Time to end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy

Service in the armed forces is among the highest honor any American can achieve. We value the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect each and every American citizen. We see commercials for the Marines extolling the few dedicated members that are fit to be called Marines. Likewise the Army wants its members to see themselves as one cog in a powerful war machine unmatched in the history of mankind. We do not ask that the men and women are rich or poor, we ask them to be leaders, to show courage in the face of danger and to stand up to protect those who cannot protect themselves. However, we also shamefully ask our soldiers to meet other criteria, like heterosexuality. A criterion that needs to stop, now.

Under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy what the military really cares about is not your sexual orientation; they care if they know about it. As a result we have seen fine young men and women, some 13,500 actually, who have given a part of themselves for this country and then our country throws them away when they no longer fit what a "soldier" should be. Primarily that a soldier should not be gay or bisexual. Earlier this month, Judge Virginia Phillips from southern California did what our duly elected Congress embarrassingly could not: She struck the law down. I could not agree more with her decision.

There are many reasons why "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needs to end. The first of which is the support within the actual military community. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Michael Mullen both testified this year that they foresaw the end of the policy. While both advocate a slow phasing out of the policy, something which I disagree with, I do agree with their core point: The military no longer believes that the policy is absolutely critical to maintain the morale of the troops. Again this is not a mid level officer saying this, these are the people who report directly to the President. Their view seems gounded in past experiences. Similar claims against racial integration of the forces and allowing women to serve were met with the same resistance. In the end the Army unit showed the same adaptive force that makes it so effective on the battlefield.

Obviously the U.S. isn't the only country that has homosexuals serving in the military. To date more than 35 countries allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Those countries include Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany, Spain and Israel. The view is taken that these individuals can both be gay and a fine soldier. On the flip side there are 16 countries that outright do not allow for gays to serve at all. Those countries include China, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Egypt. Not exactly a list of the countries that we wish to associate with. As the world's military leader, we should set the standard in all regards, including the standards under which we allow our people to serve. A change in this policy would only benefit the military's reputation.

There is also, of course, a fairness and morality argument here. If a person meets all the physical requirements, can withstand the mental pressures of combat, and perform the duties tasked to him or her then why can they not serve? How is the Arab translator or the MP less of an asset because she loves another woman? How does cherry-picking its members and spurning them without a hesitation better serve the Army? We are a free country; with an all-volunteer military we should allow everyone to serve without fear of reprisal. I want to end this by talking about a tombstone, in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, D.C. The tombstone doesn't have a name on it; it just says "A Gay Vietnam Veteran." Below that there is a quote that I hope never needs to be said again:

"When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men, and a discharge for loving one."