Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. addresses a rally last year in support of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" turns 15: Retain or repeal?
It was 15 years ago, Tuesday, that President Clinton rolled out the policy that came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which relaxed the long-standing bar against gay men and women serving in the U.S. military. While the move was initially hailed as progress for the rights of gays in the military, today many see it as a liability.
About 12,000 service members have been booted from the military since the law took effect, including dozens of Arabic speakers whose skills are particularly prized by the military since the advent of the war on terror.
Given the demands for skilled personnel in the midst of a global war on terrorism, should Congress repeal the law? Or are there valid reasons for retaining a ban on gays in the U.S. armed services?
Thoughts
Shopping, Google!
Submitted on September 26th, 2008 by AnonymousHello
good health for you
tablets buy confido o map
ringtones lg alltel m map
cheap phentrimine buy b map
famvir n map
forte purchase rumalaya x map
dostinex n
buy azulfidine cheap g map
Total good
Don't Ask Don't Tell was a
Submitted on January 30th, 2008 by TaliaDon't Ask Don't Tell was a stepping stone attempt to allow the military command structure to "do the right thing" and not prevent hard-working patriotic members of the military from serving their country.
Unfortunately, it was abused and is therefore ineffective in many ways. The only true answer is to simply make it a non-issue. Allow GLBT community members to serve open and proud. Actively prosecute those who act negatively based on their own prejudices. Offer everyone the opportunity to educate themselves and improve their sensitivity to human rights.
Prejudice is born of ignorance. Only through educating each other can we overcome it.
No mixing love and war!
Submitted on January 30th, 2008 by Jim LakelyRight on, Joel. And right on, Ben. I'm tickled by the reference to the "homosexual agenda." A lesbian friend of mine in Virginia had a magnetized grocery list pad stuck on her fridge. The words at the top? "The homosexual agenda." Still makes me smile. That flippant joke summed up her, and my, frayed patience with the politicization of sexual orientation.
I agree that the military is no place for social experimentation -- and that includes fudging physical standards so that women can get closer to combat roles. Does such a policy make it harder for some women to advance their military careers? Probably, but too bad. As one of my favorite websites notes, "Not Everyone Gets to Be an Astronaut When They Grow Up".
Anyway, the U.S. Armed Forces should have a "Don't Ask, No Lovers" policy -- that is applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. In fact, according to this DoD link, romantic fraternization of any kind appears to already be verboten (though it seems to suggest it only really kicks in when two people don't share the same rank). I'd think that if you just remain vigilant in enforcing that policy, you pretty much take care of any problems.
Mixing love and war is fine in the movies, but troublesome in real life.
A couple of counterpoints
Submitted on January 30th, 2008 by JoelI think we're largely in agreement, Ben, so I don't want to make too much of differences on this issue. But a couple of notes:
* It's difficult for some people -- and I'm not talking about homosexuals -- to distinguish between being homosexual and "promoting a homosexual agenda." I think the game's over if the Army (for example) starts trying to make those distinctions.
* I'm fine with allowing homosexuality and barring homosexual conduct -- just as long as we do the same with heterosexuals. Otherwise, we might as well leave the current system in place.
A modified vote for repeal
Submitted on January 30th, 2008 by BenThe best case for retaining the military's long-standing policy barring gays and lesbians from the armed services comes from Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness, to whom I've linked above and previously. The argument comes down to preventing the social and political agenda of organized homosexual rights groups from undermining the military's mission. I don't think that's a bad argument, really -- especially if we're in for another Clinton administration. Sara Lister personified a different aspect of the agenda that Donnelly and others oppose. I'll take extremist Marines over a progressive Pentagon any day.
But there is a difference between the activists who would put a political agenda over the nation's security and patriotic American men or women who want to take up arms for their country and who also happen to be homosexual.
I wrote an editorial at last year (I cannot find it online, alas) arguing, essentially, that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" doesn't make sense at a time of war. I used the translator problem as my main supporting point. Now, the counterargument might be that only a few dozen translators have been discharged. But we don't have that many translators to begin with. From that standpoint, it's a stupid policy.
I might also distinguish between homosexuality and homosexual conduct. The military might want to proscribe the latter -- e.g., a soldier is caught in the act -- and turn a blind eye to general accusations of the former. But I confess I haven't thought this point through as well as I might, and I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary.
To me, it's telling
Submitted on January 30th, 2008 by Joel...that the number of DADT discharges has dropped by half since 9/11, during a time when we've had forces have been more engaged in combat around the world than at any time since Vietnam.
If the central rationale for DADT were really true -- that serving alongside gays damages unit morale and cohesion -- it seems that the high tempo of combat operations would require that number to stay roughly level or even to rise. After all, wartime is the exact time when you don't want unit morale damaged.
Sounds like two votes for "repeal"
Submitted on January 30th, 2008 by Monkey RobbLHard to choose between the two positions when they appear to be advocating the same thing. But they're both right. People need to get over it and stop using sexual orientation as a qualification for military service.