From yesterday's Washington Post….
The Supreme Court today declined to hear a constitutional challenge to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, a move that could effectively leave it to the Obama administration to resolve the long-controversial issue.
……
In the "don't ask, don't tell" case, the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration, which had urged the justices not to hear the appeal against the policy, even though Obama is on record as opposing it. The court thus spared the administration from having to defend in court a policy that the president eventually wants to abolish pending a review by the Pentagon.
A couple of weekends ago I had the opportunity to talk with a newly-married Army soldier home on leave. He's been in the Army for 7 years and has done three tours in Iraq. I asked him about "Don't ask, Don't tell."
We have often heard ignorant ramblings about servicemen having to be careful in the shower, "don't drop the soap", etc….as an explanation of why gays can't serve openly in the military. If gays can openly serve with straights, we have been told, then straights will always be leery that a gay is going to jump on them, or something. As long as soldiers don't know whether a fellow soldier is gay, that "fear of the queer", so to speak, is diminished.
Unit cohesiveness and the morale of straight soldiers are also set forward as reasons why gays cannot serve openly in the military. We certainly need unit cohesiveness and a military whose morale is high, but what does that even mean viv-a-vis the DADT policy?
The young soldier I spoke with gave me some frank answers on this topic. The problem with finding out that a fellow serviceperson is gay is with the intolerance exhibited by straight soldiers after they know a fellow soldier is gay.
In other words, because many straight soldiers will harass and abuse another soldier after they discover he is gay…..it's better to keep sexual orientation a secret, so the prone-to-intolerance straights don't punish the gay soldier.
When "morale" and "cohesiveness" are referred to as justifications for not ending DADT….according to my young veteran's words…….intolerant behavior by straights, open discrimination and focused abuse of the outed soldier is what those words actually mean.
Commanders, platoon leaders, etc….don't want to have to spend time dealing with problems of bigotry and internal strife within their ranks….time better spent focusing on training or the "mission"….and all because intolerant straight soldiers can't resist the temptation to persecute and punish an openly gay soldier. Better for the gay soldier to keep quiet.
During WW2 the same dynamic was at work with black soldiers. Black soldiers were segregated, for the most part, from white soldiers because many white soldiers were intolerant of blacks. Unit cohesiveness and morale would be threatened if blacks served openly with whites, because many whites didn't want blacks serving alongside of them…because they were…well…black.
Just exchange the word black with gay….and the argument seems identical.
What I learned from the young veteran….someone who has paid his dues and knows what he is talking about….was that the DADT policy is still advocated by military leaders BECAUSE of the discriminatory attitude towards gays still exhibited by some straight soldiers.
This is not an easy-to-solve problem, I recognize that. However, I think it is necessary to know why we are doing what we are doing.
We discriminate against gays in the military because some straight soldiers cannot, as of yet, control their own tendencies to discriminate and be intolerant of gays.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
You have it about right. Attitudes do not always change as quickly as we'd like. That's probably why Clinton came up with 'don't ask, don't tell' in the first place. It's not the ideal situation, it's not really fair, but it's workable.
I was always taught that intolerance and bigotry were a sure sign of ignorance. DADT would seem to me something that would allow the ignorant to remain ignorant.
DADT is the right way to go. There are many people that feel homosexuality is not normal. They don't want to be "hit on" or take showers with guys that are gay. It isn't that they are ignorant, it is their beliefs. Homosexuality isn't natural. It is a lifestyle that some chose to pursue. And Rev don't start about the religious right, there are just as many non-religious people that have the belief that gayness is wrong.
I really don't care how one gets their orgasms, but please don't try to jam this down my throat.(maybe a bad choice of words, I guess the other end would be just as bad). Is Obama against this because he is mad about his former limo driver fling not being able to keep his mouth shut, (as in not talking about their affair)? You may have a good idea, an all gay platoon. It could be co-ed.
intolerance based on your beliefs is still intolerance…..that's just an excuse
Could that be said about gay urges? Could that person just be running from something or living a nightmare brought about in childhood. Being born gay is just as big a fallacy as Global Warming, (except in the case where a person is born with both male and female genitalia. It happens more often than you think and if the doctor decides the wrong way it screws up the sexual circuitry.)
To be tolerant is just as much the responsibility for the one wanting and needing the tolerance. It is more important to move on than to wallow in the mire of what that one person thinks of me. I am fat. Many people have a problem with that and do not tolerate that well, do I hate the world or feel as though I deserve special acceptance by all? I am bald many people do not tolerate that well, including gays and lesbians. Should I hate all the people that talk bad about bald people or should I just take it in stride, consider the source and move on. Is there a difference?
We all have beliefs and preferences that others disagree with. Must we change?
Preferences, I believe, are one thing. Discrimination is another.
When our personal preference is to discriminate….jobs, housing, marriage…then the line is crossed into illegality.
It would not be legal to discriminate against bald men, right?
Talking bad about someone because of their baldness is childish, mean, and basically destructive. Denying bald people equal rights with non-bald people would be illegal.
And average, I don't think this is correct….
