The 15-year old Army policy is back in the news this week as congress is conducting hearings to examine both sides of the controversial ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ debate. Essentially, the military doesn’t want any displays of homosexuality getting in the way of performing the duties associated with being a soldier. However, ones sexual orientation is not allowed to be discriminated against in any other job, aside from an unspoken rule in all major men’s sports, so the fact that it is formalized in the U.S. Army is quite curious.
The debate in Congress is focused on how DADT effects recruiting and troop unity & trust. The debate seems to circumvent the real issue, one that has taken the conservative U.S. by storm since the 2000 presidential election. With many statewide bans on gay marriage enacted, some states have done the opposite, allowing legal unions between gay couples, while the entire nation confused about how to regulate sexual behavior. In my opinion, the U.S. is in danger of undoing the entire sexual revolution of the 60’s. Sexual orientation does not impair one’s ability to perform tasks. The reason the founding fathers created the separation of church and state was so no one group’s religious beliefs could be imposed upon the rest of the population. The simple existence of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is a violation of that separation and should be changed immediately (or as soon as Bush leaves office).
Op-ed: Policy ‘Outdated and Harmful’
Elaine Donnelly, of the Center for Military Readiness, argues for the continuation of the policy
2 responses so far ↓
Karen Schneiderman // July 29, 2008 at 1:16 am
I couldn’t agree more. DADT was a stop gap measure employed by the Clintons. It is over due for a revision.
Tracey // July 29, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Twenty-four countries have gay service members (including the UK). These individuals serve along side their heterosexual peers without incident.
My view is that once DADT is eliminated and gay service members are treated like their hetero peers, that the military will need to reconsider its position on benefits, etc. In the name of fairness, that reconsideration can only lead to equal benefits for gays & straights. I think some people are afraid of that and DADT is simply part of their argument.