Don't ask, Don't Tell, Don't keep this policy...

[Mayhem]

We respectfully urge Congress to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Those of us signing this letter have dedicated our lives to defending the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish. As General Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said when the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was enacted, it is not the place of the military or those in senior leadership to make moral judgments.

Scholarly data show that there are approximately one million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States today, as well as 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in our armed forces. They have served our nation honorably.

We support the recent comments of another former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General John Shalikashvili, who has concluded that repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would not harm, and would indeed help, our armed forces. As is the case in Britain, Israel, and other nations which allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality. Such collaboration reflects the strength and the best traditions of our democracy.

Lieutenant General Jerry Hilmes; Branch: Army

Vice Admiral Harold Koenig; Branch: Navy; Field: Medical

Vice Admiral James Zimble, Midlothian, VA; Branch: Navy; Field: Medical

Major General Leslie Burger, Vancouver, WA; Branch: Army; Field: Medical

Major General Alexander Burgin, Salem, OR; Branch: Army NG; Field: Artillery

Major General Michael Conrad, McLean, VA; Field: Infantry

Major General James Delk, Fair Oaks, CA; Branch: Army; Field: Medical

Major General Jack Farris, New Jersey; Branch: Air Force; Field: Aviation (pilot)

Major General Fred Forster, Tennessee; Field: Aviation

Major General David Hale, Hampton Bays, NY; Field: Combat

Major General Randy Jayne, McClean, VA; Branch: Air NG; Field: Aviation (pilot)

Major General Dennis Laich, Dublin, OH; Branch: Army; Field: Military Police

Major General Dennis Malcor, Vine Grove, KY; Branch: Army; Field: Combat

Major General Michael Scotti*, Arlington, VA; Branch: Army; Field: Medical

Major General Harry Sieben, Minnesota; Branch: Army and Air NG

Rear Admiral William Retz; Branch: Navy

Brigadier General Clara Adams-Ender, Woodbridge, VA; Branch: Army; Field: Medical

Brigadier General Dale Barber, Waverly, NY; Branch: Army; Field: Infantry Engineer

Brigadier General Harold Bowman, Pleasant Hill, IA; Branch: Army NG; Field; Medical

Brigadier General Douglas Bradley, Diablo, CA; Branch: Army; Field: Medical

Brigadier General William Colvin; Branch: Army NG

Brigadier General Bob Hardy; Branch: Army

Brigadier General JD Johnson, Salt Lake City, UT; Branch: Army

Brigadier General Phil Peay, Utah; Field: Engineering

Brigadier General Robert Poirot, Evergreen, CO; Branch: Army; Field: Artillery

Brigadier General Philip Pushkin, Randallstown, MD; Branch: Army NG

Brigadier General Donald Schenk, Troy, MI; Branch: Army; Field: Combat Systems

Brigadier General Daniel Wardrop, Williamsburg, VA; Field: Artillery

*General Scotti passed away in September, 2007 after agreeing to sign onto this statement. His widow has requested that he remain on the statement.

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section= ... icle=50649

[Mulu]

A bit premature, our current president would certainly veto it even if it came to pass.

[ç i p h é r]

What's wrong with the policy? Seems like perfectly reasonable guidelines for everyone to follow to keep sexuality a non-issue.

[Swift]

What's wrong with the policy? Seems like perfectly reasonable guidelines for everyone to follow to keep sexuality a non-issue.

Anti-discrimination.

Why should anyone be fearful of being thrown out of their job for revealing their sexual preference, a detail which has absolutely no bearing on their ability to perform their required duties?

[BlakOrkz]

Would they let me sleep and shower in the women's facilities, then?

Straight men shouldn't be forced to live communally with gay men just as women shouldn't be forced to live communally with heterosexual men.

It isn't so much discrimination against the homosexual person, it's also protecting the privacy and security of the heterosexuals.

The military isn't like an office 8-5 job. It isn't just job performance. It isn't accounting or working at McDonald's.

Should gays have equal rights? Hell yes they should. Should heterosexuals be forced to bunk with homosexual men? No they shouldn't.

What's the solution? Keep your business your business and leave everyone out of it.

Remember that one person's rights end where another's begins. Don't force me into an uncomfortable situation just because you want to broadcast something that isn't necessary to broadcast.

IMO.