"Homosexuality isn't natural. It is a lifestyle that some chose to pursue."
Did you choose to be hetero-sexual? I know I didn't choose heterosexuality, it chose me. I'm relatively certain that's how it is with homosexuals as well.
Homosexuality is found in nature. Did those creatures choose to be homosexual?
When the genetic numbers combine and form new life, the new genetic number of the new life is what it is…..nothing is chosen.
King…..do you think it will take another generation, 20-30 years, before military attitudes will change? If so….is there room in your thinking for government action to end the discrimination?
Rev where is their homosexuality in nature? Because a dog sniffs anothers butt is that gay? THere are asexual organisms, that is not gay. We are programmed to reproduce we are programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex. I never said anything is wrong with gay sex if that is what one is into, as I said I don't care how one gets their orgasms. It is none of my business.
What if I demanded special rights because of obesity or baldness? Obese people are discriminated against everyday, denied rights including insurance, plane seats, limits at the Golden Corral. Is it their fault they are fat? THere are a million reasons including genetics that cause this problem. THis is just another arguing point that politicians use.
joe sez….."Is it their fault they are fat? THere are a million reasons including genetics that cause this problem."
I would think that if you accept the argument that genetics can cause a person to be fat(or bald, or tall, or short, or dark, or light) than you would accept the argument that a persons sexuality can also be determined by genetics
Homosexuals insist that they should be treated on the same basis as heterosexuals. They should be allowed to marry partners of the same sex, serve in the military, lead boy scout troops, and generally have the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals because they are in all respects similar to heterosexuals except as to their preference in sexual partners.
But then they claim that they had no choice in their sexual "orientation", that they were genetically determined to be homosexual. In other words, they are different. So which is it?
I did recognoze that fact Walter. There are many people that are born as hermaphrodites(having both sex organs). The doctor usually decides the sex of the child by which organ is more developed, hormone levels aren't considered because the sex organs and their functions aren't fully developed. If they mess that up I can see where a child may be programmed to be attracted to the same sex.
Genetics in and of themselve can't be at fault because there is no sexual orientation gene.
I have to agree with the Rev here. Homosexuals don't choose to be that way. Sexual preference isn't a choice. I didn't choose to be heterosexual, I just am heterosexual.
Rev, I don't know what government action would change anything, but of course gays should get the same civil rights as the rest of us. You can't mandate how people feel about things. I know people are much more tolerant of gays now than they used to be 30-40 years ago.
King and I are finding more common ground. Could develop into a parcel…never know.
Quid…gays are similar to heteros in that they are both human. All humans in America should be granted equal rights….I mean, right?
Just as heteros do not choose their orientation, so too gays. Gays are different only in that they are not heteros.
Are you saying that gays are asking for special treatment?
average…..homosexual behavior observed in 1500 species….can you believe it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Reverend,
There is plenty of Supreme Court precedent to back you up on the point that the government may not enact a law simply to protect and reinforce the biases and prejudices of individuals. Here is a paragraph from Justice White's opinion in the case of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Centers, Inc., where the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Cleburne, Texas, had to allow a group home for the mentally retarded in a residential neighborhood:
The District Court found that the City Council's insistence on the permit rested on several factors. First, the Council was concerned with the negative attitude of the majority of property owners located within 200 feet of the Featherston facility, as well as with the fears of elderly residents of the neighborhood. But mere negative attitudes, or fear, unsubstantiated by factors which are properly cognizable in a zoning proceeding, are not permissible bases for treating a home for the mentally retarded differently from apartment houses, multiple dwellings, and the like. It is plain that the electorate as a whole, whether by referendum or otherwise, could not order city action violative of the Equal Protection Clause, and the City may not avoid the strictures of that Clause by deferring to the wishes or objections of some fraction of the body politic. “Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”
Being gay is not a lifestyle. Lifestyles are how you chose to live your life. You may be a religious person and attend church. That is a lifestyle. You may be a biker, travel the USA on a Harley and party in bars. That is a lifestyle. You may be a civil rights activist and participate in political and social causes, rallies and protests. That is a lifestyle.
The key to a lifestyle is “choice”. You choose to belong. Many, many studies have shown that being gay is not a lifestyle. All medical and psychological organizations agree with this. Being gay in not a lifestyle.
Given this distinction, the question is should our government purposely look the other way and have a blind eye towards violence and discrimination to gay people in the armed forces? The answer to this should always be “no”. Fair treatment under the law should never sanction violence. The key is to deal with incidents in a fair and equal manner; educate the armed forces on issues surrounding sexuality; and reinforce that sexuality has no bearing on an individual’s performance in the ranks.
It’s not about shoving anything down anyone’s throat. It’s about being civil and respectful to all people. Gays in the military are not asking for anything special. They just want to serve their country the best they can; living their life as the person they are.
Thank you Professor and Tom B for adding breadth to the comments.
Predujices run deep. It seems that military prejudices run deep AND are not subject to U.S. laws prohibiting discrimination.
The slogan should be…"Don't ask about our open discrimination policy, and we won't tell you."