I have written exactly one post in the past about the years old policy of the military concerning homosexuals in it’s ranks. Known as Don’t ask, don’t tell or simply DADT, it basically allows
homosexuals to serve in the military, as long as they do not serve openly as homosexual. My regular readers already know that I strongly disagree with homosexuality. They also know that as strong as that disagreement is, I also believe I do not have the right to control what two consenting adults do in their private lives. It really is as simple as that. As I consider that, we are now faced with the repeal of DADT, which will be signed by President Obama Wednesday morning. This will fulfill a major campaign promise and is sure to endear him to the homosexual community. Having said that, we need to recognize this situation is anything but simple.
As I was browsing through my normal list of blogs and news sites, I came across a blog post by Linda, over at NoOneOfAnyImport’s Blog. The title is It’ll Be Interesting, Anyway: DADT Repeal and it has to be one of the most honest and forthright post concerning the repeal of DADT and the implications that it holds for our military and our society. Here is an excerpt.
I’ve avoided this topic like the plague. There are reasons for this.
For one, I am so not interested in the details of other people’s sex lives. So. Not. My. Business. Plus, I do not want to offend anyone. This may not sound sincere, coming from a political blogger and all, but it’s true.
Well. When it comes to the topic of homosexuality, I’m pretty much doomed to offend virtually everyone.
Ready?
First, I admit it. I adhere to a religious doctrine that views homosexuality as a sin. It’s difficult to state this for a lot of reasons: consensual behavior doesn’t hurt anyone, it’s their own business, and they did not just cavalierly choose the lifestyle. I mean, if God says it’s a sin, then why the heck did He create people who have the urge to do it?
The opposite sides of this moral dilemma are not likely to win converts through argument. So I’m happy to live and let live. I’m pretty sure the Bible says something about how we should all be more concerned with our own specks and planks, anyway, instead of everyone else’s.
Okay, now that I’ve addressed that little elephant in the room, let me just say: my concerns about the DADT repeal have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. Like the Supreme Court does so often, I find the procedural grounds dispositive without addressing the substantive underlying issue.
In other words: how is this going to work, exactly?
I am a practical lady. The logistics of openly gay integration are going to be difficult. Already, Secretary Gates has stated that straight military members cannot expect separate showers or anything. I suspect that practical considerations are behind this decision.
In close quarters like ships, subs, barracks, forward operating bases, or in the field, arranging for separate berthing and bathrooms turns into quite the headache. The Navy already deals with this issue, of course, with women aboard ship. I know the Navy has managed to make it work a long time now. (Except they are still working on subs.) Yet, even today, a personnel change is from male to female can be difficult to arrange. Real estate is a precious commodity aboard ship. I doubt our Navy ships can accommodate separate berthing and heads for all four divisions of sex and sexual orientation: gay male, straight male, gay female, straight female.
They’ll need to get bigger boats.
I’ve probably already offended both the Christian and the atheist by now. It’s time for me to offend a new set of people. Women shouldn’t be on our war-fighting ships, either. Yeah, I know, loads and loads of female sailors serve our country honorably. It’s not that women can’t be good sailors. Rather, the effectiveness of our military should come before the rights of the individual to be a sailor/soldier/aviator. Where does the accommodation end, after all? With the rights of the disabled? Are we going to start widening p-ways and building ramps next to the ladderwells?
Oh dear, I’ve gone and offended another group now.
Now, at this point you may have an urge to get all civil rights on me, and tell me this is just like when racists didn’t want to integrate blacks into the military. I find the situation entirely different. The discrimination against black people was based in a (mercifully) dying belief that blacks are inferior to whites–a belief that has no basis in reality. The discrimination I support–forbidding females and homosexuals from serving in certain military capacities–is not based on the idea that these folks are inferior to the heterosexual white male. It is based solely on the idea that our nation’s security is more crucial than an individual’s right to serve in the military.
I think Linda’s post should be required reading for all of us who are concerned about DADT and how it’s repeal will affect so many people. I don’t want to give all of her post away, as I want you to visit her blog and read what she has to say for yourselves, but her husband is directly involved in the repeal. He is one of the officers who will be responsible for implementing the repeal.
Linda’s post brings to a stark light, one very important realization. The repeal of DADT, as heralded as it is, will not be an easy task. Doing so is going to require major changes of military policy and anyone who thinks a few nightmare scenarios will not take place is a little naive. Personally, I think they should have left DADT in place, but I would have more than a little naive myself, if I thought it wouldn’t be repealed eventually. With the current state of affairs in our country, it was inevitable.
