Our View: Bill to instate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in National Guard puts bigotry over citizens’ safety.
Since the 2011 repeal of the federal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, military officials have emphasized repeatedly that the new policy allowing open service by gay and lesbian service members has had no harmful effect on troop cohesion, morale or combat readiness.
Apparently Rep. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City, didn’t get the memo. He has sponsored House Bill 2195, which would return the Oklahoma National Guard’s service requirements to what they were before the policy was repealed, banning gays and lesbians from serving openly.
In a December 2010 speech about the national repeal, President Barack Obama said, “We are not a nation that says ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ We are a nation that says, ‘Out of many, one.’” Nowhere should this be more true than in the armed services. And Oklahoma is no exception.
Reynolds claims he wrote this bill in response to requests from National Guardsmen. But should the state really go out of its way to accommodate these few servicemembers’ discomfort? Anyone who would put someone’s sexual habits before his or her courage, ability and dedication is not someone we want wearing that honored uniform.
Whether this bill has any hope of gaining serious support remains to be seen. But whether this was a serious attempt or merely a political stunt, Oklahomans must take this opportunity to stand against proposed policies that demonstrate outright ignorance and careless bigotry.
The Oklahoma National Guard has released no statement so far on the issue. We understand it is not its place to set policy but to follow the laws of Oklahoma faithfully. Even so, we urge it to come out against this dangerous step backward.
But it will take more than that. It will take a direct public outcry to ensure this issue is defeated once and for all.
Contact your representatives to remind them they were not elected to serve one specific agenda.
They were not elected to breed ignorance and hate. They were not elected to trade the safety of the citizens they serve for an opportunity to demonstrate their disagreement with a national policy.
They were elected to do what is best for all Oklahomans. It is clear that what is best for Oklahoma is not wasting taxpayer money on pointless investigations and discharges. Nor is it telling talented individuals we don’t want their contributions.
What is best for Oklahoma is the recruitment of the best and brightest who are courageous enough to answer the call to serve their fellow citizens.
The Our View is the majority opinion of The Daily's 10-member editorial board.
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
adkitch 4 months, 1 week ago
"But should the state really go out of its way to accommodate these few servicemembers’ discomfort?"
This is what was done originally with the repeal of DADT. The few gay/lesbian service members objected to regulations that applied to EVERYONE, and so the regulation was repealed for THAT SMALL GROUP ONLY. With the repeal of DADT, the State department created a precedent that if one is different in some way, there is a mechanism for your group to gain attention and sympathy. Now, what does the repeal of DADT actually mean? We still have gay service members, we still have regulations preventing soldiers from entering into certain kinds of physical contact with one another, and the repeal of DADT simply created a platform for the gay community to scream about injustice.
sf917 4 months, 1 week ago
"The few gay/lesbian service members objected to regulations that applied to EVERYONE..." Actually, although DADT technically applied to "everyone," it was specifically aimed at gay/lesbian service members, and had consequences for them only. Saying that DADT applied to "EVERYONE" is like saying abortion laws apply to "everyone," even people who can't conceive or don't have a uterus.
In any case, it's not like any of this is surprising. This area of the country isn't exactly known for progressivism; it literally took a century after slaves were made free for their descendants to start really being treated like human beings.
kagou 4 months, 1 week ago
If this passes, it will likely be ruled unconstitutional. National policy tends to trump state policy, regardless of the fact that this is related to a state-controlled military institution.
I don't understand how you can say that the repeal of DADT "created a platform for the gay community to scream about injustice" and be unable to recognize that their "screams" are not without good cause. They were allowed to fight and die for this country, yet this country took away their right to openly love whomever they chose for as long as they continued to serve. It's absolutely reprehensible.
OutMilitary 4 months, 1 week ago
The bill is dead on arrival. This type of homophobic gay baiting has no place in Oklahoma or elsewhere. For those interested - http://OUTmilitary.com has been providing a supportive environment for friending, sharing and networking between Gay active military, vets and supporters since December, 2010.