The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy forbids openly gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals from serving in the United States Armed Forces. The concept of the policy was actually a huge step forward for gay rights activists from previous concepts such as “homosexuality is incompatible with military service”.
As America continues to evolve, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy seems to become more old fashioned. Homosexuality is a way of life for many Americans and gay marriages are legal to license and perform in five states now; some other states still recognize these marriages even though they do not perform them. To some people, gay marriage being legal in some states but not others may seem weird and even justify the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy still being in affect; but these same steps were taken during the early stages of legalizing interracial marriage as well.
On the 21st of September, the Democratic Party failed to obtain the 60 votes needed to repeal the ban. Tempers are flaring and gay activist groups are speaking out. The community question for today is; where do you stand? Do you believe gays, lesbians, and bisexuals should be allowed to serve in the military while being open regarding their sexuality? Let’s open the floor people. There is no wrong answer here. There is only your opinion as we continue to explore the box.
I think the key point to the whole DADT issue is that DADT essentially applies to everyone who is not heterosexual. Fairly, what applies to one sexual orientation should apply to all; especially since there is no proof of a negative impact caused by non-heterosexually oriented people participating in service.
ReplyDeleteMy aforementioned chain of logic is an objective conclusion to which anyone thinking unbiasedly could arrive. Having said that, I don't think fairness is the real complexity to DADT. DADT's complexity lies in the idea that if it is repealed based on being discriminatorally unconstitutional, how would this affect our military -- our driving protective and offensive force to this nation? Repealing DADT forces one of our oldest standing establishments of this country to change to the progressive demands of society, and that is always something difficult to do -- but at the same time, when does justifying a lack of change in the military become acceptable when other government-supported establishments including some businesses and schools would never be allowed to tell their employees that they must hide their sexual orientation if it is not heterosexual? Could you imagine the social uproar if state colleges were suddenly decided it would fire or not hire employees who were openly not heterosexual? Why is the military an exception to discrimination policies? If each branch of the military is a team, then isn't teaching a team to accept each others differences while still working together a better idea than silencing groups of people?
Instead of micromanaging each instance of progression (a short-term focus), perhaps a better long-term solution would be to come up with ideas of how to manage changes as they arrive in the future; unless we're going to pretend that things will be the same now as they are in another century. Just a thought.
My dear Kelly, that was a very profound concept. But I have one question, "why do you think the military and/or politicians would believe it is in it's best interest to keep such a policy in affect?"
ReplyDeleteKelly, I have always loved that we think so similarly about these things! I concur that something that is fundamentally bigoted in nature is not okay! I don't understand why people can't see that this is no different than what we were doing to blacks as a country not so long ago. Extremism and intolerance in ALL of it's forms are wrong, not just when it comes to skin color or *insert-issue-here*.
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest problems is that people are using God and the supposed detrimental impact of openly gay people serving as a justification for bold-faced discrimination. The world didn't end when the slaves were freed, or when blacks and whites could marry, or when women were granted suffrage. I think that any type of social change can be a jarring one, but it shouldn't be okay on those grounds alone.
And in response to Enick's question to Kelly, I have a couple: Do your (presumably closeted) GLBT brothers/sisters in arms bleed any differently than you? Do they not work as hard, care as much, or have as many skills as you?
These are questions I would ask politicians, because if something will be amiss if/when GLBT people can openly serve, then by all means let me know. Otherwise, STFU with the childish and immature babble. It's a non-issue, really. I also find it incredibly narcissistic that people get so up in arms about gays serving openly, and I think it is because of a fear that they will be sexually attracted to you. To that I say, do you REALLY think that every gay man finds every man on the planet attractive? Does every straight man find every woman who walks by attractive? Gay people are PEOPLE, not animals, not aliens, and I think that gets lost in the discussion a lot of times.
As someone who has been a civilian her entire life, I admit that military branches are often their own society, of which I know little to nothing. That being said, I guess the main reason why the military would believe it's in their best interest to maintain the policy is because they have basically adapted into their own small society (an environment which I would imagine does benefit teamwork and cohesion amongst service members) that still has different, and sometimes more antiquated views and policies than our civilian society does -- because it's usually worked for them thus far. With politicians, they are supposed to kind of be a fair mediator between the needs of the government and the public (ideally in my mind), so whose side do they choose? Government-supported militaries who keep their sometimes old-fashioned policies in effect to this day, or a chunk of an ever-growing, liberal, civilian society harshly disapproving of and criticizing the same military that is supposed to be protecting them? Kind of biting the hand but protects you on its own terms, but in this case, is that biting justifiable?
ReplyDeleteI honestly have trouble coming up with arguments why it would be in their best interest aside from that, but I look forward to hearing other people answer this question better than I did!
my p.o.v is this americans needs to quit hating ....that's untapped help this country needs so what if that they dont want be with a male or female if they willin to pick up a gun and fight by all means go for it . i would be honored to know that no matter what preference you choose...your goal will be in common with mines and that's fight for freedom
ReplyDeletePhil, I completely agree.
ReplyDeleteOh Kryssi, that was on point!
ReplyDeleteNo matter what our race, gender or gender preference, bottom line is we are ALL human. And it's about time as a society we act like that, there is no room for racism, for bigots, anti-gays...
ReplyDeleteAs Enick so eloquently pointed out in his most recent post Bullying is the new form of Terrorism and people are dying!
As a society we must take a stand, and say NO to Judgement and Hate!