If you want equal "status", force heterosexuals into a "Don't ask, don't tell" situation. However, I think everyone would find that silly - because the vast majority are heterosexual. Don't ask, don't tell, as Cypher said, simply makes sexuality a no-issue AS LONG AS YOU DON'T TELL. No one will ask!

If you don't agree to that (which, you promise to when you enlist, so YOU are the one violating the terms of your enlistment, not the military) then don't enlist. Period.

Has anyone ever considered that "Don't ask, don't tell" might actually be there to protect minority rights against discrimination? If you've ever sat around a barracks and heard the jokes that come out...

[Rick7475]

As much as I support the notion of openly gay soldiers in the US military, I certainly wouldn't want to be the gay soldier in a marine front line squad who lets his buddies know. Where as Britain and Israel have had the displeasure in the last 100 years of fighting for their very existance as a nation against a far numerically superior enemy, the US has not had that experience, so they are far more conservative in their view of their armed forces.

[BlakOrkz]

How many times has your average manager at a bank, restaurant, school, etc. come up and asked you about your sexuality? Zero times?

How many times have you made an issue about your sexuality at work at the bank, restaurant, school, etc? Zero times?

So, this policy is literally just an anti-drama policy. I won't badger you into discrimination, if you don't push non-pertinent details of your personal life on me.

Talk about keeping things limited to job performance!

[AlmightyTDawg]

Should heterosexuals be forced to bunk with homosexual men? No they shouldn't.

If you believe the sociological evidence that many of the most homophobic become plenty aroused on sight of homosexual material, even that may not necessarily be appropriate. Nor are hetero-identified men not necessarily having some fantasy they're not telling anyone about. The "keep your business your business" is the appropriate answer, of course - but whatever perceived privacy right someone has in the military is a little kooky under the circumstances.

Don't ask-don't tell up front isn't the problem - it's a) the other side of things and b) the necessity of making it such a front-and-center policy in the first place. Clearly from an equal protection perspective, there is a bit of an oddity here - see, for example, Romer v. Evans' "rank prejudice" language when Colorado tried to deny discrimination-remedy measures to homosexuals. On top of that you have a sort of generalized free-expression or even possibly compelled speech issue (forced to not answer truthfully or lose your job, though granted compelling non-speech is weak as a claim, which is why they chose "let's not talk about it").

But the military is, and probably always will be, different for both equal protection claims (Rostker v. Goldberg) and free speech (see blog censor cases, religious limitations, UCMJ speech clauses, etc.). Just like war is different (see Korematsu - justified racial violations). The motto there is that they're there to defend democracy, not to practice it.

And while studies can be done like crazy to debunk the anecdotal and pigheaded emphasis on homosexuality being a morale killer, in spite of comparable anecdotal cases where soldiers learned to get along with a man getting the job done right (see, e.g., McVeigh v. Cohen), the Court will always continue to defer to the "expertise" in the military. They've got a position, and they're sticking to it, so that's not apt to change soon. It just kind of rubs people the wrong way who see it as representative of an unwillingness to evolve with the times.

[JaydeMoon]

"Don't ask, don't tell" is the common term for the U.S. military policy which implements Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the numerous exceptions from 10 U.S.C. 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Anyone who does not believe that it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability" should speak to the command team of Barry Winchell.

The policy exists because the reality is that the military attracts a lot of conservative individuals who aren't open-minded... or often particularly bright, for that matter.

If a commander has to worry about whether his soldiers are exhibiting animosity within the ranks, then he is unable to focus fully on the mission. If a homosexual soldier is concerned that his fellow soldiers might do something untoward because of his sexual preference, then he is unable to fully focus on the mission. If a group of backward-ass, redneck soldier boys are preoccupied with their paranoia that SGT Softbottom is checking out their ass, they are unable to fully focus on the mission.

The policy protects homosexuals from prejudice and discrimination while allowing our military 'professionals' to focus on what's IMPORTANT.

The policy does not prohibit you from being a homosexual, nor does it prohibit you from engaging in homosexual acts.

It prohibits you from DEMONSTRATING a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts. Because demonstrating such a propensity or intent may cause your hick brothers-in-arms to behave erratically. Just as putting a woman in a tense combat situation may cause your brothers-in-arms to act erratically. This can jeopardize the mission. It's not the woman's fault or the homosexual person's fault. But it is a reality.

And it has happened often enough to show that it is a true concern and creates an 'unacceptable risk'.