Gosh, thanks for the kind words, the link and the quote. Merry Christmas to you!
You are quite welcome, Linda. Merry Christmas to you and your family.
While I disagree with the gay lifestyle, I do not care if a person is gay, like you said what happens between two consenting adults is their business, not mine.
There are some problems with this repeal however that are going to have to be addressed. The most obvious issue is the barracks–men and women serving are naturally provided with separate barracks to both hinder sexual activity and also unwanted sexual advances. The same argument can be made about barracks for straight and gay people. And this I am sure is only the beginning.
I am not opposed to letting gay people serve in the military if they are willing and capable, but I do think it should be up to the military leaders to decide. I hope that this wasn’t rushed into without the proper thought going into all of the possible scenarios.
Also, I read Linda’s post also and it is a great post, I haven’t had the chance to comment on it yet.
I think you are right, Steve. The repeal of DADT is going to raise some issues that will have to be addressed, some of which we may not understand at the moment. I felt Linda did a great job at examining some of those issues.
Repeal is here. The military studies have been conducted, and a small percentage of personnel said that DADT’s repeal would at all negatively affect either how they feel about their service committment or how they would feel about a fellow serviceperson if they found out he/she is gay. I think the Congress and the President did an extraordinary job of listening to what those in the military were saying and dumping a policy that is no longer relevant.
Within these studies, there was also pertinent information about how military personnel view a fellow serviceperson if he/she is thought to be gay-or even if they “know” that person is gay. Again, large percentages said “ho, hum-not an issue”. This question (there may have been a couple that dealt with it) alone makes it pretty clear: Nobody’s heads have been in the sand regarding homosexuals serving- many military people already understand that they are currently serving, showering, living and eating next to a gay person.
I think this is one reason that the barracks question is one that will have to be addressed, but won’t be nearly the big issue that the general public makes it out to be. Just because a service person no longer has to hide who they live with does not mean that the military will all of the sudden become a place for them to fly their rainbow flags. I doubt, after what they consider to be a human rights victory, that homosexuals who have wanted to serve so badly aren’t going to try to change the culture, anymore than they have over the past decades while serving.
For my buck, I’m proud of the Congress for recognizing that we need every qualified American who wants to serve, as long as they do it honorably. 1 in every 4 potential military enlistees are turned down because they are “too fat to fight”. It would appear that, as far as service numbers, this country has a far greater problem to deal with than a homosexual man or woman who is service ready, fit to fight, and willing to do it.
I am not so much unhappy that the repeal has been signed, as I am unsure of the consequences. I think it will have an effect on our military, but I am in no way clear as to what that effect will be. I know it sounds like a cliche, but only time will tell.
Once again, handing rights to one interest infringes on another’s. Berthing quarters on a ship are very tight. Not many women would share those living conditions with men. Heterosexuals will have no choice.
That’s one of the issues that will have to be addressed.
I am generally a practical person who also worked in Naval ship design for 5 years, so I have a decent understanding of the “barracks problem.” Men are generally physically larger and stronger than women. Thus, the sex issue is quite a problem with a two-sex military, especially on a carrier group out to sea for 6 months. But a gay guy “pushing” his sexual impulses on another professionally trained militarly serviceman? Not as likely. I have many gay friends, including some who have admitted that they find me attractive. I have never worried about them “taking advantage” of me, because it ain’t gonna happen. I think the DADT repeal will go down as one of the most discussed non-events of recent history. And for better or worse, I’m happy that after nearly 2 years of Obama, I finally have something I agree with him on.
Now about that net neutrality thing…. Rrrrrrr! Definitely mad about that!
I don’t think you meant your comment to be humorous, but I couldn’t help but chuckle when I read about what might happen if a male member of the military tried to force himself on another male member. Somebody done gonna get hurt.
I think there were greater problems with letting women into the service than there will be with gays. Gays are already in the military and just because the service lets them in doesn’t mean they are going to be any more interested in being “open” than they are now.
Also, critics assume gays will somehow not be professional and will simply gawk at their fellow troops in the showers, for example.
I think rape or other sexual issues are a greater risk for the women who serve from straight members rather than from gays.
That is an interesting observation, Harrison and one that I think could very well be proven out to be true.