is a job that requires constant maintenance through regular meetings less they lapse back in to their natural revulsion of the subject.
Please don't be a bigoted infidel by mocking my lack of mastery of the English language.
mustafa 1 year, 8 months ago
"They'll never be able to ask those law suits like Mustafa was saying because the military doesn't work like that."
They don't work that way now? There haven't been any charges by female recruits against drill sergeants? What was that Tail Hook thing? Are you even old to know? Are you even old to know your elbow from a hole in the ground?