THAT SAID:

Keep pushing for it, because every time it comes up and every time it is mentioned and every time someone champions the cause, the wall of bigotry gets chipped away. It takes TIME and EFFORT to erode the negativity exhibited by society in general towards any minority. So long as the rights of others are championed, there will soon come a time when homosexuals are accepted simply as people and capable warriors by their peers and such a policy will not be needed.

Until then, the policy is not meant to stomp your rights. It's meant to protect you and your fellow soldiers from the idiocy of the close minded.

[BlakOrkz]

+1 except for the blatant stereotyping of brave men and women who are in the military as "backwards", "rednecks", and "hicks" (amongst other things written).

Having lived on military bases for over 16 years, I can testify that most are average to bright and are in the military to find a way to fund college.

Please don't stereotype over 1 million Americans and then be self-righteous about a homophoebic being "close-minded".

[JaydeMoon]

Having spent 18 years growing up and living on and around various military bases and then another 11 years serving in the military itself, rising to the rank of Staff Sergeant and leading soldiers, I can testify that, while it can be argued that 'MOST' might be bright to intelligent, it is undeniable that a sizable portion are indeed undereducated and close-minded.

One has only to take a close look at all of the counsellings and disciplinary measures written on a daily basis by a majority of junior echelon leaders to scratch your head and wonder, "WTF are these young men and women thinking?"

A large portion of military members are individuals who had no other viable option to making anything of themselves because of who they are/were and where they came from.

When they joined the military, they brought all of that with them.

So while your knee jerk reaction to defend our Armed Forces against blatant stereotyping and generalities is commendable, it is just that, a knee jerk reaction to defend those brave men and women who sacrifice so much for their country, whether misguided or not.

And even if I am wrong and it turns out that 99% of our military are forward-thinking geniuses... apparently the 1% are doing enough damage to keep our military in the free-thinking stone ages.

[BlakOrkz]

While I am not going to enter into an argument about stereotyping or statistics:

Just because in a infantry company you might have 5-10 idiots (who may or may not be Southern) that, because of various reasons (maybe or maybe not their Southern heritage), would be willing to do something untoward a homosexual soldier, does not qualify labelling the others as such. (or a broader issue, stereotyping the whole Southern culture as gay-haters and close-minded; as implied by your post.)

Like you and I said: "...it can be argued that 'MOST' might be bright to intelligent". (I actually said average to bright)

I do not think it is a knee-jerk reaction to defend millions of Americans (including vets) from a base, unethical stereotype that doesn't represent them accurately whatsoever.

I would never say that a minority isn't uneducated or willing to let close-mindedness rule the day, but your post made it sound like it was military-wide - which hopefully the most liberal of liberals or conservative of conservatives could conclude as being absolutely offensive and false.

That's like saying that because 5% of black young men with baggy jeans steal or deal in drugs, I can label 100% of them as druggies, gang members and thieves. Or that because someone is gay, they have to wear pastels and speak with a noticeable lisp.

It isn't accurate or fair, and in essence, participating in such is making the charade of calling someone "close-minded" pure hypocrisy.

Your post was insightful as to why Don't Ask Don't Tell is necessary for now. Thank you for an insider's view.

[JaydeMoon]

I challenge you to find in my original post where I might have used terms such as "all" or even "most" in my application of these 'objectionable' statements.

I call your defense "knee-jerk", because I fail to see that I WAS stereotyping our armed forces by grouping them all, or even a majority of them, into the hick/redneck categorization. I maintain that there are LOTS of these types of people in our military. I did not mean to infer that this was a majority.

I was merely stating that lots of people who join are not very smart and lots of people who join are close minded. Further, that it is your 'hick' brothers-in-arms that you would be worried about, a statement which was not meant to preclude the possibility of the existence of 'non-hick' brothers-in-arms.

So perhaps a better response to

Please don't stereotype over 1 million Americans and then be self-righteous about a homophoebic being "close-minded".

is that I wasn't. And sorry if I presented it otherwise.

[fluffmonster]

They said the exact same things about black soldiers being in the same unit with white soldiers once upon a time...they couldn't serve together effectively for whatever reasons. They were wrong then too.

My personal opinion, if you don't have the discipline to get passed the fact that the guy in the bunk next to you is gay, you're just a second-rate soldier. If he gives you a kiss, then you can get all bothered about it.

[Vaelahr]

If he gives you a kiss, then you can get all bothered about it.

And then be called a bigot and accused of a hate-crime.