I don’t think I’ve mentioned the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” approach to allowing gays in the military on this blog before, but probably because my take is pretty simple: get rid of it; let gays serve on an equal footing.
It occurred to me to mention this because Maureen Groppe, writing for the Indy Star, has an article about Indiana’s Congressional delegation’s position on the policy.
Andre Carson and Pete Visclosky are on the side of history with this one, explicitly favoring repeal. Mike Pence and Steve Buyer will find a spot in the history books next to the folks who were reluctant to let blacks serve in the military. Pence thinks all of this talk about equality is a bunch of liberal hoo-ha (I paraphrase), and Buyer is very concerned about morale and discipline – I’m not sure if he’s afraid that the military will turn into a sort of Gomorrah with guns, “carrying each other’s baggage” like so many camouflaged rentboys or what. I can’t see where Dan Burton was asked, but I’ll assume he’s against repeal.
The rest of the Indiana delegation: Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill, Evan Bayh, and Dick Lugar seem to be waffling in one way or another. I don’t believe Ellsworth responded, and the rest of them were going to hide behind the study commissioned to provide cover for the politicians who have to make the decision.
We don’t hire these guys for their sexual activity or their choice in significant others any more than we hire them for the color of their skin. We hire them to fight or provide support to those who do. We hire them for their love of country and willingness to die for same. And yet, once upon a time, we excluded or segregated blacks who wanted to serve in the military. That didn’t make any sense. And it doesn’t make any sense to exclude gays based on their sexual orientation. There will be excuses for excluding gays, but there were excuses for excluding blacks. But, at the end of the day, we stopped discriminating against blacks in the military, and it was the right thing to do. Same with gays.
What makes the waffling even more bizarre is that for the past couple of years, polls show huge majorities of Americans agreeing with you. The last poll I saw, a week or so ago, had 79% in favor of scrapping DADT.
Don –
Isn’t it Congress’ don’t ask don’t tell policy?
As far as I know, the U.S. military has no history of legislating.
Which is a good thing, when you think about it.
My proposal for the correct military policy on sexual expression:
“Off-duty, with consenting adults. Don’t bring any problems back with you.”
My impression from my time in service was that we pretty much knew that several soldiers in our unit were gay, and no one cared.
Those that do care will have to maintain good order, and not act out based on their biases. If they can’t maintain their military bearing, then they shouldn’t be soldiers anyway. This will not be a major discipline issue.
I don’t know how I feel about the possible repeal of DODT. This policy is not the best, and was only a compromise solution, intended only to satisfy (but not make happy) the homophobic soldiers and the gay-rights activists. My only concern with removing this compromise solution is that I believe a majority of people serving in the military, (the people this law affects), don’t want this policy repealed. Should we consider their wishes, even though we don’t agree with them? Or do we simply ignore their wishes in the pursuit of group rights?
What if the repeal of DODT hampers recruiting (while we are still fighting two wars)? Should that practical concern be considered?
I seem to recall that Harry Truman didn’t worry overly much about how existing soldiers felt about integrating the military. He just ordered them to do it, and they did. But maybe I’m missing something.
If you remember that, you must be older than you look.
Still, fair point.
My inner reactionary is inclined to disagree, but since I served my country emptying bedpans in Peoria, in a white smock rather than Khaki, I really have no idea what makes, and what breaks, unit cohesion.
I know that an utter lack of military knowledge doesn’t stop some people from having unfounded opinions, but I made silence on matters military a personal rule a long time ago, and I seldom break it.
If you remember that, you must be older than you look.
Actually, if you remember it that way it’s pretty certain you weren’t there. Didn’t happen.
Executive Order 9981 was almost universally ignored, the notable exception being the 101st Airborne, which happened to have a commander (“Jumpin’ Jim” Gavin) who agreed with it. The actual integration of the armed services began in Korea, and only after our early disasters made it imperative from a manpower standpoint. Took the Civil Rights movement to get the job done in the Navy and Air Force.
Thanks Doghouse. I guess actual history rarely gets in the way of a good narrative.
I have no problem with homosexuals in the military. If they’re willing to die for our country, they have my respect.
However, I’ve never understood the double standard with showers & barracks. Once D.A.D.T is gone, we should have 4 barracks or 1. I can see arguments for either way, but simply saying “Men” and “Women” is a double standard.
It implies that homosexual troops can control their sexual impulses better than heterosexuals, be it as simple as staring at someone of the sex you’re attracted to in the shower, or as awful as rape. I don’t believe either homo or hetero would be any better or worse in this regard, so why two barracks?
But good luck in separating homosexuality from any one of those shower areas. In so many situations in the world, the difference between straight and gay is a six-pack.
Pete,
That’s why I think unisex barracks makes more sense the more I think of it. While we’re all used to sexual segregation (men & women), I think that sexual orientation segregation would be compared to race segregation.
They had unisex showers in Starship Troopers. Far be it from me to second guess that visionary road map to the future.
Ah…I can see clearly now…
Doug, I’m afraid we’ll need a link to visual proof on a matter of such importance to the republic.
Doug, that’s honestly what I had in mind. It worked there, and those troopers killed bugs good.
I watched Buyer’s comments on the floor on DADT. He said that Congress had the right to discriminate–if you are too short or too tall, etc. you can be barred from serving. Identical arguments about “unit cohesion” or difficult in recruiting were made about segregation of and discrimination against African-Americans. Also, his comments on the right of the military to rule your sexual life ring hollow. Does that include adultery, Steve?