Today's quote: - "If gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces." - Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, 2006
Comment: Fifteen years ago, President Clinton announced the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy, which was meant to relax the long-standing ban on gay men and women serving in the military. The government would no longer ask recruits whether they were gay, and in turn, service members would be able to remain in the military as long as they didn't reveal their sexual orientations. This policy is outdated, discriminatory, and impeding the military's progress. Since 1993, the military has booted 12,300 service members under DADT, including at least 58 valuable Arabic language specialists. Today, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel will be holding the first congressional hearings on DADT in 15 years. They come at a time that support for repealing the ban is increasing. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 75 percent of Americans believe "gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military" -- a dramatic rise from the 61 percent who supported the notion in 2001. Human Rights Campaign has organized a campaign telling Congress to repeal DADT here.
No Pentagon officials will be testifying at today's hearings. Subcommittee chairwoman Susan Davis (D-CA) said that she put in a request to the Defense Department, "but at this particular time...they're really not quite willing to come forward." Gay rights activists are disappointed at this no-show. "At a time when the military is relaxing every possible standard to attract new recruits...one would hope and expect that Defense Department leaders would be first in line to call on Congress to repeal the law," said Steve Ralls of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. One of the people testifying today is Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who is gay and was the first U.S. soldier wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom. "We're allowing our prejudice to be put into action by allowing this discriminatory policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' to still exist, even in this day and age," he told the Washington Blade. In 2006, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would overturn DADT. The legislation now has 133 co-sponsors, including five Republicans, although President Bush is expected to veto it if it ever passes.
DADT makes no sense, especially at at time when the military is struggling to recruit and retain soldiers. A 2005 study by the Williams Project at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, found that as many as 41,000 new recruits could be found if the ban were repealed, "enough people to entirely staff half a dozen aircraft carriers." Additionally, gay service members pose no risk to the unity or effectiveness of the armed forces; there is increasing evidence that many soldiers are already aware of their colleagues' sexual orientation. CBS's "60 Minutes" recently did a segment on whether commanders were becoming less strict in enforcing the ban on openly gay service members. During the segment, correspondent Lesley Stahl spoke with Army Sgt. Darren Manzella, who said he was very open about his homosexuality and even introduced his fellow soldiers to his boyfriend. The Army was forced to open an investigation, but Manzella was eventually cleared to go back to work. He said he was basically told by his commanders, "I don't care if you're gay or not." Only after the CBS story was Manzella discharged. "My sexual orientation certainly didn't make a difference when I treated injuries and saved lives in the streets of Baghdad," said Manzella. "It shouldn't be a factor in allowing me to continue to serve." Service members Legal Defense Network is aware of more than 500 U.S. soldiers who are "out" to their colleagues and continue to serve.
Calls to repeal DADT continue to grow, even coming from the law's original architects and supporters. As chairman of the powerful Armed Forces Committee in the 1990s, then-senator Sam Nunn led a series of hearings that helped undermine Clinton's attempt to lift the ban on gays in the military. But last month, Nunn said it is time to re-examine DADT. "I think [when] 15 years go by on any personnel policy, it's appropriate to take another look at it," he said. Last month, Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen also said that the military was ready to accept gay service members if Congress repeals DADT. A December 2006 survey of service members who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan found 73 percent of those polled were "comfortable with lesbians and gays." A new report by four retired senior military officers and sponsored by the Palm Center in California also calls for a repeal of DADT, marking "the first time a Marine Corps general has ever called publicly for an end to the gay ban." The officers concluded that allowing gays to serve openly "is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion." In a significant shift, last year, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John M. Shalikashvili said that he no longer supported DADT and said that "if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces."
The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled in MAY, 2008, in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal. The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion. The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity. It was the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy. When gay service members have sued over their dismissals, courts historically have accepted the military's argument that having gays in the service is generally bad for morale and can lead to sexual tension. But the Supreme Court's opinion in the Texas case changed the legal landscape, the judges said, and requires more scrutiny over whether "don't ask, don't tell" is constitutional as applied in individual cases.
Under the ruling in the case of the Flight Nurse, military officials "need to prove that having this particular gay person in the unit really hurts morale, and the only way to improve morale is to discharge this person," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state who worked on the case. Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years -- two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.
She sued the Air Force in 2006, but U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed her claims, saying the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas did not change the legality of "don't ask, don't tell." The appeals court judges disagreed. "When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," wrote Judge Ronald M. Gould. Gay service members who are discharged can sue in federal court, and if the military doesn't prove it had a good reason for the dismissal, the cases will go forward, Caplan said. Another attorney for Witt, James Lobsenz, hailed the ruling as the beginning of the end for "don't ask, don't tell." "If the various branches of the Armed Forces have to start proving each application of the policy makes sense, then it's not going to be only Maj. Witt who's going to win," Lobsenz said. "Eventually, they're going to say, 'This is dumb. ... It's time to scrap the policy."'
An Air Force spokeswoman said she had no comment on the decision and directed inquiries to the Defense Department. Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense spokesman, said he did not know specifics of the case and could not comment beyond noting that "the DOD policy simply enacts the law as set forth by Congress."
Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions." Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues -- one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest. "I am thrilled by the court's recognition that I can't be discharged without proving that I was harmful to morale," Witt said in a statement. "I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."
It is time to end the "macho" military homophobes who are willing to destroy a career and well-earned reputation for fear of criticism from another homophobe. Marine General Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, said, "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." General Pace, apparently a homophobe, might refer to his bible, wherein it says, What God has brought together, Let no man put asunder." And since when does the title ":General" impute morality and whatever "morality" might mean! "General Pace1s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," says C. Dixon Osburn, who heads the Service members Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group in Washington (the 65,000 estimate is a UCLA study's estimate, the group said). "Our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices for our country, and deserve General Pace's praise, not his condemnation. As a Marine and a military leader, General Pace knows that prejudice should not dictate policy. Anyone who thinks gay people can't serve their country in uniform doesn't know the troops and doesn't know history. Anyone who thinks letting these service members be honest about their sexual preference will destroy unit cohesion, morale or readiness hasn't studied the experience of Israel, United Kingdom or other countries where the military has accepted openly gay troops for years.
Whether this outdated policy will survive to its 16th anniversary depends on what happens in November. Barack Obama says he'd like to drop Don't Ask, Don't Tell, while John McCain says it's working just fine. What Congress has enacted, the next Congress can repeal. Another indication that John McCain is just too damn old for the modern era and the presidency - and this from an heterosexual man of 88 years. McCain isn't even smart enough to know when to retire and enjoy life - what's left of it. What is wrong with him that makes him crave power? It is his only way to prove that he was better than his grandfather - an admiral; or his father, an admiral? Commander in Chief, is that what this is about.?
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in the persons ..... against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated ...... ." The Ninth Amendment provides, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." No person in these United States of America should be compelled to hide their true identity or be made to feel ashamed of, or criticized for that identity. To the moralists, I say, "Do unto others as you wold have others do unto you."
Comments are closed for this post.
